4 _16-11_ - PELLEGRINI
CO-ADVERTISING, E
Received: August 1, 2015 Accepted:
Following the digital revolution, the traditional divide between value creation
duction and advertising - and value distribution and consumption
blurring. Individuals and companies are called to exchange multiple inputs and outputs b
fore, during and after sale. The new contemporarity of value processes is gradually leading to
a new convergence among parties. Companies are enabled to promote, inte
tercept the customers conversation; individuals are committed to the new social game and
keeping companies under non
WOM (Electronic-Word of Mouth) of individuals through a netn
crowd-sourcing platforms. Findings demonstrate that the new overlapping of dialogue and
sale can generate a positive loop between companies and individuals responsibility and r
duce the distance between market and society
Keywords: Co-advertising;
consumer communication; Consumer behavior
1. Introduction
Following the digital revolution, production, distribution and consumption are no longer lin
ar steps in a supply chain. In the past, companies made proposal
consumers purchased – exchange value
the three phases of “proposition
quence in time and space. Pre
of sale, which was usually the scene of the dialogue, and the
ferent time. Now, the continuity
work and can reduce the distance between individuals and companies. In this context, the r
cent attempt by companies to promote, interm
is opening up a new ideological debate: is the new social game bringing new value for the
gamers? Are we seeing a truly new form of value co
ward the idea of a “value-crea
International Journal of Economic Behavior, vol
ADVERTISING, E-WOM AND SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
DAVIDE PELLEGRINI
University of Parma, Italy
FRANCESCA DE CANIO
University of Parma, Italy
Accepted: November 27, 2015 Online Published:
Abstract
Following the digital revolution, the traditional divide between value creation
and value distribution and consumption – sales, use and post
blurring. Individuals and companies are called to exchange multiple inputs and outputs b
fore, during and after sale. The new contemporarity of value processes is gradually leading to
a new convergence among parties. Companies are enabled to promote, inte
tercept the customers conversation; individuals are committed to the new social game and
keeping companies under non-contractual observation. This study researches the effects of e
Word of Mouth) of individuals through a netnography on 20 worldwide
sourcing platforms. Findings demonstrate that the new overlapping of dialogue and
sale can generate a positive loop between companies and individuals responsibility and r
duce the distance between market and society.
advertising; E-WOM; Co-value chain; Social responsibility;
Consumer behavior; Netnography.
revolution, production, distribution and consumption are no longer lin
ar steps in a supply chain. In the past, companies made proposal – value proposition
exchange value – and used products and services –
the three phases of “proposition – sale – use” followed a clear logical and chronological s
quence in time and space. Pre-sale data collection logistically implied being present at point
of sale, which was usually the scene of the dialogue, and the phase of use took place at a di
ferent time. Now, the continuity of conversations is remodeling the value processes fram
work and can reduce the distance between individuals and companies. In this context, the r
cent attempt by companies to promote, intermediate and intercept the customer’s conversation
is opening up a new ideological debate: is the new social game bringing new value for the
gamers? Are we seeing a truly new form of value co-creation? In 2002, Gummesson put fo
creation network society” which implies a science or discipline with
International Journal of Economic Behavior, vol 6, n. 1, pp. 41
41
WOM AND SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
DAVIDE PELLEGRINI
University of Parma, Italy
FRANCESCA DE CANIO
University of Parma, Italy
Online Published: June 22, 2016
Following the digital revolution, the traditional divide between value creation - R&D, pro-
sales, use and post-use- is
blurring. Individuals and companies are called to exchange multiple inputs and outputs be-
fore, during and after sale. The new contemporarity of value processes is gradually leading to
a new convergence among parties. Companies are enabled to promote, intermediate and in-
tercept the customers conversation; individuals are committed to the new social game and
contractual observation. This study researches the effects of e-
ography on 20 worldwide
sourcing platforms. Findings demonstrate that the new overlapping of dialogue and
sale can generate a positive loop between companies and individuals responsibility and re-
responsibility; Company-
revolution, production, distribution and consumption are no longer line-
value proposition – while
– value in use - and
use” followed a clear logical and chronological se-
sale data collection logistically implied being present at point
phase of use took place at a dif-
of conversations is remodeling the value processes frame-
work and can reduce the distance between individuals and companies. In this context, the re-
ediate and intercept the customer’s conversation
is opening up a new ideological debate: is the new social game bringing new value for the
creation? In 2002, Gummesson put for-
tion network society” which implies a science or discipline with
41-58, 2016
42
“new foundation, new values, new assumptions or new methods”. In 2004, Lusch and Vargo
propose their Service Dominant Logic model in which the consumer is always the protagonist
in creating value. In 2008 Grönroos stated: “…accepting value in use as a foundational value
creation concept, customers are the value creators (…) the supplier can become a co-creator
of value with its customers”. Value is interactively co-created by companies and consumers,
rather than merely exchanged (Leavy, 2004). More recently, Gummesson (2011) suggests
substituting the old B2B or B2C acronyms with the new A2A interaction: actors to actors, in-
teracting in many-to-many networks. In 2008, an issue of the European Journal of Marketing
entitled Bridging the divide and focused on the new opportunities for cooperation between
company and customer. In 2009, Schau, Muñiz and Arnould clustered 52 articles from inter-
national marketing journals: all of them explicitly claim to examine collective customer be-
havior and its positive implication for the companies. There has been however less interest in
the implications for customers.
Despite the over-optimism of the new service-marketing mainstream, many authors sug-
gest cautioun. Prosumption is more than an economic activity (Holt, 1995; Xie et al., 2008;
Firat, 1991), consequently, the theoretical debate requires a multidisciplinary approach. Many
authors claim that new technologies are not reducing the distance between individuals and
companies, which maintain their separate and complementary roles.
Humphreys and Grayson (2008), argue that when consumers take over steps that create
use value (e.g., when they dispense their own soft drink at a fast-food restaurant or they as-
semble their own furniture for Ikea) their fundamental role in the economic system does not
change. They suggest considering use value and exchange value separately, as in fact the situ-
ation is different when consumers produce something that they themselves do not use but can
be sold to others (exchange value). Imagine a digital newspaper with free content supplied by
readers and advertising revenues (exchange value) collected by the editor. In this example,
who is driving the value creation process? It was not by chance that recently, thousands of
bloggers promoted a class action against the Huffington Post, claiming the publisher refused
to make fair payments despite profiting from their advertising revenues. At a first glance, the
exploitation risk is doubled by the fact that the customer is the co-producer but in the same
time is the co-user of contents and, as potential reader; he is the indirect buyer of advertising.
As Bowen (1990) suggests “it is one thing to leave assembly and transport to the custom-
er, in return for a substantial cost advantage, like Ikea; but another thing to use the consumer’s
knowledge and give no cost advantage”. Following Bowen’s original criticism, many re-
searchers emphasize the risk of exploitation (Kelley et al., 1990; Faranda, 1994; Brodie et al.,
1997; Ballantyne & Varey 2008; Humphreys & Grayson, 2008; Dujarier M.A., 2009; Salmon
C., 2008). These researchers claim that exploitation no longer takes place in factories but is
moving into the home, where individuals generate production but are not rewarded by the dis-
tribution of the value they have created. Fortunately, the consumer has a unique ability to de-
fend him or herself against firms, which reduce his or her role to a sort of “part-time employ-
ee” of the service provider or as a “human resource at its disposal (Mills & Morris, 1986;
Bowen & Schneider, 1988; Bateson, 1983; Keh & Teo, 2001; Kelley et al., 1992; Zeithaml &
Bitner, 2000)
Starting from the concept of countervailing power many authors open new perspectives.
In 2006, Arnould et al. write “consumer groups have a greater voice in the co-creation of val-
ue…and exhibit a sense of moral responsibility”. In practice, individuals take part in peer-to-
peer conversation with a mixture of narcissism and altruism in order to feel they belong to a
community, gain recognition and continue their process of identity building. Since identity is
built on differences, in many cases the new collective conversations are driven by a reaction
against market power (Dholakia N. et al. 2009). In this, context Chia (2012) analyzes how
advertising is one of the most important element of discussion between people, and also how
exposure to advertising influences their interaction.
Many authors demonstrate that individuals’ conversations are strongly
social desire to share personal experiences, knowledge and opinions about who they interact
with, in other words, companies or brands. Conversations are often based on the perception
that “…there are things that the firm cannot tell you
of exploitation is sometimes a feeling, “a social construct dangerous for firms
can feed on collective suggestion. Increasingly through blogs, forums and others web pla
forms consumers gather to talk about brands, products and services, both in positive
advertising, and in negative terms
appropriate or unexpected use of the available resources in an interaction
co-destruction for at least one of the parties”.
WOM and e-WOM, many topics of research are influenced by organizational and psycholo
ical theory. In 2003 Bendapud
tivity. More recently, Gilde et al.
cretionary response of a customer to external events, which require him or her to carry out
functions other than consumption.
If customers act as citizens, every opening by companies on social topics
production, safety in the workplace, training, valorization of immigration, equal opportunities,
etc. - represents a new opportunity for dialogue and convergence. It i
conversation about these topics can lead to effective results when the company is aware of b
ing under non-contractual type of observation by the crowd. This means that the company a
cepts a new mechanism of collective indirect con
people’s ethical control of the topic on
Ate and Buttgen (2008) introduce the concept of
a sentiment, which can influence the mood of conversation bet
In fact, customers’ contributions are, in this light, a form of
iour, which can be clearly affected by cultural atmosphere (Bettencourt, 1997; Kendrick,
1985; Goudarzi, 2009). In this perspective,
and the socialization of their work
1990; Leary-Kelly et al., 1994; Manolis, 2001; Vijiande
new social space belonging to the digital conversation is a new middle ground for the matc
ing or tuning between market and society. In the new digital space, individuals talk as cu
tomers and citizens in the same time. Cova and Dalli (2007, 2009) suggest that the new co
lective conversations can be epitomized by the concept of
Within communities, individuals are inspired by
fend society. The authors ask whether this type of meta
in itself, separate from the market and capable of
From the same perspective, other authors focus on the concept of ‘sharing’, as a fundamental
consumer behavior that is similar to
2010). Starting from the idea of new
gence come into being. Market and society do not coincide, companies and customer act as
counterparts playing different roles but their interests
New concepts like reciprocity
Wiertz, & de Ruyter, 2008; Uzoamak, 1999; Paulin, 2006; Feldman, 1981; Buttgen, 2008;
Fisher, 1986, Jeong & Lee, 2013). In many cases, prosumerism can
tween company and consumer responsibility, and consumers can commit to this
game of being customer and citizen at work.
advertising is one of the most important element of discussion between people, and also how
exposure to advertising influences their interaction.
Many authors demonstrate that individuals’ conversations are strongly
social desire to share personal experiences, knowledge and opinions about who they interact
with, in other words, companies or brands. Conversations are often based on the perception
there are things that the firm cannot tell you” (Firat A. et al., 2005). The phenomenon
of exploitation is sometimes a feeling, “a social construct dangerous for firms
can feed on collective suggestion. Increasingly through blogs, forums and others web pla
forms consumers gather to talk about brands, products and services, both in positive
, and in negative terms- co-destruction. As stated by Plè and Caceres (2010) “i
appropriate or unexpected use of the available resources in an interaction
destruction for at least one of the parties”. Due to this fragile management of consumer
WOM, many topics of research are influenced by organizational and psycholo
Bendapudi and Leone highlight the psychological implication of intera
et al. (2011) describe customer citizenship behaviour
cretionary response of a customer to external events, which require him or her to carry out
functions other than consumption.
customers act as citizens, every opening by companies on social topics
production, safety in the workplace, training, valorization of immigration, equal opportunities,
represents a new opportunity for dialogue and convergence. It is important to note that
conversation about these topics can lead to effective results when the company is aware of b
contractual type of observation by the crowd. This means that the company a
cepts a new mechanism of collective indirect control or “Public Scrutiny”, in other words,
people’s ethical control of the topic on-line (Kozinets, 2002).
Ate and Buttgen (2008) introduce the concept of customer orientation to the company
a sentiment, which can influence the mood of conversation between customer and company.
In fact, customers’ contributions are, in this light, a form of organizational citizenship beha
, which can be clearly affected by cultural atmosphere (Bettencourt, 1997; Kendrick,
1985; Goudarzi, 2009). In this perspective, the working customers can be seen as employees
socialization of their work implies strong commitment to the company (Bowers
, 1994; Manolis, 2001; Vijiande et al., 2009). What is clear is that the
longing to the digital conversation is a new middle ground for the matc
ing or tuning between market and society. In the new digital space, individuals talk as cu
tomers and citizens in the same time. Cova and Dalli (2007, 2009) suggest that the new co
tive conversations can be epitomized by the concept of communities.
individuals are inspired by linking value or gift logic
ask whether this type of meta-market can be considered as an entity
tself, separate from the market and capable of protect citizens from the risk of exploitation.
From the same perspective, other authors focus on the concept of ‘sharing’, as a fundamental
consumer behavior that is similar to gift giving (Bergquist & Ljiungberg, 2001; Belk, R.
2010). Starting from the idea of new-shared collective conversation, a new type of conve
come into being. Market and society do not coincide, companies and customer act as
counterparts playing different roles but their interests are converging.
reciprocity and social trust enter the marketing dictionary (Mathwick,
Wiertz, & de Ruyter, 2008; Uzoamak, 1999; Paulin, 2006; Feldman, 1981; Buttgen, 2008;
Fisher, 1986, Jeong & Lee, 2013). In many cases, prosumerism can generate a new loop b
tween company and consumer responsibility, and consumers can commit to this
of being customer and citizen at work.
43
advertising is one of the most important element of discussion between people, and also how
Many authors demonstrate that individuals’ conversations are strongly influenced by the
social desire to share personal experiences, knowledge and opinions about who they interact
with, in other words, companies or brands. Conversations are often based on the perception
, 2005). The phenomenon
of exploitation is sometimes a feeling, “a social construct dangerous for firms” and as such
can feed on collective suggestion. Increasingly through blogs, forums and others web plat-
forms consumers gather to talk about brands, products and services, both in positive – co-
. As stated by Plè and Caceres (2010) “in-
appropriate or unexpected use of the available resources in an interaction will result in value
Due to this fragile management of consumer
WOM, many topics of research are influenced by organizational and psycholog-
chological implication of interac-
customer citizenship behaviour, or the dis-
cretionary response of a customer to external events, which require him or her to carry out
customers act as citizens, every opening by companies on social topics - pollution free
production, safety in the workplace, training, valorization of immigration, equal opportunities,
s important to note that
conversation about these topics can lead to effective results when the company is aware of be-
contractual type of observation by the crowd. This means that the company ac-
trol or “Public Scrutiny”, in other words,
customer orientation to the company as
ween customer and company.
organizational citizenship behav-
, which can be clearly affected by cultural atmosphere (Bettencourt, 1997; Kendrick,
the working customers can be seen as employees
implies strong commitment to the company (Bowers et al.,
2009). What is clear is that the
longing to the digital conversation is a new middle ground for the match-
ing or tuning between market and society. In the new digital space, individuals talk as cus-
tomers and citizens in the same time. Cova and Dalli (2007, 2009) suggest that the new col-
gift logic and aim to de-
market can be considered as an entity
protect citizens from the risk of exploitation.
From the same perspective, other authors focus on the concept of ‘sharing’, as a fundamental
berg, 2001; Belk, R.
shared collective conversation, a new type of conver-
come into being. Market and society do not coincide, companies and customer act as
enter the marketing dictionary (Mathwick,
Wiertz, & de Ruyter, 2008; Uzoamak, 1999; Paulin, 2006; Feldman, 1981; Buttgen, 2008;
generate a new loop be-
tween company and consumer responsibility, and consumers can commit to this new social
44
2. The New Co-Value Chain Model
At the light of the theoretical debate, we now assess whether the new digital conversation rep-
resents a new common ground of convergence. The logical framework of our empirical test
starts from the numerous attempts, which have been made to conceptualize the processes of
working customer. Several classification schemes have been proposed to analyze consumer
inputs. Chase (1978) distinguishes services according to the extent of “physical presence of
the customer in the system”; Mills and Morris (1986) also based their classification system on
the extent of interaction, a more useful way to characterize participation-intensive services
than the extent of simple customer contact (Faranda, 1994, Payne 2008). More recently,
Buttgen (2008) tests a model implying different phases of co-production; Michel et al. (2008)
identify three different roles for the working consumer and three different techniques used by
suppliers to encourage consumer involvement. Recently Etgar M. (2008) and Maglio et al.
(2008) propose a descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. In 2012, Seraj an-
alyzes three specific online communities identifying the users’ desire for social action and
their participation in the value creation.
Duque et al. (2009) explore hedonic and social benefit; Ravald (2010) suggests “there is
no value without enjoyment”; Helkkula et al. (2009) discuss the difficulties in measuring dif-
ferent levels of enjoyment; Chu & Kim (2011); Thota et al. (2012) analyze the increase in
new types of technology platforms which has led to the growth in customizable content. The
literature explores the e-Word of Mouth as a new pattern. In 1993, Moorman introduce eWom
as the “willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence”.
Ten years later Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) describe eWom as a more complex concept
ascribable to “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former custom-
ers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institu-
tions”. Individual who take part in collective conversation are talking as an individual -me-
and/or as a plural -us-. Chu & Kim (2011) suggest analyzing eWOM behaviors in depth with
the goal of identifying particular influential individuals. Kilambi, Laroche and Richard (2013)
emphasize the fact that “all members of a community know and understand themselves as a
collective”. In this perspective, the contribution of peer-to-peer communication in co-creation
of value becomes important especially with respect to its viral-like advertising (Strutton et al.,
2011).
In the light of so many different approaches, we develop a new simplified matrix of con-
sumer input to the firm and related output (Figure 1). Of course, input for the consumer con-
stitutes output for the firm and vice versa, and convergence can take place only if the results
are positive for both parties.
There are essentially three types of value input made by the consumer:
1) value in co-proposition - the consumer gives his/her opinion independently before
sale and use (co-advertising, co-planning, and co-production);
2) value in co-selling - the consumer interacts when buying the good, collaborating in
the sale and logistics;
3) value in co-use - the consumer interacts in use of the service and post-sales assis-
tance.
At the same time, individuals receive two types of value inputs:
a) functional benefits represented by their cognitive and affective perception of eco-
nomic advantages like price, quality and time saving;
b) social benefits classified as personal- me/identity-, relational – us/friends- and so-
cial – us/society -.
The arrows going in different directions are the key feature of the diagram and indicate
that these benefits are the result of more than one type of investment. For example, social
benefit can accrue in all three phases of dialogue,
Figure 1 - The Co-value model
Source: own
In order to test the robustness of the logic of the model, we develop four research hypot
eses.
H1 - Contemporarity: conversations enable the Actors (companies and individuals)
to exchange multiple inputs and outputs
means that the traditional divide between value creation
advertising - and value distribution and consumption
blurring.
H2 - Co-Advertising Relevance:
highest level of consumer involvement since individuals conversations are strongly
influenced by the social desire to share personal experiences, knowledge and opi
ions about the companies or brands they interact wi
H3 - Collective responsibility:
plural topics –us/friends–
mechanism of social or collective control
H4 - Convergence: Actors conversations are
fits- price quality and time
ciety. This leads to a new equilibrium or convergence between the customer pe
spective- logic of money-
ng in different directions are the key feature of the diagram and indicate
that these benefits are the result of more than one type of investment. For example, social
benefit can accrue in all three phases of dialogue, pre-sale, sale and post-sale
value model
In order to test the robustness of the logic of the model, we develop four research hypot
conversations enable the Actors (companies and individuals)
to exchange multiple inputs and outputs before, during and after the sale. This
means that the traditional divide between value creation - R&D, production and
and value distribution and consumption – sale, use and post use
Advertising Relevance: co-advertising is the co-creation construct with the
highest level of consumer involvement since individuals conversations are strongly
influenced by the social desire to share personal experiences, knowledge and opi
ions about the companies or brands they interact with.
Collective responsibility: conversations are often focussed on collective or
–us/society. This requires the company to accept a new
mechanism of social or collective control.
Actors conversations are focussed not only on customers’ ben
price quality and time- but also on citizens’ benefits- identity, friends, and s
ciety. This leads to a new equilibrium or convergence between the customer pe
and the citizen perspective -logic of gift-.
45
ng in different directions are the key feature of the diagram and indicate
that these benefits are the result of more than one type of investment. For example, social
sale.
In order to test the robustness of the logic of the model, we develop four research hypoth-
conversations enable the Actors (companies and individuals)
before, during and after the sale. This
R&D, production and
sale, use and post use- is
creation construct with the
highest level of consumer involvement since individuals conversations are strongly
influenced by the social desire to share personal experiences, knowledge and opin-
conversations are often focussed on collective or
us/society. This requires the company to accept a new
focussed not only on customers’ bene-
identity, friends, and so-
ciety. This leads to a new equilibrium or convergence between the customer per-
46
3. Methodology
In order to test our hypotheses, we divide the individual benefits into two categories: econom-
ic benefit and social benefit. Both inputs and outputs are measured through semantic mining
of the key words used in online conversations. We aim to identify web sentiment through
Netnography Analysis based on a sample of 20 crowd-sourcing platforms, like Innocentive,
Quora, TripAdvisor, Amazon Turk, etc.. Netnography Analysis as defined by Kozinets “pro-
vides information on the symbolism, meaning, and consumption patterns of online consumer
groups… it is an online marketing research technique for providing consumer insight”. We
thus opt to use pure observational online ethnography to measure the normal flow of infor-
mation that users exchange, without any kind intermediation from sources as used in Con-
sumer Behaviour Analysis. Analyzing this “Social game” we intend to identify factors that af-
fect online community usage like Usability and Sociability as defined by Preece (2001), or as
we understand them in our perspective of market value, Money and Gift.
Conversation among participants from three sources: Facebook, Twitter and Google Blog
is monitored (see Appendix). The web voice was first monitored May-June 2012 and in a se-
cond phase May-June 2013. For each of 21 platforms we gathered a total of 600 texts (12,600
texts) and from these we excluded:
• Impersonal descriptions which give no information about the user’s experience;
• All messages from bloggers who belonged to the company;
• All messages which were too brief to decipher objectively.
This left us with 4,601 texts and a total of over 250,000 words in about 2,000 pages of
word scripts describing sentiment of consumers in the 21 online communities. Initially we
tested open software for preliminary linguistic screening, like T-Lab, but the absence of a cal-
ibrated search engine for a web monitoring of very different case histories showed the limits
of automatism1. Therefore, we opted for a manual check of contents. Researchers were divid-
ed into 4 groups and a cross-linked system of control of words and phrases was used so that if
observers in one group were not unanimous in interpreting a message it was submitted to a
group of specialists.
For each of the 4,601 texts, a deep semantic analysis was conducted.
The following examples briefly illustrate the workings of text mining. A simplified ma-
trix of consumer inputs to the firm and related outputs is helpful to show the result of this first
conceptual screening (Figure 2)
The example shows how consumers’ posts were decoded. The frequency of occurrence of
the concepts is expressed as relative to a total of 100, but the original data-set, contains multi-
ple frequencies.
4. Results
As show in figure 3, the Contemporarity is confirmed (H1). In fact, several case histories
show actors co-acting at the same time in more than one process (Table 1). The overview
shows that co-advertising is the process with the highest level of consumer involvement
(28.2%) followed by co-planning of goods and services (16.4%), use (12.8%), co-selling
(12.7%), co-production (12.5%), co-post-sales (9.7%) and co-logistic (7.8%).
1
See Appendix for methodological details
Figure 2 – The co-value chai
TripAdvisor)
Source: own
Also the Co-Advertising Relevance is
the co-creation construct with the highest lev
important to analyze the relation between this process and the individual benefit perception.
Co-advertising proves to be closely correlated to
0.695 at 0.01 significance. This relationship is explained by
original” and the emotive involvement of individuals using their own creativity. Moreover,
co-advertising appears closely correlated to
at 0.05 significance. Lastly, co
Pearson correlation of r2: 0.498 at 0.05 significance. This last functional benefit can be e
plained by the “time saving” benefit for individuals who are collecting information about the
products, which they are going to purchase.
Table 1 – Findings of web monitoring of 4.601 texts
C
o
-P
la
n
n
in
g
a
n
d
R
es
ea
rc
h
C
o
-P
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
C
o
-A
d
v
er
ti
si
n
g
&
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
at
io
n
C
o
-
S
el
li
n
g
CO-PLANNING (collective research & innovation)
INNOCENTIVE
- co-research &
prize contest
41.0 27.5 23.2 1.1
CITY 2.0 -
knowledge shar-
ing
88.2 - 11.8
value chain key words: a conceptual framework
Advertising Relevance is confirmed (H2). As we have seen, co
creation construct with the highest level of consumer involvement (Table 2
important to analyze the relation between this process and the individual benefit perception.
proves to be closely correlated to me/identity with a Pearson correlation of r2:
0.695 at 0.01 significance. This relationship is explained by the individual wishing to “
the emotive involvement of individuals using their own creativity. Moreover,
appears closely correlated to friend/us with a Pearson correlation of r2: 0.539
, co-advertising proves to be closely correlated to
Pearson correlation of r2: 0.498 at 0.05 significance. This last functional benefit can be e
plained by the “time saving” benefit for individuals who are collecting information about the
they are going to purchase.
Findings of web monitoring of 4.601 texts- Relative frequency of concepts
C
o
-
S
el
li
n
g
C
o
-L
o
g
is
ti
c
C
o
-U
se
C
o
-P
o
st
U
se
P
ri
ce
Q
u
al
it
y
T
im
e
M
e
-
Id
en
ti
ty
PLANNING (collective research & innovation)
1.1 4.8 2.4 -
24.0 3.5 1.7 5.9
- - - -
5.7 1.4 - 11.6
47
n key words: a conceptual framework (example from
As we have seen, co-advertising is
involvement (Table 2), but it is
important to analyze the relation between this process and the individual benefit perception.
with a Pearson correlation of r2:
the individual wishing to “be
the emotive involvement of individuals using their own creativity. Moreover,
with a Pearson correlation of r2: 0.539
closely correlated to time, with a
Pearson correlation of r2: 0.498 at 0.05 significance. This last functional benefit can be ex-
plained by the “time saving” benefit for individuals who are collecting information about the
Relative frequency of concepts
F
ri
en
d
s
-
U
s
S
o
ci
et
y
-
G
if
t
-
U
s
N
u
m
b
er
o
f
te
x
ts
5.9 13.9 51.0
408
11.6 3.0 78.3
136
48
CO-PRODUCTION (collective contents & tasks)
HUFFINGTON
POST - user ge-
nerated contents
10.0 51.2 28.7 - 3.7 6.2 -
3.3 53.3 2.2 13.3 10.6 17.2
166
AMAZON
TURK - cloud
labor/microtasks
- 100.0 - - - - -
43.7 15.1 21.1 - - 20.1
57
QUORA - re-
search tasks
10.0 40.0 30.0 - - 20.0 -
- 53.1 14.3 14.3 4.1 14.3
92
CO-COMMUNICATION (collective creativity)
KLOUT - social
rating
- - 50.0 25.0 - 25.0 -
2.1 23.7 9.9 28.1 13.5 22.7
176
THREADLESS
- product cus-
tomisation
21.0 - 75.0 2.2 - 1.8 -
13.1 3.0 11.3 21.8 18.8 32.2
271
MOUNTAIN
DEW - product
selection
18.6 20.7 39.5 4.2 16.9 - -
4.8 37.1 2.1 14.6 6.0 35.4
342
CO-SELLING (collective or interactive shopping)
EBAY - e-
commerce
4.3 - 10.2 53.6 21.7 1.4 8.7
34.2 38.4 9.5 6.5 0.8 10.6
300
FAB - content
markets
- - 66.0 20.0 - - 14.0
9.6 34.0 9.6 27.9 11.2 7.6
200
GROUPON -
buying groups
6.7 - - 40.0 13.3 20.0 20.0
31.4 41.4 3.1 7.9 15.2 1.0
162
CO-LOGISTIC (collective or interactive logistic)
FACEBOOK
PLACES -
check-in
- - 32.0 23.0 35.0 10.0 -
6.1 39.8 - 3.3 11.0 39.8
209
DOMINOS -
delivery
9.0 - - - 42.0 19.0 30.0
8.3 56.0 15.6 6.9 7.3 6.0
300
NEXTDOOR -
physical sharing
10.8 8.1 8.1 8.1 13.5 45.0 6.3
4.3 38.0 2.2 - 13.0 42.4
181
CO-USE (collective and peer-to-peer cooperation)
WARCRAFT -
game sharing
14.5 - 52.7 23.6 - 9.1 -
16.0 16.0 25.7 20.2 10.2 11.8
407
DROPBOX -
joint application
7.0 - 47.3 2.8 - 40.0 2.8
20.1 64.4 0.8 5.3 6.1 3.4
200
AIRBNB -
house sharing
19.6 2.2 19.6 38.7 - 20.0 -
37.3 27.0 5.0 2.1 20.3 8.3
266
CO-POST USE (collective & peer-to-peer cooperation)
TRIPADVISOR
- service rating
39.1 - 4.4 - 4.4 - 52.2
8.1 64.7 0.6 4.0 4.6 17.9
220
PINTEREST -
social commerce
27.2 - 24.5 11.7 - 6.4 30.1
4.0 12.0 17.3 32.0 9.3 25.3
409
PIRATE BAY -
downloading
-
-
40.0 - - 30.0 30.0
16.3 38.4 1.2 8.1 5.8 30.2
99
Total /Average 18.0 8.3 29.7 14.1 8.8 11.1 10.0
14.4 30.5 8.4 12.9 9.9 23.7
4,601
Source: own
Table 2 - Internal Relationship between types of content and Co
Price
Money
-
ward
Co-dvertising
& Communi-
cation
Pearson Corr.
elation
0.052
Sig. (2-Tailed) 0.872
Source: own
Figure 3 shows the correlations between co
model.
Figure 3 - The effects of co-advertising on the Co
Source: own
In order to compare the intensity of relationships between inputs and outputs of the co
value model, we tested a bivariate correlation with two different levels of significance 0.01
and 0.05. Our sample shows a first set of relations (
Co-advertising is confirmed to be correlated with three different benefits. A new very
significant correlation is between
at 0.01 significance. This relationship can be explained by the fact tha
volved in co-selling focus their conversations on this economic issue. A second univocal co
relation is between co-logistic
nificance. This relationship is explained by th
which mean customers discuss new forms of cooperation enabled by physical or logistical
conditions.
Internal Relationship between types of content and Co-Advertising
Price -
Money
- Re-
ward
Quality -
Customisa-
tion - Dif-
ference
Time -
Freedom
- Con-
venience
Me identity
- Reputa-
tion - Self
esteem -
Difference
Friends
Game -
Emulation
Me too
together
0.052 -0.167 0.498 * 0.695 ** 0.539 *
0.872 0.481 0.026 0.001 0.014
shows the correlations between co-advertising and the value inputs of the co
advertising on the Co-value Model
In order to compare the intensity of relationships between inputs and outputs of the co
value model, we tested a bivariate correlation with two different levels of significance 0.01
and 0.05. Our sample shows a first set of relations (Table 3).
is confirmed to be correlated with three different benefits. A new very
significant correlation is between co-selling and price with a Pearson correlation of r2:0.718
This relationship can be explained by the fact that customers who are i
selling focus their conversations on this economic issue. A second univocal co
logistic and quality with a Pearson correlation of r2: 0.506 at 0.05 si
This relationship is explained by the functional goals of this form of cooperation,
which mean customers discuss new forms of cooperation enabled by physical or logistical
49
Advertising
Friends -
- Fun -
Emulation -
Me too - All
together - Us
Society - Ethic
- Moral - Al-
truism - Rela-
tion - Gift - Us
0.539 * 0.332
0.014 0.153
advertising and the value inputs of the co-creation
In order to compare the intensity of relationships between inputs and outputs of the co-
value model, we tested a bivariate correlation with two different levels of significance 0.01
is confirmed to be correlated with three different benefits. A new very
with a Pearson correlation of r2:0.718
t customers who are in-
selling focus their conversations on this economic issue. A second univocal cor-
with a Pearson correlation of r2: 0.506 at 0.05 sig-
e functional goals of this form of cooperation,
which mean customers discuss new forms of cooperation enabled by physical or logistical
50
Table 3 – Internal relationships between different types of content of conversations
Price Qualiy Time Me/Identity Us/Friends Us/Society
Co-
Planning
Pearson Corre-
lation
0.069 - 0.240 0.122 0.264 0.279 0.675*
Sig (2 tailed) 0.774 0.308 0.610 0.260 0.234 0.001
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
Co-
Production
Pearson Corre-
lation
- 0.079 - 0.268 - 0.265 - 0.204 - 0.110 0.312
Sig (2 tailed) 0.741 0.253 0.258 0.388 0.642 0.181
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
Co-
Advertising
Pearson Corre-
lation
0.062 - 0.167 0.498* 0.695* 0.539* 0.332
Sig (2 tailed) 0.827 0.481 0.026 0.001 0.014 0.153
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
Co-Selling
Pearson Corre-
lation
0.718** 0.131 0.427 0.232 0.304 - 0.118
Sig (2 tailed) - 0.583 0.061 0.325 0.193 0.621
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
Co-Logistic
Pearson Corre-
lation
0.069 0.506* 0.006 - 0.169 - 0.053 0.153
Sig (2 tailed) 0.773 0.023 0.805 0.477 0.826 0.521
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
Co-Use
Pearson Corre-
lation
0.121 0.316 0.085 - 0.112 0.266 - 0.304
Sig (2 tailed) 0.610 0.175 0.720 0.629 0.257 0.193
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
Co-post
Use
Pearson Corre-
lation
- 0.124 0.379 0.265 0.329 - 0.043 0.056
Sig (2 tailed) 0.603 0.099 0.259 0.157 0.856 0.814
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
** Correlation n is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation n is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Source: own
A third group of significant and multiple relationships is connected to co-planning activi-
ties. First of all we observe that co-planning is closely correlated to society/gift/us with a
Pearson correlation of r2: 0.675 at 0.01 significance. From a theoretical point of view, these
relationships introduce a rational and cognitive interpretation of social sensitivity. People
commenting on their personal experience of co-planning use words, phrases and sentences
which show their awareness of being intellectual co-planners. Last, but not least, it is neces-
sary to observe the weak correlations between co-use and co-post use and social benefits. This
is partially surprising because friendship and society were expected to be at the core of co-use
and co-post use activities.
The Collective Responsibility is confirmed (H3). In order to test this hypothesis, we
ranked the conversation on the basis of three variables of identity -me- relationships, -friends-
and society -us- The first five communities involving a strong element of identity -me-, ap-
pear often well positioned in terms of relationship -friends- and society -us-. There are also
intermediate situations like Groupon where consumers show interest in sharing purchase cou-
pons with friends but do not find the game innovative enough to give distinction of self-
identity. Overall, there are few communities where the consumer gives a low value to friend-
ship (Amazon MTurk, eBay, City 2.0.). Moreover, values are very high in the “
ables and reveal an increasing
nected (Figure 4).
Figure 4 - The percentage of identity
Source: own
Finally, we confirm also the Convergence
cited in almost the whole of the texts shows that the risks of consumer exploitation exist but
are largely balanced out by consumer attention to the social content of services. What is si
nificant is that consumer and citizen interests do no
could be objected that communities like eBay and Groupon have a very small social dime
sion, but as a matter of fact, we found that dialogue is often about
about the experiential and psyc
nals that the convergence of interests is not taken for granted, and many consumers comment
on the need to be careful about their rewards. It is precisely this explicit mention of risks that
comprises a defense mechanism
From our point view, this is new evidence of the convergence between the customer perspe
tive - logic of money - and the citizen perspective
With the aim of analysing
forms we tested Principal component analysis (PCA)
information. We then inserted two
(Figure 5). These two components in fact explain 68.88% of the original variance of outputs.
ship (Amazon MTurk, eBay, City 2.0.). Moreover, values are very high in the “
ables and reveal an increasing awareness of ethical implications of being continuously co
The percentage of identity -me-, relationship -friends- and society
Finally, we confirm also the Convergence (H4). The fact that the social
cited in almost the whole of the texts shows that the risks of consumer exploitation exist but
are largely balanced out by consumer attention to the social content of services. What is si
nificant is that consumer and citizen interests do not appear in inverted order: for example, it
could be objected that communities like eBay and Groupon have a very small social dime
sion, but as a matter of fact, we found that dialogue is often about following the rules
about the experiential and psychological dimension of use (Figure 8). These are frequent si
nals that the convergence of interests is not taken for granted, and many consumers comment
on the need to be careful about their rewards. It is precisely this explicit mention of risks that
defense mechanism against negative aspects of the convergence taking place.
From our point view, this is new evidence of the convergence between the customer perspe
and the citizen perspective -logic of gift-.
ith the aim of analysing in more depth the available data-set and clustering the 20 pla
Principal component analysis (PCA) as to reduce the amount of redundant
information. We then inserted two new latent variables (Components 1 and 2) into
). These two components in fact explain 68.88% of the original variance of outputs.
51
ship (Amazon MTurk, eBay, City 2.0.). Moreover, values are very high in the “society” vari-
awareness of ethical implications of being continuously con-
and society -us-
social variables were
cited in almost the whole of the texts shows that the risks of consumer exploitation exist but
are largely balanced out by consumer attention to the social content of services. What is sig-
t appear in inverted order: for example, it
could be objected that communities like eBay and Groupon have a very small social dimen-
following the rules, and
8). These are frequent sig-
nals that the convergence of interests is not taken for granted, and many consumers comment
on the need to be careful about their rewards. It is precisely this explicit mention of risks that
against negative aspects of the convergence taking place.
From our point view, this is new evidence of the convergence between the customer perspec-
set and clustering the 20 plat-
reduce the amount of redundant
new latent variables (Components 1 and 2) into the model
). These two components in fact explain 68.88% of the original variance of outputs.
52
Figure 5 - The ranking of communities according to the concepts of money and gift
Source: own
Table 4 - The results of component analysis
Initial
Components Total % of variance
1 4.272 47.470
2 1.927 21.412
3 0.863 9.585
4 0.626 6.951
5 0.466 5.173
6 0.321 3.566
7 0.213 2.368
8 0.208 2.306
9 0.105 1.169
Source: own
Component 1 comprises the emotive world of
Component 2 comprises the rationale world of
sitioning of the 20 communities can be almost fully described by the two new Components
(Figure 6).
The 20 platforms studied clearly have different vocations. It is
strong vocation for the emotive world of
such as Warcraft or Pinterest, or for others like City 2.0, Nextdoor or Tripadvisor more f
cused on the rationale world of
“Innocentive” proves to be ranked quite high in both these types. This finding confirms
digital conversations are focussed not only on customers’ benefits
also on citizens benefits- identity, friends, society.
convergence between the customer perspective
logic of gift.
The ranking of communities according to the concepts of money and gift
The results of component analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction sum of squared loadings
% of variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance
47.470 47.470 4.272 47.470
21.412 68.882 1.927 21.412
9.585 78.467
6.951 85.418
5.173 90.591
3.566 94.157
2.368 96.525
2.306 98.831
1.169 100.000
comprises the emotive world of “creativity, individual and friends”
comprises the rationale world of “planning, price, quality and society”.
sitioning of the 20 communities can be almost fully described by the two new Components
The 20 platforms studied clearly have different vocations. It is not possible to identify a
strong vocation for the emotive world of “creativity, individual and friends”
such as Warcraft or Pinterest, or for others like City 2.0, Nextdoor or Tripadvisor more f
cused on the rationale world of “planning, price, quality and society”.
“Innocentive” proves to be ranked quite high in both these types. This finding confirms
digital conversations are focussed not only on customers’ benefits- price quality
identity, friends, society. It means that we are definitely seeing a new
convergence between the customer perspective- logic of money – and the citizen perspective
The ranking of communities according to the concepts of money and gift
Extraction sum of squared loadings
% of Variance Cumulative %
47.470 47.470
21.412 68.882
“creativity, individual and friends” and
“planning, price, quality and society”. The po-
sitioning of the 20 communities can be almost fully described by the two new Components
not possible to identify a
“creativity, individual and friends” for platforms
such as Warcraft or Pinterest, or for others like City 2.0, Nextdoor or Tripadvisor more fo-
ce, quality and society”. A vocation as
“Innocentive” proves to be ranked quite high in both these types. This finding confirms that
price quality and time- but
It means that we are definitely seeing a new
and the citizen perspective –
Figure 6 - Crowdsourcing platforms positioning
Source: own
5. Conclusion
This paper employed logic and empirical evidence to focus on the new positive
of customers and citizens at work. The metrics of the Co
and reinforce the basic idea of convergence between the customer
ey- and the citizen perspective
cent case histories focusing on the managerial implications of the new social game.
The hypothesis of convergence was proven through the
tion between customer and companies from 20 international crowd
findings show that the continuous
(customer and/or citizens) are changing the va
a renewed social sensitivity, which is clearly influenced by
new context, co-advertising is the co
volvement since individuals’ conversations are strongly influenced by the social desire to
share personal experiences, knowledge and opinions about the companies or brands they i
teract with.
Consequently, companies are able to promote, mediate and intercept customers’ con
sations, but the only possibility for individuals is to keep companies under non
observation. The new overlap of
panies and individuals’ responsibility, and reduce the distance betwee
Crowdsourcing platforms positioning
This paper employed logic and empirical evidence to focus on the new positive
customers and citizens at work. The metrics of the Co-Value Model were used to measure
and reinforce the basic idea of convergence between the customer perspective
and the citizen perspective -logic of gift-. The model was applied to a large number of r
on the managerial implications of the new social game.
The hypothesis of convergence was proven through the analysis of continuous convers
tion between customer and companies from 20 international crowd-sourcing platforms. The
continuous digital conversations between companies and individuals
(customer and/or citizens) are changing the value creation process. Convergence is driven by
a renewed social sensitivity, which is clearly influenced by collective responsibilities.
is the co-creation construct with the highest level of consumer i
dividuals’ conversations are strongly influenced by the social desire to
share personal experiences, knowledge and opinions about the companies or brands they i
Consequently, companies are able to promote, mediate and intercept customers’ con
sations, but the only possibility for individuals is to keep companies under non
observation. The new overlap of dialogue and sale can generate a positive loop between co
panies and individuals’ responsibility, and reduce the distance between market and society.
53
This paper employed logic and empirical evidence to focus on the new positive convergence
Value Model were used to measure
perspective- logic of mon-
. The model was applied to a large number of re-
on the managerial implications of the new social game.
continuous conversa-
sourcing platforms. The
digital conversations between companies and individuals
lue creation process. Convergence is driven by
collective responsibilities. In the
creation construct with the highest level of consumer in-
dividuals’ conversations are strongly influenced by the social desire to
share personal experiences, knowledge and opinions about the companies or brands they in-
Consequently, companies are able to promote, mediate and intercept customers’ conver-
sations, but the only possibility for individuals is to keep companies under non-contractual
can generate a positive loop between com-
n market and society.
54
Our panel of 4,601 texts was not geographically defined and this could represent a limita-
tion of the results. Furthermore, although numerous studies show how socio-demographic
characteristics influence the interaction between customers and companies, this study makes
no cross-cultural analysis. In this perspective recent studies on peer-to-peer communication
show their interaction varies according to the gender and origin of the user.
Moreover, our analysis does not consider the factors of mediation and moderation exist-
ing in forums and reviews, especially online. An additional avenue for future research could
be to test the new co-value model in different industries and cluster the role of digital conver-
sations in various contexts. Moreover, it would be interesting to analyze the role of various
tools used by customers during their conversation. In fact, new technologies, and in particular
mobile devices, could lead to new form of dialogue and value co-creation. Finally, the seman-
tic mining of words and texts could be conducted with more advanced solutions. This requires
a fine tuning of professional software in line with recent developments in the field.
Methodology Appendix
For Facebook we used Spiderbook, a tool developed by a web metrics company CaffeinaLab.
The key word for the search was the name of the service (e.g. TripAdvisor). Spiderbook yields
the public status of users who were then reclassified for the purposes of analysis. The public
status shows:
• No. of friends + No. of friends of commentators (reach)
• No. of ‘likes’ (engagement)
• No. of comments (engagement: Comments on status have the same audience as the "
father status" and no result in terms of engagement.
• No. of ‘share this’ (engagement)
Not all results have the same level of importance. Importance depends on a combination of
"reach" (the extent of the audience who could in theory receive the message) and "engage-
ment" (actual reaction on the part of receivers).
Here is an example expressed algebraically. Two statuses - X and Y- each describe a varia-
ble:
• Status X is written by a boy who has 1000 friends and Y by a girl who has 100;
• X gets 300 likes, 3 comments and 10 shares;
• Y gets 30 likes, 30 comments and 100 shares;
The weight of X is: 1000*300*3*10: 9,000,000 and the weight of Y is 100*30*30*100:
9,000,000. If there are no other comments, the system thus weighs X and Y at 50% each.
For Twitter we used its own search engine selecting “All” and set the key word as the name of
the service without the hashtag (#). This shows all single mentions. Relevant replies to tweets
were also included. The relative weighting of reach and engagement was carried out using the
same principles as for Facebook and the following parameters:
• No. of followers (reach)
• No. of retweets (engagement)
• No. of replies to tweet (engagement): Replies” have the same audience as the ‘parent
tweet’ and were given no weight for engagement.
• No. of "favourites", in other word the number of times a tweet was added as a favour-
ite by a follower.
For the search on Google Blog the keyword was again the name of the service. In cases where
there were fewer than 200 results, we used any available "Google Suggestions" to insert a
term to help the search. If possible we used terms link
ample "used TripAdvisor", “got TripAdvisor
For Google Blog, reach and engagement
number of comments on each message.
In the final weighing, the three sources were given a weight corresponding to the number of
mentions in each. The final result, the ‘web sentiment’, is thus a weighted average of opinions
expressed by individual users.
References
1. Arnould, E. J., Price L. L.
Theory of the Customer. In: Lusch, R.F., & Vargo, S.L. editors.
Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions
NY: ME Sharpe.
2. Ate, Z. & Buttgen, M. (2009).
ganisations: an institutional and economic perspective. Proceeding Acts, 2009
Forum On Services.
3. Ballantyne, D. & Varey, R. J. (2008).
marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
4. Bateson, J. E. G. (1983). “The Self
Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing
Upah, eds., Chicago, American Marketing As
5. Belk, R. (2010). “Sharing”.
6. Bendapudi, N. & Leone, R. P. (2003).
ticipation in Co-Production.
7. Bergquist, M. & Ljungberg, J. (2001). The power of gifts: organizing social relatio
ships in open source communities.
8. Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer Voluntary Performance: Customers as Partners in
Service Delivery. Journal of Reta
9. Bowen, D. E. & Schneider, B. (1988). Services Marketing and Management: Implic
tions for Organizational Behavior. In
Staw, L. L. Cummings, eds., vol. 10, 43
10. Bowen, J. T. (1990) Developm
keting Insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
11. Bowers, M. R., Martin, C. L. & Luker, A. (1990). Trading places: employees as cu
tomers, customers as employees.
12. Brodie, R. J., Coviello, N. E., Brooks, R. W. & Little, V. (1997). Towards a Paradigm
Shift in Marketing? An Examination of Current Marketing Practices.
keting Management, 13 (5), 383
13. Buttgen, M. (2008) The
ing Acts, Frontiers. In
14. Chase, R. B. (1978). Where does the Customer fit in a Service Operation.
Business Review, 56 (6), 137
15. Chia, S. C., Chay, Y. T., Cheong, P. K., Cheong, W. Y. & Lee, S. K. (2012). Fair and
Love. International Journal of Advertising,
16. Chu, S. C. & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking si
ing, 30 (1), 47–75.
term to help the search. If possible we used terms linked to the concept of “opinion”, for e
got TripAdvisor”, etc. Comments on posts were also evaluated.
engagement were measured using a single variable reflecting the
number of comments on each message.
the final weighing, the three sources were given a weight corresponding to the number of
mentions in each. The final result, the ‘web sentiment’, is thus a weighted average of opinions
expressed by individual users.
Arnould, E. J., Price L. L. & Malshe, A. (2006). Toward a Cultural Resource
Theory of the Customer. In: Lusch, R.F., & Vargo, S.L. editors.
Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, (320
Ate, Z. & Buttgen, M. (2009). Customer participation and its effects on service o
ganisations: an institutional and economic perspective. Proceeding Acts, 2009
Ballantyne, D. & Varey, R. J. (2008). The service-dominant logic and the future of
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 11
Bateson, J. E. G. (1983). “The Self-Service Customer – Empirical Findings”, in
Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, L. L. Berry, G. L. Shostack & G. D.
Upah, eds., Chicago, American Marketing Association, 50-83.
Belk, R. (2010). “Sharing”. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 715
Bendapudi, N. & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological Implications of Customer Pa
Production. Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 14-28.
ungberg, J. (2001). The power of gifts: organizing social relatio
ships in open source communities. Info Systems Journal, 11 (4), 305
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer Voluntary Performance: Customers as Partners in
Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 383-406.
Bowen, D. E. & Schneider, B. (1988). Services Marketing and Management: Implic
tions for Organizational Behavior. In Research in Organizational Behavior
Staw, L. L. Cummings, eds., vol. 10, 43-80.
Bowen, J. T. (1990) Development of a Taxonomy of Services to Gain Strategic Ma
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (1), 43
Bowers, M. R., Martin, C. L. & Luker, A. (1990). Trading places: employees as cu
tomers, customers as employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 4 (2), 55
Brodie, R. J., Coviello, N. E., Brooks, R. W. & Little, V. (1997). Towards a Paradigm
Shift in Marketing? An Examination of Current Marketing Practices.
, 13 (5), 383-406.
Buttgen, M. (2008) The co-creation of value: emotion, cognition, behavior. Procee
ing Acts, Frontiers. In Service Conference Washington, October 2008.
Chase, R. B. (1978). Where does the Customer fit in a Service Operation.
, 56 (6), 137-142.
Chay, Y. T., Cheong, P. K., Cheong, W. Y. & Lee, S. K. (2012). Fair and
International Journal of Advertising, 31 (1), 189-211.
Chu, S. C. & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic
mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Adverti
55
ed to the concept of “opinion”, for ex-
”, etc. Comments on posts were also evaluated.
were measured using a single variable reflecting the
the final weighing, the three sources were given a weight corresponding to the number of
mentions in each. The final result, the ‘web sentiment’, is thus a weighted average of opinions
& Malshe, A. (2006). Toward a Cultural Resource-Based
Theory of the Customer. In: Lusch, R.F., & Vargo, S.L. editors. The Service-
, (320-333). Armonk,
Customer participation and its effects on service or-
ganisations: an institutional and economic perspective. Proceeding Acts, 2009 Naples
dominant logic and the future of
, 36 (1), 11-14.
Empirical Findings”, in
, L. L. Berry, G. L. Shostack & G. D.
, 36 (5), 715-734.
Psychological Implications of Customer Par-
ungberg, J. (2001). The power of gifts: organizing social relation-
, 11 (4), 305–320.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer Voluntary Performance: Customers as Partners in
Bowen, D. E. & Schneider, B. (1988). Services Marketing and Management: Implica-
Research in Organizational Behavior, B. M.
ent of a Taxonomy of Services to Gain Strategic Mar-
, 18 (1), 43-49.
Bowers, M. R., Martin, C. L. & Luker, A. (1990). Trading places: employees as cus-
, 4 (2), 55-69.
Brodie, R. J., Coviello, N. E., Brooks, R. W. & Little, V. (1997). Towards a Paradigm
Shift in Marketing? An Examination of Current Marketing Practices. Journal of Mar-
creation of value: emotion, cognition, behavior. Proceed-
, October 2008.
Chase, R. B. (1978). Where does the Customer fit in a Service Operation. Harvard
Chay, Y. T., Cheong, P. K., Cheong, W. Y. & Lee, S. K. (2012). Fair and
Chu, S. C. & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic
International Journal of Advertis-
56
17. Cova, B. & Dalli, D. (2007). Community Made: From Consumer Resistance to Tribal
Entrepreneurship. In S. Borghini, M. A. McGrath & C. Otnes (eds) European Ad-
vances in Consumer Research 8, paper presented at the European Conference, Milan.
18. Cova, B. & Dalli, D. (2009). Working consumers: The next step in Marketing Theory?
Marketing Theory, 9 (3), 315-339.
19. Dholakia, N., Cabusas, J. J. & Wilcox, W. (2009). Consumer, Co-creators. Hackers
and Resisters: Conceptualizing techno-Savvy Resistance to brands and marketing.
University of Rhode Island, USA. Advances in Consumer Research Journal, 8, 241.
20. Dujarier, M. A. (2009). Il lavoro del consumatore. Come produciamo ciò che com-
priamo, Milano, Egea.
21. Duque, D., Baird, J. & Black, S. (2009). False-belief understanding in frontotemporal
dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsy-
chology, 31 (4), 489-497.
22. Etgar, M. (2008). Descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal
of Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 97-109.
23. Faranda, W. T. (1994). Customer Participation in Service Production: An Empirical
Assessment of the Influence of Realistic Service Previews: unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation. Arizona State University.
24. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The Multiple Socialization of Organization Members. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 6 (2), 309-318.
25. Firat, A. F. (1991). Postmodern culture, marketing and the consumer. In Childers T.L.
et al. editors (237-242). Marketing Theory and Application. Chicago, IL: American
Marketing Association.
26. Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N. & Venkatesh, A. (2005). Marketing in a Postmodern world.
European Journal of Marketing, 29 (1), 40-56.
27. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialisation: an integrative review. In K.M.
Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Man-
agement, 4, 101-145.
28. Gilde, S., Pace, S., Pervane, S. J. & Strong, C. (2011). Examining the boundary condi-
tions of customer citizenship behaviour: a focus on consumption ritual. Journal of
strategic Marketing, 19 (7), 619-631.
29. Goudarzi, K. (2009). The effective of socializing service customers. Proceeding Acts,
the 2009 Naples Forum On Services.
30. Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates?
European Business Review, 20 (4), 298-314.
31. Gummesson, E. (2002). Relationship marketing and a new economy: it’s time for de-
programming. Journal of Services Marketing, 16 (7), 585-589.
32. Gummesson, E. (2011). 2B or not 2B: That is the question. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40, 190-192.
33. Helkkula, A., Philström, M. & Kelleher, C. (2009). From customer Perceived Value
(PERVAL) to Value in Context Experience (VALCONEX). In E. Gummesson, Pro-
ceeding Acts, the 2009 Naples Forum On Services.
34. Henning-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G. & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic
Word-of-Mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articu-
late themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (1), 38-52.
35. Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices”.
Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 1-16.
36. Humphreys, A. & Grayson, K. (2008). The Intersecting Roles of C
ducer: A Critical Perspective on Co
ogy Compass, 2.
37. Jeong, H. J. & Lee, M. (2013). Effects of recommendation systems on consumer i
ferences of website motives and attitudes towards a website.
Advertising, 32 (4), 539
38. Keh, H. T. & Teo, C. W. (2001). Retail Customers as Partial Employees in Service
Provision: A Conceptual Framework.
Management, 29 (8), 370
39. Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. & Skinner, S. (1990). Customer partecipation in service
production and delivery.
40. Kelley, S. W., Skinner, S. J. & Donnelly, J. H. Jr. (1992). Organizational Socialisation
of Service Customers. Proceedi
41. Kendrick, J. W. (1985). Measurement of Output and Productivity in the Service Se
tor. In R. P. Inman (ed.)
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 111
42. Kilambi, A., Laroche, M. & Richard, M. O. (2013). Constitutive marketing. Towards
understanding brand community formation.
(1), 45-64.
43. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: using Netnography for Mark
Research in online communities.
44. Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J. & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational
Socialization: Its Content and Consequences.
730-743.
45. Leavy, B. (2004). Partnering with the customer.
46. Lusch, R. F. & Vargo, S. L. (2004).
ing. Journal of Marketing
47. Maglio, P. P. & Spohrer, J. (2008).
Academy of Marketing Science
48. Manolis, C., Meamber, L. A., Winsor, R. D. & Brooks, C. M. (2001). Partial emplo
ees and consumers: A postmodern, meta
ing. Marketing Theory
49. Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C. & de Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual
P3 community. Journal of Consumer Research
50. Michel, S., Brown, S. W. & Gallan, A. S. (2008).
Innovate Customers, not Products (Forthcoming).
(3).
51. Mills, P. K. & Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as ‘Partial’ Employees of Service Organ
zations: Role Development in Client Participation.
11 (4), 726-735.
52. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market
research relationship. Journal of Marketing,
53. Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J. & Bergeron, J. (2006). Service climate and organizational
commitment: The importance of customer linkages.
(8), 906-915.
54. Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Humphreys, A. & Grayson, K. (2008). The Intersecting Roles of C
ducer: A Critical Perspective on Co-production, Co-creation and Prosumption.
Jeong, H. J. & Lee, M. (2013). Effects of recommendation systems on consumer i
ferences of website motives and attitudes towards a website. International Journal of
, 32 (4), 539-558.
Keh, H. T. & Teo, C. W. (2001). Retail Customers as Partial Employees in Service
Provision: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
, 29 (8), 370-378.
W., Donnelly, J. & Skinner, S. (1990). Customer partecipation in service
production and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66 (3), 315-335.
Kelley, S. W., Skinner, S. J. & Donnelly, J. H. Jr. (1992). Organizational Socialisation
of Service Customers. Proceeding Acts, the 2009 Naples Forum On Services
Kendrick, J. W. (1985). Measurement of Output and Productivity in the Service Se
tor. In R. P. Inman (ed.) Managing the Service Economy. Prospects and Problems,
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 111-123.
Kilambi, A., Laroche, M. & Richard, M. O. (2013). Constitutive marketing. Towards
understanding brand community formation. International Journal of Advertising
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: using Netnography for Mark
Research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (Feb), 61
Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J. & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational
Socialization: Its Content and Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology
Leavy, B. (2004). Partnering with the customer. Strategy & Leadership
Lusch, R. F. & Vargo, S. L. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marke
Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17.
Maglio, P. P. & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science.
Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 18-20.
Manolis, C., Meamber, L. A., Winsor, R. D. & Brooks, C. M. (2001). Partial emplo
ees and consumers: A postmodern, meta-theoretical perspective for services marke
, 1 (2), 225–243.
Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C. & de Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual
Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 832-849.
Michel, S., Brown, S. W. & Gallan, A. S. (2008). Service-Logic Innova
Innovate Customers, not Products (Forthcoming). California Management Review
Mills, P. K. & Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as ‘Partial’ Employees of Service Organ
zations: Role Development in Client Participation. Academy of Managemen
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market
Journal of Marketing, 57 (21), 81-102
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J. & Bergeron, J. (2006). Service climate and organizational
commitment: The importance of customer linkages. Journal of Business Research
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 83-96.
57
Humphreys, A. & Grayson, K. (2008). The Intersecting Roles of Consumer and Pro-
creation and Prosumption. Sociol-
Jeong, H. J. & Lee, M. (2013). Effects of recommendation systems on consumer in-
ternational Journal of
Keh, H. T. & Teo, C. W. (2001). Retail Customers as Partial Employees in Service
International Journal of Retail & Distribution
W., Donnelly, J. & Skinner, S. (1990). Customer partecipation in service
Kelley, S. W., Skinner, S. J. & Donnelly, J. H. Jr. (1992). Organizational Socialisation
Naples Forum On Services.
Kendrick, J. W. (1985). Measurement of Output and Productivity in the Service Sec-
. Prospects and Problems,
Kilambi, A., Laroche, M. & Richard, M. O. (2013). Constitutive marketing. Towards
International Journal of Advertising, 32
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: using Netnography for Marketing
39 (Feb), 61-72.
Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J. & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (5),
Leadership, 32 (4), 10-13.
Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Market-
Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the
Manolis, C., Meamber, L. A., Winsor, R. D. & Brooks, C. M. (2001). Partial employ-
theoretical perspective for services market-
Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C. & de Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual
Logic Innovations: How to
California Management Review, 50
Mills, P. K. & Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as ‘Partial’ Employees of Service Organi-
Academy of Management Review,
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J. & Bergeron, J. (2006). Service climate and organizational
Journal of Business Research, 59
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
58
55. Plè, L. & Càceres, R. C. (2010). Not always Co-creation: Introducing Interactional
Co-destruction of Value in Service-dominant Logic. Journal of Service Marketing, 26
(6), 430-437.
56. Preece, J. (2001). Online Communities: Usability, Sociability, Theory and Methods.
In, Earnshaw, R., Guedj, R., van Dam, A. & Vince T. editors, Frontiers of Human-
centered Computing, Online Communities and Virtual Environments (263-277). Am-
sterdam: Springer Verlag.
57. Ravald, A. (2010). The consumer’s Process of value creation. Mercati e Competitività,
1 (1).
58. Salmon, C. (2008). StoryTelling. La fabbrica delle Storie, Roma, Fazi Editore.
59. Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M. Jr. & Arnould E. J. (2009). How brand Community Prac-
tices Create Value. Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 30-51.
60. Seraj, M. (2012). We create, we connect and we respect. Journal of Interactive Mar-
keting, 26 (April), 209-222.
61. Strutton, D., Taylor, D. G. & Thompson, K. (2011). Investigating generational differ-
ences in e-WOM behaviours. International Journal of Advertising, 30 (4), 559-586.
62. Thota, S. W., Song, J. & Biswas, A. (2012). Is a website known by the banner ads it
hosts? Assessing forward and reciprocal spillover effects of banner ads and host web-
sites. International Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), 877–905.
63. Uzoamaka, A. & Jeffrey, G. (1999). Effective socialization of employees: Socializa-
tion content perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11 (3), 315-329.
64. Vijande, S. M. L., Mieres, G. C. & Sanches, L. A. (2009). Innovativeness and firms’
valuation of customer and First line employees as co-producer in new service devel-
opment: impact on performance. Proceeding Acts, the 2009 Naples Forum On Ser-
vices.
65. Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P. & Troye S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume: Toward a theory of
consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 36 (1),
109-122
66. Zeithaml, V. A. & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus Across the Firm. New York; McGraw- Hill.