The subjective values of co-creation: an explorative
and empirical study highlighting the consumers’
perspective
Author: Pasquala van Beusekom
Student number: 10726039 Date of completion: June 28, 2019
Word count: 17,123
Supervisor: dhr. dr. J.A. Teurlings Second reader: dhr. dr. M. Stauff Course & Program: Master thesis
MA Television and Cross-Media Culture Media Studies - Faculty of Humanities University: University of Amsterdam
1 Abstract
In general, a lot has been written in the past few years about value co-creation. Most of these research papers were, however, not empirically tested and firm-centric. Little is known about the subjective value provided through co-creation to the consumers. By doing empirical research in the form of semi-structured interviews, this study aims to give an inventory and explorative overview of the subjective values of creation based on the consumer's perspective. The co-creators interviewed for this thesis were divided into three groups. The first group existed of consumers that co-create in the form of reviews, the second group of co-creators that co-create in the form of creating content, and the third group of co-creators that co-create in the form of submissions.
The study was successful in getting a clear overview of the various drivers for consumers to be involved with co-creation and the subjective values they gain from this. Most apparent from these findings is that these drivers and subjective values can be grouped into four main categories: (1) Hedonic, (2) Altruistic, (3) Social Integrative/Communitarian and (4) Personal Integrative. A significant variety of different subjective values, both intrinsic and extrinsic, was identified with no substantial differences between creators representing the various co-creation types. Another key aspect that was derived from the research is that in the perception of the co-creating consumers, the efforts they put into co-creation need to be offset by the subjective value they obtain from it. If not, this will reflect negatively on the businesses involved and risks that consumers are not willing to co-create with these businesses.
Having obtained an inventory of subjective values and drivers in this research, follow-up research should include quantitative studies on a wider sample, including consumers from other countries and cultural backgrounds, from a larger age range as well as consumers that co-create through other types of co-creation. Future research should also assess whether the frequency with which individual consumers co-create and subjective values are related and whether subjective values and drivers change over time for long-term co-creators. In view of the increasing role that co-creation plays in marketing strategies of businesses and the success thereof, the results of the research presented in this thesis are of importance to businesses given the need to keep attracting consumers willing to co-create.
Keywords: Value Co-Creation, subjective value, Consumers’ perspective, empirical research, marketing
2
1. Introduction 4
2. Theoretical Framework 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Co-creation as a marketing strategy 7
2.3 Historical development 8
2.4 Types of co-creation 10
2.5 Co-creation as a strategy to increase value 11
3. Data and methodology 16
3.1 Qualitative research 16
3.2 Semi-structured interviews 17
3.3 Analyzing the data 19
4. Analysis 19
4.1 Hedonic benefits: the hedonic values of co-creation for consumers 20
4.2 Co-creating from a sense of altruism 25
4.2.1 The altruistic desire to give something back to the owners or creators of products
and services through co-creation. 26
4.2.2 The altruistic desire to contribute to and help, to enthuse, to recommend and to
protect other co-creating consumers. 28
4.3 Social Integrative benefits - “communitarianism” 30 4.4 Personal Integrative benefits- seeking recognition / appreciation 35
4.5 The ambivalent side to co-creation 38
5. Conclusion 41
5.1 Research conclusions 41
5.2 Limitations and further research 44
6. References 46
7. Appendix 52
Table 1: Guiding questions for interviews per case and group 52
Table 2: List of respondents’ interviews 55
Image 1: Annemijn- Huis van Iemand Anders 56
Image 2: Anouk- Haberdasherystory 56
Image 3: Armoodasdeutscher- Memes 57
Image 4: Lotte- Coco Bonito 57
8. Transcribed interviews 58 Interview #1: Willemijn 65 Interview #2: Vincent 66 Interview #3: Julia 74 Interview #4: Tom 80 Interview #5: Annemijn 88
3 Interview #6: Armoodasdeutscher 94 Interview #7: Anouk 100 Interview #8: Lotte 106 Interview #9: Florence 112 Interview #10: Laura 118 Interview #11: Jet 123 Interview #12: Danique 131
4
1. Introduction
“You don’t need fancy computers to harness cognitive surplus; simple phones are enough. But one of the most important lessons is this: once you’ve figured out how to tap the surplus in a way that people care about, others can replicate your technique, over and over, around the world” (Shirky, n.p; emphasis added).
Media have been making part of our everyday life ever since they were invented; “we consume media as we perform many other tasks” (Bryant, 19). Think, for example, about the invention of television. Housewives would spend hours watching television while doing house chores, or when I think of my own childhood, I remember sitting in front of the television watching my favorite programs and Disney Films for hours. Just sitting and watching that is all I did. Clay Shirky refers to this “free” time spent on watching television as the “surplus” time. However, nowadays young people watch less television and are primarily active on the Internet. The “free” time previously put into watching television consumers decide to put into practices on the Internet where they cannot just consume but also share and collaborate. Platforms and interfaces progressively intervened into our everyday lives to such an extent that these nowadays play an indispensable role. People have changed from being consumers who passively consume what is shown to them through television, to being collaborators. They now have the option to “waste” their free time on practices that allow their participation; practices that go further than just sitting, watching and consuming. Shirky refers to human collaboration through technology as “cognitive surplus”. In today's world, where “being a part of a globally interconnected group is the normal case for most citizens”, consumers are empowered (Shirky, n.p). Through technological innovations such as the “web 2.0” which “harnesses the Web in a more interactive and collaborative manner, emphasizing peers’ social interaction and collective intelligence, and presents new opportunities for leveraging the Web and engaging its users more effectively” consumers can participate; they can co-create (Murugesan, 34). Co-creation, in short, is when consumers collaborate with businesses, marketers, product designers and so on, and create/ suggest and design their own and future products and services (Wittel et al., 144). This empowerment by the Internet motivated consumers to become involved. They want to use their cognitive surplus in a way that is of personal interest. Technological innovations have also ensured a change in the market field and gave brands and companies ways to improve their brand identity and customer relationships. Social media platforms, websites, smartphones, etc. have made it easier for companies to reach their consumers, but also for consumers to interact with companies. Consumers are aware of their possibilities in this changed and new market field and want to be involved with new user
5 participating marketing practices. For brands, these new opportunities to interact and collaborate with their consumers add objective value as “encouraging customers to be ‘value co-creators’ is considered the new frontier in competitive effectiveness”, explaining why brands entice their consumers to create content such as videos, photos and ideas for products or campaigns (Dong et al., 123).
A lot has been written about the competitive effectiveness of co-creation for businesses, such as that it contributes to a better brand image, cost reduction and market research needed to be done, and improves the interaction between brands and customers (Cambra-Fierro, 337). Where research has been done on the motivations for consumers to co-create, this was all based on theory and assumptions rather than empirical findings/studies. In view of the importance of the consumer in the process of co-creating, it is essential that research is done from the consumer’s perspective rather than the company's perspective, especially given that “for co-creation to be sustainable in hosted communities, it must provide benefits not only for organizations, but also for those who participate.” (Ind, Iglesias and Schultz, 7). In this paper, the aim is to empirically research creation to make an explorative study and inventory of the subjective values that co-creation provides to the participating consumers. This will also provide an insight into the motivations for consumers to participate in co-creation, which is essential information for businesses. My main argument is that such an overview is lacking. Limited empirical research has been done on the subjective value co-creation provides in general, and from a customer’s perspective in particular. Almost all research done to-date on co-creation is focused on the objective value added for the businesses rather than on the subjective value that co-creating consumers obtain. Prior research has neglected to address and analyze the value that co-creation brings to the customer (Martinez-Ruiz, 70).
To make an inventory of the subjective values of co-creation for the customers, a qualitative method has been used. This approach existed of semi-structured interviews with twelve consumers who are all divided into groups of four under the headlines of three different co-creation types: reviews, content creators and submissions.
This thesis is organized as follows. In chapter 2 all the literature that is of relevance for this thesis with regards to co-creation as a marketing strategy to increase value is discussed. Chapter 3 includes an extensive explanation of the research method used, and the advantages and drawbacks of this research method will be discussed. The three groups into which the interviewees are divided are also explained in this chapter, and the data analysis process is discussed. The results of the research done, as well as the extensive analysis of the results are then presented in chapter 4. In chapter 5, conclusions with regards to the aim of this research will
6 be presented. This includes a mind map used which visualizes these findings. In addition, the limitations of the research are discussed, and suggestions are made for further research on co-creation as a practice.
7
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Introduction
This research aims to increase the understanding of co-creation as a marketing strategy that adds subjective value to the product. First, the concept of co-creation as a marketing strategy is explained. Here it will be discussed how digitization has caused a switch within the marketplace and a change in the role of the consumer. Also, the various types of co-creation will briefly be discussed. Subsequently, a brief overview will be given of the value that co-creation brings, looking at previous studies that provide critical and positive views about the perceived added value by co-creation practices.
2.2 Co-creation as a marketing strategy
Co-creation is a practice that has become an important aspect of marketing processes in the contemporary marketplace. According to a survey carried out by the audience collaborating tech firm Bulbshare, 94% of the 300 firms that answered their survey said that they find “understanding their customers [...] ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important to their overall business performance”. One advantage of co-creation through which consumers do not only consume but also produce is that it brings marketers the ability to understand their customers as it provides them with useful information of consumers, which Wittel et al. refer to as the process of prosumption (8). However, only 37% of the firms interviewed said that “they collaborate with their customers in order to develop ideas and strategy”, even though 77% of the 500 people interviewed mentioned how they “favour brands that collaborate with their consumers” (Bulbshare, 11). These statistical insights highlight the importance of research into co-creation, given that only a small percentage of businesses have implemented the marketing strategy, yet so many consumers find collaborating with businesses of high importance.
Prahalad and Ramaswamy coined the term co-creation in 2000 in Co-opting Customer Competence. They mention how, as a result of technological innovations and the invention of the Internet, the dynamics of the marketplace changed as it allowed customers to become “part of the enhanced network; they create and extract business value. They are collaborators, co-developers and competitors” (80). Co-creation is when the consumers create and design their own products and services and/ or make suggestions for future products or services (Wittel et al., 144). This interaction between businesses and their consumers has been made possible in part by the invention of social networks, empowering the consumers (Tiago, 705) and creating a “new wave of consumers: consumers who take this pervasive technology and integrate it seamlessly
8 into their everyday lives in ways we could never conceive of as recently as a decade ago” (Ryan, 2). The progression of the Internet and the increase of digital platforms have enabled consumers to interact with the providers of products and services (Prahalad, 79) and have opened up a completely new marketing strategy, that of the multichannel (Rizzo, 107). Whereas before businesses were offering their products or services through single-channel marketing strategies like the “stand-alone brick and mortar” strategy (where communication between marketer and customer is face-to-face in a store or office), digitization has allowed them to offer and sell their products via different channels (Schoenbachler 42-43). This enabled brands to reach a larger audience and, as a result, increased sales as “the more environments a company can provide, the richer its customers’ experiences are likely to be” (Prahalad, 80).Through these platforms “it became feasible for marketers to begin capturing information on individual customers, consumers and prospects to an extent never before possible”, but more importantly it gave businesses the opportunity to collaborate with their consumers in order to meet their individual needs, with the objective to increase revenue (Schultz, 12).
2.3 Historical development
Schultz and Schultz discuss the transition to interactive marketing by giving an overview of how current marketing differs from historical marketing. They mention how in the 1950s and 1960s, which they refer to as the “historical market-place” (see figure 1), the marketplace was dominated by a few large companies. The focus was primarily on product differentiation, and the market was completely mass driven (Schultz, 14). Marketers were in dominance of the consumers. The communication between the company and the consumer was one-directional, creating a “walled garden” between the consumer and the brand. From the 1970s to 1990s, the role of the customer was that of “a passive audience”. This was because with the traditional marketing strategies, either printed or broadcasted, the consumer was unable to interact with the company (Relative). Through these strategies, marketers were simply just offering their products and services and barely took into consideration what the consumers wanted or needed. From the 1950s to 1990s, the customer’s role underwent minor changes related to technological innovations. In the early 1960s “manufacturers were kings and their products were gold” and “customers would fight their way through crowds to buy almost anything at almost any price under almost any circumstance” (Schultz, 11). This changed in the 1970s to the early 1980s when manufacturers had to “persuad[e] predetermined groups of buyers”. Whereas before the market was dominated by the marketers, power shifted in the 1970s to the distribution channels (i.e. retailers) as they “had closer contact, closer relationships, and more information than their
9 marketers/ suppliers”, gained through innovative information technologies such as scanners, credit cards, computers, etc. The retailers were dominating the consumer relationships as these technologies allowed them to gain information about the consumers’ behaviour (who buys, what do they buy, and where do they buy) (Ibid, 14). Schultz and Schultz refer to this period as the “current market-place”, but since this article was written in 1998, in this paper it is referred to as the “historical market-place 2.0” (Schultz, 14). Retailers controlled the consumers and used the information gained through IT services for product development (explaining why in figure 1, the information block is tied to the channel). The consumers were limited to simply buying the products. In the late 1980s and early 1990s another change occurred when companies started “transacting with individual buyers” and in 1990s built “lifetime bonds with individual customers” in which communication was more two-way. Companies started offering help services, through which the consumer could ask questions about products, but also give feedback, empowering the consumer to a limited extent (Prahalad, 80). Important to note, however, is that, even though companies started directing their marketing process to individuals instead of to the masses, and that customers had the opportunity to give feedback about products, for example via help desks of call centers, the level of interaction was not to the same extent as it became with the invention of the Internet around the 2000s; which was yet “the biggest change of all” for businesses with regards to their marketing processes (Schultz, 11).
The market, as a result of the ability for both parties to interact with each other through the Internet “has become a forum in which consumers play an active role in creating and competing for value” (Prahalad, 79-80). The twenty-first century can be considered to be dominated and driven by the consumer and no longer by companies, as the consumer can “access information, identify products and services, and make purchases at any time and any place that is convenient for them” (explaining why in figure 1 the information block is tied to the consumer) (Schultz, 15). They are in control of the information that is communicated back to the marketers through IT services. But, more importantly, in the contemporary marketing field, consumers demand that the products offered to them on platforms match their specific tastes and interests, which explains why they want to be involved in the information and marketing processes and want to co-create. They are aware that due to the increase in brands that use the multichannel marketing strategy, this resulted in more competition and thus lower prices; explaining why online shoppers focus on price shopping (Schoenbachler, 45). Besides that, digitization allowed the consumer to respond to the companies whose products they buy, putting pressure on the manufacturers, as bad responses can impact a brand’s image (Tiago, 704). Whereas formerly the marketplace was controlled by the big firms, it is nowadays the customer who dominates the
10 premises of marketing practices, as a result of them having the option to co-create (Cambra-Fierro, 336).Co-creation, according to Martinez-Ruiz et al., is when the consumer is part of the design phase of businesses with regards to new products, services or processes (70). Digitization drastically changed the role of the consumers. By implementing digital marketing strategies using multiple platforms, companies are interacting more than ever with their consumers and as a result are further opening up the “walled garden” that started opening earlier, but only to a limited extent, with technological inventions as call radio. In this new marketplace, the communication between the manufacturers and the consumer is no longer one-directional and the consumer is no longer passive; they are instead interactive co-creators (Prahalad, 79-80).
2.4 Types of co-creation
Witell et al. differentiate between two types of creation: (1) creation for self-use and (2) co-creation for others. When a customer co-creates for self-use, he or she is performing the action of co-creating for their own benefits (for example: co-creating their own Nike ID shoes to their personal taste). Co-creation for others, however, is concerned with co-creation practices that are of value to other consumers and to companies, such as online reviews that are left behind that can be used by companies “to renew its value propositions or offered services” and that can have an influence on the behaviour of other consumers (143).
O’Hern and Rindfleisch also distinguish between different types of co-creation practices: collaborating, tinkering, designing and submitting. With collaborating and designing, co-creation is customer-led whereas with tinkering and submitting co-co-creation is firm-led. Collaborating is when customers can create or improve products themselves. This type of co-creation allows a high contribution by the consumer and is completely customer-led as customers are contributing with their own ideas and are giving advice as to what “component [...] should be incorporated into new product offering” (O’Hern, 91). Tinkering is when the customers come up with new ideas and/or modifications for products and services, which can then be implemented by the firms. Even though this co-creation type has a high contribution activity, it is firm-led as firms keep an extent of control as they eventually chose what modifications are implemented. Co-designing is the activity of customers creating and subsequently voting on ideas made by other customers. This activity is customer-led as the customers are the ones who vote but has a fixed contribution activity as the firm only lets consumers create a product or service chosen by them (for example, a company invites its consumers to create a T-shirt). Submitting is when the customers are asked to ‘submit’ their own ideas with regards to a future product or service. An example of this is when Lays asks its customers to create their own chip’s flavor. This activity is
11 entirely firm-led as again the firm eventually picks what flavor they are going to impose, and contribution by the customer is fixed as the customers can only submit their ideas within a certain timeframe for example. (Ibid, 91-97)
The above overview describes the power transition in the marketplace from the marketers to the retailers and subsequently to the consumers, as a result of technological innovations. Where before “the marketer decide[d] when, to whom, in what form, through what media and at what level of volume he or she will attempt to market and communicate with the customer and prospects” (Schultz, 15), in the contemporary marketplace the consumers decide what they want, what value is, how they want to communicate with the marketers of products and services, but most important of all, the consumers are co-creators of products, services, and value.
Figure 1: Transition in the marketplace (Schultz, 13).
2.5 Co-creation as a strategy to increase value
Marketing practices, as we know them today, are centered around the creation of value, as “value is a pivotal construct for the marketing discipline in general” (Eggert, 81). Co-creation as a marketing strategy is not necessarily used by businesses to maximize profits, but instead especially for the creation of value for both the company and the consumer. The added value for the consumer has become even more important as customers “nowadays [...] are gaining a voice
12 due to increasing proactivity: they desire to spread their opinions and demand to be listened to” (Cambra-Fierro, 336). As a consequence it has become critical for companies to encourage “active dialogue” with their consumers to keep their interest; where the dialogue is one “of equals” and where the “companies no longer have a monopoly on- or even an advantage in- information access” (Prahalad, 81), as also described in the previous paragraphs. Using digital strategies like crowdsourcing has become a handy tool for brands as they could use the consumers as co-creators, in order to increase value for the brand, but also for the consumers, as consumers today “desire interaction and social experiences” with the company in the decision-making process of buying products (Es, 110). According to Vargo and Lush, co-creation adds value through the service that is offered by companies rather than the value brought by the product itself (Vargo and Lush 2004). Subjective value with co-creation (being a product and result of globalization and technological innovations) is no longer simply “exchanged” between the company and the consumer, it is added and created by the consumer while interacting with the companies’ processes and developments (Makkar, 3). Co-creation opportunities for consumers through digital channels have allowed for interactive value formations; according to Echeverri and Skalen value is co-created when the companies interact with their consumers (353). The value here is subjectively measured instead of objectively measured according to the customer’s or the company’s view. They mention how value is produced comprehensively, but experienced subjectively; how value is “contextual and personal; is a function of attitudes, affections, satisfaction, or behaviourally-based judgments; and resides in a consumption experience” (Echeverri 353). According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy “we are moving toward a world in which value is the result of an implicit negotiation between the individual consumer and the firm. Therefore, value creation [...] is the result of individualized negotiations with millions of consumers” (2004, 7). Of significance for this research is the distinction between “utilitarian value” and “hedonic value”. If one were to be looking at the utilitarian value in relation to consumers, the focus would be on the functional aspects and benefits of co-creation practices for the wider consumer group, whereas the hedonic value “captures a customer’s appreciation of intrinsic, emotional, and social reward of the collaboration” (Park, 311); in other words when consumers give something a hedonic value, emotion is involved. Since the focus in this thesis is on the subjective value of co-creation from a consumer’s perspective, it is of interest to find out whether the values for co-creating consumers derive from hedonic viewpoints or utilitarian viewpoints. What both viewpoints have in common is that they are dependent on the (subjective) perception by the consumer. Khalid Alsulaiman mentions, however, that hedonic consumption “tends to be more personal and subjective than utilitarian consumption” and “sought for their own sake”,
13 whereas utilitarian consumption is more “a means to an end” and thus focuses more on the use-value of a product (22) as well as on providing useful information for other consumers.
Over previous year’s significant research has been done on the relatively new marketing technique of co-creating enabled through technological innovations and on the added value that it brings (e.g. Vargo and Lush, 2004; Zhang and Chen, 2008; Ramírez, 1999). In these studies, the authors are either critical or positive about co-creation as a marketing practice. The critical approaches see co-creation as a form of labour exploitation by defining value as having an objective quality: the value of a product is determined by the amount of labour that goes into it. Past research from the critical viewpoint has primarily addressed co-creation as a way for companies to gain economic advantages as it reduces the labour time of employees and thus increases value for the company by exploiting the consumers. John Banks and Mark Deuze for example, touch upon the critical view of value co-creation and mention how “the harnessing of user-created content [...] involves the extraction of surplus value from the unpaid labour of the co-creators as a form of outsourcing” (421). They hold an objective view of value, referring to Karl Marx’ ‘surplus value’, where value is measured according to the amount of labour time that has been put into the creation of a commodity. According to Marx, the more labour time goes into a commodity, the more value it holds (Marx, 126). This view on co-creation from an objective value of labour time would consider co-creation as a form of exploitation, given that the consumers participating in co-creation practices do not get paid even though they have put effort into it. Cova et al. also recognize value co-creation as an exploitative practice and argue that “what started as value co-creating work can quickly deteriorate into an experience of exploitative laboring and erosion of private life”; also referred to as ‘immaterial labour’ (Cova et al, 235).
Ramírez mentions, however, that in the 19th century, the idea flourished that value is subjective to individuals; that “personal judgments establish the value of things” (50). King and McLure mention how the concept of “marginal utility” became of high importance in economic theory. According to them, the “marginal utility” is the level of satisfaction that a consumer (an individual) receives while using a product in a particular context (6). Here the value of a commodity is determined by the willingness of the customers to pay for it; it is subjective. Looking at the “historical market-place 2.0” as discussed in the previous paragraph 2.3, here value was created within the firm, centered around the company without the consumer being a part whatsoever of the value-creation process. However, in the marketplace of the 21st century, where the consumer is empowered as a result of technological innovations and is no longer dependent on the firm, both the consumers and businesses have become aware of the fact that consumers subjectively
14 decide what has value to them; “the customer pays according to her utility rather than according to the company’s cost of production” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004, 6-7). This is the approach that the laudatory research around co-creation focuses on. According to these positive approaches, co-creation brings competitive advantages to businesses such as increased customer loyalty and satisfaction, which are likely to lead to future added value to the businesses. Both these advantages are subjectively established by the individual consuming the commodity and do not, for example, relate to the labour time put into the commodity, which is one of the factors that form the basis of pricing the commodity (ibid). Vega-Vazquez mentions how “customer satisfaction is one of the most important concepts of the marketing literature, as it allows the linking of buying and consumption processes with post-purchase phenomena, such as change of attitude, repeat buying or brand loyalty [...]. The interest lies in the evidence that satisfaction leads to loyalty and financial results.” (1948). Whereas before the value was tied in the product, value is now tied to the experience of the consumer and to the interaction between consumer and company (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004, 5 & 12). Since every consumer has a different experience with a product or a service, different values might be delivered to these consumers; explaining why many argue value creation with co-creation to be subjective. Dong et al. also take on a positive approach of co-creation and mention how co-creation can lead to feelings of pride, accomplishment and/or joy (subjective values) for the consumer (127).
Makkar and Xu argue that in the contemporary market field, the “traditional view of value-in-exchange has shifted to ‘service and knowledge’ exchange” (7). This is in alignment with Vargo and Lush’s argument that the collaboration and interaction between consumers and companies is what creates value, not only for the companies but also for the consumers. The consumer is no longer the “target”, but a “co-producer” (Vargo and Lush, 11). Whereas initially, they referred to the “good-centered view of marketing” as the dominant-logic, they now refer to the service-centered view of marketing as the service-dominant logic. In this view, the focus is on the “dynamic and infinite” exchange processes and the relationship between the provider and the consumer, rather than just on the “static and finite” product and its utility; “from this contemporary angle: (1) the customer perceives and determines value; (2) value is co-created through resource integration; and, (3) it is marketing's job to identify, prepare, and facilitate opportunities for the co-creation of value in customer's use situation.” (Eggert, 82 - emphasis added). Important in this service-centered view of marketing is that value is “defined by and co-created with the consumer rather than embedded in output”; value is thus created in the experience rather than the product as discussed before. (Vargo and Lush, 2-4).
15 Ramírez argues that technological innovations have allowed for more activities and more actors to create value than any time in recent memory (49). He mentions how it has allowed for one to see value creation as something that is “synchronic and interactive, not linear and transitive”; something that is “mutually created and re-created among actors [(consumers)] with different values” (50). Echeverri and Skalen refer to this as interactive value formation. Here value is co-created when businesses and their consumers interact (Echeverri, 352). Grönroos labels the collaborative value creation between manufacturers and their consumers as “joint value creation” (Cova et al, 238). Echeverri and Skalen mention how a distinction can be made between interactive value formation and non-interactive value formation. The non-interactive value formation here exists of the exchange value where “value is embedded in the products and services that focal organizations produce; is added during the production process, which is separated from the customer; and equals the price that the customer pays for the product and services” (Echeverri, 352). To summarize, the non-interactive value equals the value that is only supplied by the company, and the interactive value is added value created by the interaction of consumers and companies.
Most of the literature on co-creation is either “conceptual and abstract” as conclusions are based on assumptions about what the consumers like (Echeverri, 352), or “draw on anecdotal data” (Ibid, 354). Martínez-Cañas et al., for example, conducted a literature review to gain insight into the motivations for consumers to participate in co-creation practices. Even though they look at the values created through co-creation for consumers, and touch upon the idea that co-creation brings consumers subjective values such as “self-determination” and “self-efficacy” as a result of the empowerment given to the consumers through co-creation (9), as well as “creative thinking”, their findings are not empirically tested (11). In general, empirical research on co-creation is scarce; “a review of the customer coproduction literature from 1979 to 2000 finds that out of the 23 studies, only three are empirical” (Dong et al, 125), and hardly any empirical information can be found in literature that is based on a consumer’s perspective. As already mentioned in the introduction (Chapter 1), all the research done on the motivations for consumers to co-create is based on assumptions, literature, and theory without an empirical basis. Given the important, or better still, indispensable role that customers play in value co-creation practices, and the fact that the value experienced by the consumers is unique to each consumer and is experienced subjectively (Vargo and Lush 2004, 6), it is all the more important that the “consumption experience” and with that the subjective values of co-creation from the consumer’s perspective are researched, which is exactly what this research proposes to do. In this thesis, the subjective values of co-creation from the customer’s perspective will be empirically researched.
16
3. Data and methodology
3.1 Qualitative research
Most literature written on co-creation is centered around the value for businesses participating in co-creation rather than around the value for the consumers and is largely based on anecdotal data. As such, research that focuses on human subjective experiences with regards to co-creation is limited and explains the relevance of this thesis. Given that the focus in this research is on the subjective values of co-creation from a consumer’s perspective, using a qualitative approach makes the most sense. As explained in the theoretical framework, the values that the customers retrieve from co-creation often are subjective, meaning that they are based on an individual's personal experience with co-creation, influenced by personal feelings, tastes, and opinions. In order to gain insights into what these values are, empirical research has to be undertaken as this is the most conclusive way to gain insight and understanding of one’s experience (in this case the experience of co-creating) (Bryman, 63). Using a qualitative research method that focuses on meaning-making and the experiences of human beings, is the best approach to gain insight into what the subjective values of co-creation are. In order to collect the data, semi-structured interviews are to be undertaken.
Using a qualitative research design for this thesis has its advantages and drawbacks. One of the advantages that also explains why it is a useful method for this thesis is that qualitative research allows the respondents to give in-depth answers to questions. With semi-structured interviews, the respondents have the freedom to answer the questions any way they want; they are not tied to set pre-designed questions. In addition, in comparison with a structured interview, a semi-structured interview allows the interviewee to talk about and explain his or her experience with co-creating more in-depth. Moreover, since a semi-structured interview approach was used, this allowed the interviewer to ask more profound follow-up questions where the interviewees gave useful quotations. A drawback of using semi-structured interviews, however, is that not only the interviews themselves take up a lot of time but especially the transcription is time-consuming. Since there was a set timeframe for this study, only a certain number of interviews (12) could be undertaken, meaning that care should be taken not to generalize too much. However, since the goal of this thesis is to get an exploratory understanding and to make an inventory of the subjective value of co-creation for consumers, it was decided at this point first to carry out a qualitative study. In the second phase, a more quantitative-oriented study can then be designed and carried out following the insights gained in the present study and presented in this thesis.
17
3.2 Semi-structured interviews
In total, 12 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with consumers who have participated in co-creation practices before. For the interviews, a distinction was made between three different types of co-creators: (1) reviews, (2) content creators and (3) submissions. This will not only allow an inventory to be made of the subjective value added for one type of co-creation but also a broader insight to be gained into what drives the subjective values added. In order for each group to have an equal representation of people, it was decided to interview four people for each type of co-creation.
The ‘review’ group focuses on the type of co-creation where individuals write positive, critical or negative reviews about products and services on online platforms. Writing reviews (by consumers) is considered co-creation, as the manufacturers behind the products or services can use this information for further product/service enhancement and development. However, the reverse is also true: with reviews, the reputation of businesses can either be made or be broken; this explains why reviews are a very powerful co-creation practice, which cannot be ignored by businesses. TripAdvisor is an example of a platform that allows customers to write reviews, and where (collective) creation takes place. On TripAdvisor, the consumers can be considered co-marketers for travel experiences as their reviews have a direct influence on the decisions that customers make in the future regarding their holidays. Consumers that participate in writing reviews are not only doing it for their own benefit (for example to see what other people thought of a hotel or restaurant before they themselves go there, which will lead to a more enjoyable experience and/or prevent an expensive mistake), but also for the benefit of other consumers (with their own reviews). On TripAdvisor, anyone can give his or her opinion and suggestions. I have found four interviewees who frequently have used TripAdvisor. For this group, I am particularly interested in finding out for what reasons they participated in writing the reviews about products and services. The reason why I chose TripAdvisor as a case study here is that it is the most widely used travel website, with an average of almost 400 million users per month (TripAdvisor Insights).
The ‘content creator’ group focuses on the type of co-creation where consumers share their own content with businesses who can then use this for example for advertising purposes, without the consumers being paid for having provided the content. For this group it is harder to find people within the same case than for the review group, as people are more likely to share their own content with brands of their own interest (whereas TripAdvisor is not limited to one specific brand or business, but rather to a type of business, as for example hotels). Besides that, consumers can share their content with businesses in a lot of different forms (e.g. video, photo).
18 First, my attention was drawn on the international company Boomf Cards, as I noticed that their Instagram page is completely consumer made and entirely exists of videos of consumers using their products. I messaged some of the users of their products through private messages on Instagram, which I was able to find because Boomf Cards mentions the users in their posts. However, unfortunately, I either did not receive a reply or people were not interested, because it was too much effort. For that reason and given that it is already hard to find content co-creators, I have not limited this group of co-creators to one of these types of content but instead searched for people whose content was shared on the website or social media accounts of a brand or business without them being paid for it. Eventually, I have found three individuals who shared their own content for free with brands of which they wear products (Haberdashery, Coco Bonito and Huis van Iemand Anders). These individuals all shared the content in the form of photos. I also found and contacted an individual via Instagram who makes his own memes that then get reposted without him getting paid for it, by other accounts that have a lot of followers.
The ‘submission’ group exists of the type of co-creators that submit their own ideas that can be used by businesses for future products. With the use of Facebook and WhatsApp groups, I managed to find four people that have participated in a submission contest before. Two of them have participated in the Lays “Maak de Smaak” (Create the Taste) contest, where they had to create their own Lays Chips flavor. Another individual had participated in a similar contest, where she could submit a new popcorn flavor that could eventually be sold in branches of Vue Cinemas. Lastly, I have found someone that participated in submitting her own idea regarding the design of her own shoes through Nike ID.
Besides the distinction made between the different types of co-creators, for each group, questions were written down that could serve as a helpful tool and a guideline during the interviews (see table 1, appendix). In order to get respondents, I asked friends, and friends of friends (also through social media such as Facebook) if they knew people that had ever participated in a submission contest, had ever written reviews, or shared content with companies for free. Getting respondents for the review and the submission group was not too hard, however finding respondents for the content group was a more difficult task. Whereas first I was planning on focusing on one type of media form (consumers that shared videos), once I realized that finding respondents for this particular type was difficult, I also started looking for people that shared photos and other types of media. In the appendix, a list can be found with all the respondents (see table 2, appendix). After having held the first few interviews, I realized that these were quite short and I experienced difficulty with going beyond the questions already written down. However, after receiving feedback and answers from the first few interviewees, I was able to react more
19 openly to the interviewees resulting in more elaborative answers. Before and at the end of the interview, I asked all interviewees if they had questions, told them they could always contact me via email and also explained for what purposes I would use their interviews. The data collection, in general, took quite some time and took place from April 24 to May 15, 2019. This was due to the fact that some interviewees were hard to find and could not always meet in person. I was transcribing the interviews concurrently with the conduction of the interviews.
3.3 Analyzing the data
In order to be able to make an inventory and explorative overview of the subjective values of co-creation from the consumers’ perspective, the interviews were first recorded, then personally transcribed and analyzed/ structured according to overlapping subjective values. The reason why I personally transcribed the interviews even though this is a very time-consuming task instead of using a program for this, is because it has allowed for direct identification of key themes and the similarities and differences between the different respondents. After transcribing, I printed the interviews and by hand highlighted illustrative and useful quotes. After I identified that there were several themes, I started giving the different themes different highlighter colors, so that the different yet overlapping subjective values in the interviews were easier to identify later. After the interviews were coded according to themes and subjective values, I started writing up the results. During the process of writing, I also used the mind mapping program SimpleMind as an extra tool to visualize the findings and interpretations from the interviews in the form of a map.
20
4. Analysis
In this chapter, the findings and insights of the interviews will be discussed and analyzed. An inventory will be made of the different subjective values that came forward while interviewing the co-creators and which will then be structured according to overarching groups of subjective values. In addition, the interrelations between the different subjective values will be discussed, as well as the interrelations between the subjective values of the different groups of co-creators.
As previously discussed, although they are not empirically tested, a significant amount of literature can be found on the motivation for consumers to co-create (Nambisan and Baron, 2007; Nambisan and Baron, 2009; Martínez-Cañas et al., 2016; Send et al., 2014). They differentiate between different types of motivations that are based on either “social integrative factors”, “personal integrative factors”, “hedonic factors” and “financial factors” (Dvorak, n.p.). “Social integrative factors” can be explained as those factors that focus on the consumer’s social relationships and relates to the consumer’s position within society. “Personal integrative factors” focus on individual benefits such as confidence, status, credibility, etc. that can improve or are of benefit to one’s identity. “Hedonic factors” are related to the pleasure or displeasure that individuals gain from an experience and are related to emotions such as enjoyment, hate or love. Lastly, “financial factors” are related to the financial rewards that are promised to the consumers (Ibid). However, these categories are based on conceptual, theoretical or anecdotal data and have not been empirically tested. In this section, the focus will be on the “hedonic factors”, and the assumptions made in the literature mentioned above will be empirically tested.
4.1 Hedonic benefits: the hedonic values of co-creation for consumers
While analyzing the interviews, it became clear that a number of subjective values stood out and that different co-creators from different groups gave similar reasons as to why they participate in co-creation practices. One of the most apparent subjective values that came out of the interviews is that most respondents participate in co-creation practices for personal satisfaction; a hedonic value (Martínez-Cañas, 7). As already discussed in chapter 2, existing studies on co-creation as a marketing practice argue that co-creation brings competitive advantages such as customer loyalty and satisfaction, which are subjectively established by the individual who consumes the commodity (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004, 6-7). However, these studies do not differentiate between the various hedonic values, nor between different types of satisfaction that the consumers get out of co-creation. From the analysis of the interviews, it became apparent that a
21 significant difference exists in the reasons why consumers get satisfied by participating in co-creating. These reasons linked to personal satisfaction that were provided by the various interviewees for participating in co-creation can be summarized as follows:
1. For entertainment/enjoyment for the removal of boredom 2. To relive memories
3. To obtain pleasure of self-expression by expressing creativity (see also chapter 4.4) 4. To enhance and strengthen individuality by creating and receiving personalized products In the following, each of these reasons will be looked at in more detail.
One personal satisfaction that came forward in the interviews and that partly explains as to why consumers would want to co-create is that of co-creation as a form of entertainment by the removal of boredom. For example, one of the interviewees answers the question as to at what moment she writes reviews on TripAdvisor with:
“Mostly a few days after my holiday when I am sitting on the couch and when I am actually a bit bored [...]” (Willemijn, interview #1).
Here the interviewee implies that for her writing reviews is a way to kill time, so a form of entertainment. Similarly, the interviewees that co-created in the form of submissions also gave co-creation the subjective hedonic value of entertainment/ enjoyment for the elimination of boredom. An example of this is the interviewee that designed her own shoe with Nike ID who mentioned that co-creating in her case
“[...] is indeed something that you do during a train trip or something because you like to spend time on it...yes, it is really something that I do when I am bored” (Jet, interview #11).
Interviewees in both the submission group and the review group have illustrated that for them participating in co-creating practices is a way to entertain themselves and kill time which are purely hedonic intrinsic - but most importantly - subjective values, seeing that their “personal judgments establish the value of things”; in this case the subjective value of co-creation (Ramírez, 50); “they really participate in co-creation activities for practical purposes related to learning and enjoying the personal hedonism they derive from co-creating new and unique goods” (Martínez-Cañas et al, 6).
22 Besides the fact that entertainment for the removal of boredom is a common subjective value that came forward in the interviews, another subjective value that was found in the interviews also deals with the personal satisfaction in the form of entertainment. Namely, one interviewee mentioned that for her, writing reviews lets her relive her memories, which is a subjective intrinsic moment. She mentions how she particularly enjoys writing reviews about holidays and not so much about products because it allows her to “relive [...] her holiday and evening and [she] really enjoys that” (Ibid). The (subjective) value here thus lies in the experience of the consumer co-creating and is unattached from the product (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004, 5 & 12). This is a good example of how value is created by the interaction/ contribution of the interviewee’s (Willemijn) co-creation, illustrating that value is tied to the subjective experience of the consumer and how “the interaction between the firm and the consumer is becoming the locus of value creation” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004, 5). Similarly, another interviewee from the submission group mentioned that she contributed in a submission contest because she:
“[...] was bored so [...] just enjoyed it” and how she “[...] thinks it is more about participating in something super fun together with people you don't know; something that really excites you and where you can really express your creativity”, than about winning a prize (Florence, interview #9);
Florence, Interview #9:
“So you just mentioned that you could also win a prize?”
“Yes you could win a 1000 euro, but that is not why I entered the competition” “No? Why not?”
“Yes because I cared and enjoyed the creative aspect more than winning a 1000 euro and besides that, I was constantly thinking how funny if you go to the cinema and you can order sea salt licorice flavored popcorn”
Florence implies here that besides the fact that participating in co-creation practices for her is a factor that eliminates her boredom, it also gives her the ability to express her creativity and with that experience pleasure of expression. This subjective value of pleasure in self-expression through co-creation also came forward to be common for other co-creators that were interviewed. Jet, for example, who co-created her own shoe with Nike ID, mentioned that for her participating in the contest was more for her own pleasure that she gained from participating. When asked in the interview why she participated, she replied:
23 “Well, I think because I thought the fact that you could express your creativity and make your own shoes through this, was a very attractive idea...and indeed also walk on the streets with those shoes and be proud of your own creation” (Jet, interview #11).
Likewise, another interviewee, Laura, said that she entered the submission contest for Lays for herself as a sort of “confirmation of how creative I am”;
“I didn't really care about the prize, although of course it would be nice to win it because who wouldn't, but I especially enjoyed having that appreciation” (Laura, interview #10).
When asked in the interview what kind of appreciation she wanted, she answered:
“Just for my creative idea, because you come up with it yourself, so of course you are proud of your own idea. Apart from the fact that I also wanted others to see it, I thought it was really cool if I could just say “hey, I thought of that” and also prove something to myself, prove to myself that my idea could become really big” (Ibid).
So, even though some co-creators could win a prize participating in the submission content, the quotes above indicate that the intrinsic hedonic value of experiencing pleasure through expressing creativity outweighs the objective value of the prize that is promised to the consumer with the best-submitted idea. However, worth mentioning here as also previously discussed is that the pleasure felt by Florence and Jet through expressing their creativity as previously discussed, is purely intrinsic, whereas the pleasure of expressing creativity by Laura is reached through appreciation for which recognition by others is needed and which is thus extrinsic. Through getting appreciation and recognition by others, Laura implicates that for her it will improve her self-confidence.
The subjective hedonic value of expressing creativity for self-confidence was another factor that came up in an interview with a co-creator from the content creators group. When the interviewee was asked why she let the brand repost her picture (see image 4, appendix), she said:
“Yes, I think that the moment someone reposts your photo, you get a better feeling, more self-confidence. You get the feeling that you are good enough for such a brand to
24 repost. I think in that way...yes, it is kind of…you feel good when someone does something like that. It is very subjective but you feel happier and maybe it gives you the idea that you are pretty enough, or good enough to be reposted on a page like that, because yes the brand does not just repost anyone's picture.” (Lotte, Interview #8)
Here the interviewee elaborately talks about how co-creating in the form of creating content, personally brings her psychological benefits, for instance, a higher sense of worth and self-esteem when someone else gives her recognition and shows appreciation for the co-created content by “reposting” it. This implies that for her, the satisfaction she receives through her creative expression (the picture) that is then being used for advertising purposes by the brand Coco Bonito, is the extrinsic hedonic value of co-creation; she “regard[s] [...] [her] contribution in the co-creation process as a mentally stimulating experience” (Dvorak, n.p.). Besides the fact that Lotte, through her co-creation participation, is gaining self-confidence, at the same time, she is presenting herself online in a positive way. This is also a subjective value that came forward from the other interviews and will be elaborated on in chapter 4.4.
An additional subjective value of co-creation from the consumer’s perspective that is worth noting and also touches upon individuality and the need to be unique, but which mainly existed as a value within the content and submission group, is the subjective value of being able to receive and create personalized products. One interviewee that designed her own shoe with Nike ID, for example, mentioned how:
“[…] you had different surfaces of the shoe for which you could choose the color and you could also have something engraved on the back so you could design your own shoe completely, and that really attracted me immediately when I saw that. I thought how cool if you have a shoe that you think is great anyway because you designed it yourself, but that it is also unique. Like I said before, I often like to buy shoes that come out in a limited quantity, so then if you can make your own shoe you will definitely not see someone walking in the same pair” (Jet, Interview #11).
The interviewee implies here that for her a reason to participate in a co-creation practice, is because she could personalize the product herself and with that could “express unfulfilled wishes”, which according to Walcher (as cited in Send et al., 2014) is a logical motivation given that a “main motivating factor [with co-creation] are unfulfilled needs and with them the possibility
25 to realize them”. In this case, Jet’s motivation to personalize products comes from her individualized need; the need to create a product with which she differentiates herself from others (Send et al., 28-29). One could argue that since the consumer gets the product in return for co-creating, the value is objective. However, since the consumer pays for the product like she would pay for other products and often at quite a premium price, the value can be considered to be subjective. Especially since she mentioned that this is more for” [...] [her] own pleasure” as she is really passionate about shoes in general, so an intrinsic hedonic feeling. This follows Grönroos (9) who states that “[…] value creation is here defined as the customer’s creation of value-in-use [...], a view grounded already in Aristotle’s value theory, according to which value is subjectively experienced”. Similarly, when asked, Danique, another interviewee who submitted her own chips flavor, why she participated, answered:
“Well really that personal aspect [...] people like it when something has something personal of oneself. People for example already like it when their name is on something, and this campaign by Lays was one of the first campaigns where you could come up with a taste yourself, something really powerful at that time, and something that really attracted me; that I could have an influence on a chips’ flavor myself. Especially since everyone buys chips, so I really enjoyed that.” (Danique, Interview #12).
Wittel et al. refer to this type of co-creation where the consumer co-creates for his or her own personal benefit (personal hedonism), in this case enjoying the experience of creating personalized products, as “co-creation for use” (8).
4.2 Co-creating from a sense of altruism
Whereas in the previous paragraph the subjective values of co-creation from the consumer’s perspective were often more intrinsic and personal and focused around hedonic values and benefits, in this chapter the focus will be on the subjective value of the co-creators’ “altruistic desire to contribute”; the values with a more extrinsic and social nature (Martinez-Ruiz, 93). Villarroel and Tucci (as cited in Send et al.) who tested if altruism was a motivational factor for co-creation consumers, mention that they did not find a correlation between altruism and higher participation, a longer duration of participation, or higher amount of co-created tasks performed (18). Yet the empirical research done in the current study shows a contrasting view, and indeed indicates that a significant subjective value for co-creators comes from an altruistic motivation. Worth noting here is the difference between the subjective value through co-creation of having
26 the altruistic desire to give something back to the owners or creators of products or services used, and the subjective value of having the altruistic desire to contribute to and help, to enthuse, to recommend and to protect other co-creating consumers. Both these types of subjective value will be discussed and analyzed in this next chapter.
4.2.1 The altruistic desire to give something back to the owners or creators of products
and services through co-creation.
Lots of the co-creators interviewed mentioned how for them, the subjective value of co-creation is the sense of gratitude. One of the interviewees who participate in the co-creating practice of writing reviews said that:
“it is actually nice to contribute by writing a review yourself and it is such a small effort. And yes, you do make other people happy with it and it is especially nice if the hotel or restaurant for example can gain feedback from it. So yes, I do it quite regularly and I really like doing it. [...] I especially enjoy it when they are small-scale companies, and you can do the owner a huge favor to leave a nice review” (Willemijn, Interview #1).
Here the interviewee implies that for her the subjective value lies in the fact that with writing reviews and thus co-creating, she can give something back, reward and help the owners; a moral affect. The interviewees also strongly implied that they are motivated to write reviews because they are aware of the impact that it can have on a business. Vincent, for example, mentions:
“I would write reviews, because I know how important it is for people... for a hotel owner of a boutique. A good review can really persuade people to come too. So with this in mind I would write them”. (Vincent, Interview #2).
Likewise, Willemijn mentions:
“It is quite a tough world nowadays and restaurants and companies really rely on those reviews, so if it is really good then I also like to share that and give them a helping hand by telling people to go there because it is just a really nice place” (Willemijn, Interview #1).
27 Similarly, a co-creator from the content creators’ group (Lotte), mentioned how she let the brand Coco Bonito use a photo of her, because (apart from the enjoyment that she herself gets out of it) she wants to help the owners of the company as at the time when she posted the picture,
“They were still a start-up, so it was hard for them to spend a lot of money on marketing, so yes I wanted to help them grow by doing this” (Lotte, Interview #8).
These co-creators thus hold an extrinsic transcendent motive situated around others’ and not around intrinsic personal benefits as discussed in the previous chapter (Martínez-Cañas et al., 8). Noteworthy is the fact that several interviewees mentioned that they particularly felt this altruistic need for the owners of restaurants/ hotels with whom they personally had an affection. Vincent, for example, mentions how “the few times that [...] [he] has done it, they were mostly for hotels which [he] thought were really good and when [he] liked the owners, and felt like they cared” (Vincent, Interview #2). Similarly, another interviewee, Julia, mentions that she particularly writes reviews when “[she] really had an exceptionally good experience where they really went above and beyond to make sure [she] had a good time, or when you know people at the front desk who voluntarily come with tips or things like that” (Julia, Interview #3). Both interviewees illustrate a “notion of social and altruistic value” here (Roberts et al., 151). Vincent mentioned, however, that he does not write as many negative reviews, because he is aware of the damage it can have on a brand’s image, as also discussed above and by Maria Tiago et al. He says:
“What I do less myself, but I know that a lot of people do (very occasionally I may have done that) is to write a negative review. I think people want to take some kind of revenge if a holiday was disappointing and then they write an angry review about how bad it was. I myself have not experienced that to such an extreme, so I do that less.” (Vincent, Interview #2).
When then asked why he does not write negative reviews, while others do that very often, he replied:
“Maybe because I am aware of it ... I think that many of those reviews are written out of emotions and that those people do not realize how disastrous that can be for an owner. [...] And I also think, because sometimes I am disappointed that you realize that very often people especially write a review when they are unhappy, which then leads to a distorted
28 image of it. [...] I actually try to write more reviews from a positive note and if it is disappointing then I prefer not to write a review”. (Ibid).
Julia and Tom, other co-creators from the review group disagree with this, and mention how they give (subjective) value to the fact that they, as co-creators, have the opportunity to “warn” other consumers; also from a sense of altruism, however, here the focus is on the other co-creators (review writers) instead of on the owners, which will be elaborated on next.
4.2.2 The altruistic desire to contribute to and help, to enthuse, to recommend and to
protect other co-creating consumers.
In the previous, the term “co-creation for use” coined by Wittel et al. was used to describe the action of co-creation for one’s own individual benefit. The focus in this chapter, however, is on the type of co-creation that Wittel et al. refer to as “co-creation for others”; where “the consumers think authentically about transcending their personal sphere to acknowledge the welfare of wider society and contribute to the common good.” (Martinez-Canas et al., 8). From the interviews, it became apparent that most interviewees participate in co-creation (especially in writing reviews) to give something back to the community that they are part of. For example, Tom says how for him:
"it's also a kind of community. You also give some reviews to that community so that the community grows and people keep using the platform. yes, what I get out of it? I appreciate that people take the time to write reviews, so you occasionally do it in return so that other people can appreciate it” (Tom, Interview #4).
He thus implies that a subjective value of co-creation for him is the ability to “give something back” to those that provided something to him as well. This hence shows the altruistic motivation and altruistic subjective value behind it. However, even though the interviewees mentioned that they co-create for others, they also imply that they do it so that they also have reviews available when they are in need; they write reviews for others, yet also for themselves. Their subjective value here is based on reciprocity, where the value provided by the co-creating consumers is rewarded by exchange from other co-creators, demonstrating how joint efforts from the consumers is an important aspect of value co-creation (Kathlan, 537). Julia, for example, mentions that she does it:
