Tine Grarup Master Thesis Corporate Communication June Acknowledgements

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Tine Grarup Master Thesis Corporate Communication June Acknowledgements"

Transcription

1 Acknowledgements This thesis is an invitation to think differently about brand value creation and a call to action for other academics to take up the discussion and carry on the journey of research on unfamiliar areas of the co-creation of value. Inspired by the relevance of the concept of co-creation and its appearing future significance, this master thesis was initiated. The field of study caught my attention especially with the work of the cocreation pioneers Prahalad and Ramaswamy, and encouraged my motivation to take a closer look and learn more. A thesis about co-creation naturally has many co-creators. Thanks to everyone that has tapped in this co-creative process my supervisor Anne, the focus group and interview respondents, friends and family. You have truly participated in co-creating this thesis. /Tine Enjoy the reading! 1/183

2 Abstract This thesis is based on an interest in the concept of co-creation and its relation to the field of branding. Inspired by the increasing relevance of co-creation and its appearing future significance, the thesis attends identified research gaps and limited knowledge on how the concept influences and is established within the branding paradigm. As a consequence of postmodern consumer tendencies, with increasingly active and social consumers, the ordinary notion of the market is being challenged, and new modes of value creation and interaction are needed. In this manner, the co-creation of value gains relevance and attention. The purpose of this thesis is to unfold the complex concept of co-creation from a consumer perspective and in the context of the branding paradigm, and further contribute with new knowledge and a broader perspective to the field. In this effort the thesis theoretically examines existing co-creation and further clarifies the development of co-creation and its relation to and influence on the developing branding paradigm. To uncover consumers understanding of the concept and brand value hereof, qualitative research approaches of a focus group and supporting interviews are used to explore meanings and discourses. The findings emphasize that a mutual ongoing brand interaction, being the essence of co-creation, will positively affect consumers attitudes towards co-creation and the likelihood of brand identification. Findings moreover uncover that co-creation is not as straightforward among consumers as depicted in theory; co-creation is a social construct with the understanding and value hereof being individual and context-dependent. Based on the overall theoretical and empirical findings a conceptual framework is generated providing a new setup for co-creation in relation to brand value and identification, thus the thesis provides new insights and is theory building with contributions to the field and study of co-creation. In the light of the findings provided, the research further lends insight into the practice of managing co-creation. With a social constructionist viewpoint the aim is not to arrive at certain generalizable knowledge and provide closure, rather the study wishes build further suspense and directions for future research. Keywords: Co-creation, brand value, brand identification, mutual interaction, brand relationship, social connections, postmodern consumer. Total number of characters: /183

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... 1 Abstract... 2 List of figures... 5 List of tables Introduction Research background Identification of research gaps Research aim, questions and milestones Research scope and delimitations Theoretical frame Conceptual clarification Thesis structure readers guide Scientific methodology Scientific standpoint Social constructionism Philosophical hermeneutics and the hermeneutic circle Social constructionism and hermeneutics in this study Introductions to the research methodology Theoretical Framework A postmodern context Postmodern consumer culture Consumer empowerment through social technologies The transforming fields of branding From a product to value perspective Towards a relational brand perspective Co-creation a new corner of branding The Co-creation design Routes of co-creation Motivation and value of co-creation Consumer motivation for co-creation Brand motivation for co-creation Brand identification through co-creation Interaction human-to-human Interaction as a social construction Theoretical subset and conceptual framework Research Methodology Methodology Selection of respondents Semi structured interviews Analytical strategy Method reflections /183

4 4.3.1 Research evaluation and value Data analysis and discussion The discourse of co-creation Negotiating brands Routes of co-creation Customization as co-creation? Brand identification through co-creation Prior brand knowledge and relationship Spoken discourse and social identity Value assets of co-creation Brand relationship Social peer connections Utilization of the co-creation experience Self-expression Co-creation requires trust and honesty Brand skepticism The question of brand Loyalty Analytical impact and perspective Evaluation and further development of conceptual framework Analytical perspective Conclusion & future research Contribution to knowledge Theoretical Implications Practical Implications Limitations and future research References Appendix 1: Lawell s Communication model Appendix 2: Kotler s Marketing Management Appendix 4: Kapferer s Brand Identity Prism Appendix 5: Brand Personality Appendix 6: Fournier s relationship perspective Appendix 7: Case examples for the focus group Appendix 8: Nike+ case example Appendix 9: Focus group guide Appendix 10: Interview guide Appendix 11: Transcription details and data coding Appendix 12: Focus group transcription Appendix 13: Transcription of interview with K Appendix 14: Transcription of interview with R Appendix 15: Transcription of interview with D /183

5 List of figures Figure 1: The Hermeneutic Circle Figure 2: The developing perspective on branding Figure 3: The emerging concept of the market inspired by Figure 4: Building blocks of co-creation of value Figure 5: Co-creation examples Figure 6: The developed relations perspective Figure 7: Conceptual framework Figure 8: Overview of empirical data Figure 9: Analytical process Figure 10: Modification of co-creation examples Figure 11: Modified conceptual framework Figure 12: Laswell s communication model Figure 13: Elements in the communications process Figure 14: Kotler s marketing mix Figure 15: Aaker s brand identity system Figure 16: Kapferer s Brand Identity Prism Figure 17: A brand personality framework Figure 18: Relationship strength Figure 19: The LEGO CUUSOO Process Figure 20: Jury statements Core Design Awards Figure 21: Illustrations of the BMW Co-creation Lab Figure 22: Illustrations of the DANONE Activia Advisory Board Figure 23: The Nike+ brand and community List of tables Table 1: Research milestones... 9 Table 2: Ontology, epistemology, and methodology Table 3: The shift in corporate and marketing thinking Table 4: Suggested value assets of co-creation Table 5: List of interviewed respondents for the focus group Table 6: List of interviewed respondents for the individual interviews Table 7: Overview of themes and subthemes used for analysis Table 8: Conversation fragment from focus group Table 9: Conversation fragment 2 from focus group Table 10: Kapferer s six identity facets Table 11: Included symbols in transcriptions /183

6 1 Introduction 1.1 Research background As a consequence of increasingly fragmented markets with postmodern consumers being more connected, empowered and active, the ordinary notion of the market is being challenged (Roser et al., 2009: 4; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b: 3). Times have changed and focus within the market is shifting from tangibles and towards intangibles, the previous focus on exchange of products and services is being replaced by a focus on shared knowledge, interaction, and ongoing relationships (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Recent research has moreover addressed a shift in value creation and implied that consumers are inherently creative and increasingly seek to co-create value through their consumption patterns and social interaction (Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010a; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b: 3; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Arvidsson, 2011). Consumers are thus more than ever actively seeking influence of the business system (ibid.). Together with new technologies, these market changes further transform the nature of the relationship between brand and consumers, as they are now creating new modes of production and innovation that enable and encourage greater degrees of participation and collaboration (Roser et al., 2009: 4). Consumers expectations of engagement, increased connectivity and competiveness are therefore exerting pressure on brands to adopt more innovative mindsets. These increasingly complex and dynamic market realities require brands in today s economy to continuously reinvent themselves and make better use of their competences to sustain market positions and competitive strength (Rowley et al., 2007: 136; Christensen et al., 2005: 158). Consumers today have more choices than ever before, but they seem dissatisfied (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 5), they have, in line with the increasing supply and availability, developed new requirements and emerging needs for involvement. Moreover consumers get infuriated by irrelevant messages, and thus tend to block most communication, giving the brands the deaf ear and blind eye (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). While brands are less able to differentiate themselves amongst the many competitors and options, value-creation has become a dominant factor in establishing 6/183

7 growth (ibid.). More and more brands have approached proposed market changes and taken up the creative potential that lies in jointly creating value with consumers, a concept of growing interest and often referred to as co-creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Gouillart, 2010; Hoyeret al., 2010). Co-creation flips the traditional innovation model on its head, turning a sequential process into a parallel one (Yanning, 2011). By redefining the meaning and process of value creation, co-creation is told to change the basis of value and the fundamental interaction between consumers and brands (Roser et al., 2009; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Grarup, 2012). Thus brands should recognize that the consumers are becoming a vital partner in creating value, and need to make use of their competences to succeed in today s postmodern marketplace (Christensen et al., 2005: 164). Co-creation influences the way we see brands and branding, connecting a subject merely associated with logos, packaging and advertising with the focus and framework for innovation and interaction (Ind et al., 2012; Fisher & Smith, 2011). This development of value creation has therefore not only changed the notion of the market but is also argued to be challenging the branding paradigm and the traditional and much used theoretical viewpoints herein. 1.2 Identification of research gaps While the concept of co-creation has received increased recognition and academic attention, there are still various aspects to be addressed in order to attain a full understanding of the concept and for the field to progress (Hoyer etal., 2010; Arvidsson, 2011). This section will present some overall research gaps in need of further attention. Co-creation has gained ground in recent years (Gouillart, 2010; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b), and researchers anticipate that the emergent interactive market perspective and the interest in co-creation will play a significant role in altering the way the marketing sphere is perceived (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Degnegaard, 2014). However, there is little literature on and considerations of how the concept influences and is established within the more traditional branding paradigm (Fisher & Smith, 2011). A reason hereto could be grounded in the fact that most innovators see branding as proscribed, creating limits for the literature developments in relation to the branding paradigm (Ind et al., 2012: 2). However if the brand is understood as a set of ideas defining why the brand, product, or service exists and behaves the way it does, one will 7/183

8 be able to realize that brands too creates a focus and framework for innovation (ibid.). Thus creating an uncharted link between the innovative co-creation and the branding paradigm. With headlines and topics such as Build with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b), Building the Co-Creative Enterprise (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010a), and The role of the firm in value creation (Grönroos, 2011), existing research very much highlights the business perspective of co-creation. While many have hailed co-creation, as a highly promising development for brands, there is little research and empirical insights available that tap into the deeper consumer understanding and social value processes of co-creation (Edvardsson et al., 2011: 337). Much research depicts the consumer motivation and talks of the engaged and active consumer, who is dissatisfied with present choices and want to interact with brands and thus co-create (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). However no one seems to be asking what consumers actually understand by co-creation, and how it affects their long-term opinion on and identification with the brand beyond their immediate motivation. As argued by Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder (2011: 320) there is a need to draw a richer picture of how consumers understand and interact with value creation. Moreover, many co-creation studies are conducted through quantitative measures or qualitative measures not adequately documented for the reader (Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This implies that existing research has been constructed mainly on the basis of consumer behavior, rather than consumer attitudes and feelings, which may have inhibited the advancement of co-creation guidelines. While such research provides foundational insight, this study maintains that co-creation research falls short without the in-depth understanding of consumers attitudes and feelings, which only qualitative research can provide. Consequently, it is these unanswered matters that make up the point of departure for this study s explorations. 1.3 Research aim, questions and milestones Motivated by the identified research gaps above, the aim of this study is to unfold the concept of co-creation in relation to the branding paradigm in which the concept sits and further create new knowledge in the area and understanding of co-creation from a 8/183

9 consumer perspective. The study will explore the antecedents of the current interpretation of co-creation and demonstrate how a broader perspective that draws on different branding disciplines can help deliver a more sustainable approach. The aim is reached in the process of answering the following research questions: (1) How is the concept of co-creation influencing the more traditional branding paradigm? (2) How do consumers understand co-creation and how does co-creation affect their creation of brand value as means to brand identification? To support this research aim and help guide the clarification of the research questions, five milestones for examination have been identified, as illustrated in table 1. These milestones contain elements seen as relevant and necessary to access and investigate in order to answer the two research questions. Milestone Description and action To explore and account for the context of a postmodern consumer culture 1 and the developments within the branding paradigm. To explore and recognize the area of current co-creation theory, and its 2 connection to the traditional branding literature, in order to develop a conceptual framework based on existing theory and the evaluation hereof. To explore, analyze and discuss research participants understanding of 3 the concept of co-creation and the brand discourses that surround it. To evaluate the analytical impact and further develop the conceptual 4 framework. 5 To provide contributions of knowledge to the area of co-creation. Table 1: Research milestones (compiled by the author) In order to attend these above milestones, the study will apply a qualitative research approach with a mix of methodological and theoretical inclusion whereby findings are discussed and evaluated in relation to literature and context. 1.4 Research scope and delimitations The overall research scope of this study configures around an overview of the development of co-creation within the branding paradigm and the understanding of the concept in the eyes of consumers, with emphasis on interaction and brand value creation. This is achieved though a theoretical review and evaluation together with a qualitative research with a focus group and three interviews. As the subject area of this thesis covers more aspects than the scope allows one to elaborate on, an exhaustive description of all aspects is outside the remit. Thus, a few delimitations have been necessary. Given the research aim and questions highlighted above the study has 9/183

10 limited itself to an examination of co-creation in relation to consumers, thus excluding other relevant stakeholder groups. Multiple stakeholders can be engaged in different types of value co-creation (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010a; Ramaswamy, 2011), however the focus here is on consumers. Moreover, in limiting the scope of the study to intangible and intrinsic values of co-creation, the discussion of the more economic and profit related values are excluded. In this respect, the concept of value is neither examined in depth from a social sciences perspective, rather it is understood as the principles that guide actions, and only briefly clarified on in section 1.6. The study illustrates how the development and understanding of co-creation suggest a need for further focus on the elements within interaction - both the one between brands and consumers and the social networks surrounding it, and how these elements create brand value (chapter 5). Thus, the study, aside from answering the research questions, further aims to highlight new co-creation-related issues and challenges. It is recognized that the concept and context of co-creation further invites diversified views and other concepts to be discussed, such as communities, experience marketing, innovation etc., however due to time and scope limits this will not be focus for discussion in this study. 1.5 Theoretical frame The literature chosen for analysis and expansion of the concept of co-creation within this thesis is of different nature in order to embrace the many elements and the broad context. The theoretical framework is threefold, and firstly involves literature and theory of the postmodern market developments and consumer culture, with the following dominating scholars: Firat and Venkatesh (1993), Firat and Schultz (1997), Cova (1996), Christensen et al. (2005) and Fisher and Smith (2011). These theories contribute with a clarification of the context and conditions wherein the branding paradigm has transformed, as well as an imperative understanding of the consumer culture in which research participants live and interact. Secondly, leading literature within the transforming field of branding is included to understand the development and to construct a theoretical foundation for the forthcoming elaboration and analysis on co-creation. Here research by scholars such as Aaker (1996), Kapferer (1997), Fournier (1998), and Hanby (1999) is drawn upon to paint the more traditional picture of branding, from which co-creation stems. Subsequent hereto literature on co-creation 10/183

11 is examined with main reference to the following scholars: Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000; 2004; 2005) Gouillart (2010) Arvidsson (2011), Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a; 2010b), Ind et al. (2012), and Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder (2011). While it is recognizes that Vargo and Lush (2004) with their well-cited service-dominant logic of marketing also contribute to the literature of co-creation and value, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) 1 are more dominant within the co-creation and branding field of research (Degnegaard, 2014) and situated in a branding discourse similar to the one of this study. Hence, this thesis will predominantly draw on co-creation research by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). Further, in line with the focus of this study, Prahalad and Ramaswamy s research demonstrates that the co-creation of value goes beyond the product and service, and involves aspects of experience and social interactions (Degnegaard, 2014). Lastly the branding literature, mentioned above, is again included and reconfigured in relation to the concept of co-creation, to develop a conceptual framework and a foundation for analysis. This thesis thereby touches upon many different theoretical aspects that together they form a constellation that contributes with relevance and significance to the study. More scholars are of course used than the ones mentioned here, however they are merely of supporting nature for which reason they have not been accentuated here. 1.6 Conceptual clarification The ambivalent concept of value is used throughout the study, however as the theoretical framework does not go into depth with the definition hereof, it is found relevant to include here. The understanding of value used in this study is not as traditionally seen within the discipline of economics and monetary forms (Cova & Dalli, 2009: 333; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), rather it is argued that the present market situations have caused the concept of value to be intensified within new approaches. The more emotional and intangible factors are now in focus when talking about value, and within this study it is merely understood as the principles that guide actions and the individual judgment of importance (Arvidsson, 2011). In terms of value co-creation the study refers to the form of value that is generated through interaction (chapter 3). 1 Later Ramaswamy and Gouillart, as Prahalad sadly passes away in /183

12 Additionally the study does not make any clear distinction between the two terms brand and business. In the interest of simplicity and relevance to the study within branding, the study will merely, in a generic way, refer to the term brand. 1.7 Thesis structure readers guide This section will briefly outline the structure of the thesis in order to guide readers and provide an insight into how the research questions are answered. The thesis is divided into seven chapters. This section completes chapter one and hereby the introductory sections. Chapter two clarifies the thesis scientific standpoint and method, being social constructionism and hermeneutics, thus the chapter serves as a prerequisite for understanding the foundation of the study. Chapter three is the theoretical framework introducing the context of postmodernism, and the transforming field of branding and co-creation as a concept. This is done though a theoretical clarification and evaluation of relevant literature, as discussed in section 1.5. The chapter concludes with a conceptual framework, connecting co-creation with brand value and identification, hence setting the required ground for the data collection, analysis, and discussion, thereby attending milestone one and two (section 1.3). Within chapter four the research methodology and strategy for analysis is introduced. Chapter five then congregates the research findings into analysis and discussion of observations and discourses, attending milestone three. Chapter six attends milestone four in further linking the analysis and discussion with the theoretical review in order to modify and further develop the conceptual framework and put the findings into perspective. Finally chapter seven concludes the study and answers the research questions by summarizing the research findings and results. Moreover the final chapter provides the study s contribution to knowledge attending milestone five, and acknowledges its limitations and recommendations for future research. 12/183

13 2 Scientific methodology This section will present the thesis methodological framework, specifying the assumptions about the reality of the study s quest for knowledge in answering the research questions. The framework operates as a foundation and overall paradigm of the thesis, and by extension, it outlines the ontological, epistemological and methodological considerations and choices. 2.1 Scientific standpoint Scientific studies are influenced by different observations of reality. These observations can be placed in paradigms, staging the views of reality and the world that is applicable to the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1985: 17). Guba and Lincoln (1985) speak of four general paradigms: the positivist, the neo-positivist, critical, and the social constructivist paradigm. These paradigms are distinguished and designed by each their relation to ontology, epistemology, and methodology, described in table 2 below. The philosophical terms and related questions should be answered in a chronological order, since the ontology leads to an epistemological assumption, which determines a certain methodology. Philosophical Term Explanation Ontology Philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. Epistemology General set of assumptions about the best ways of recognizing reality. Methodology Combination of practices used to examine reality. Table 2: Ontology, epistemology, and methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1985) Scientifically this thesis is founded in the social constructionist paradigm, assuming that reality and knowledge is socially constructed and therefore relative, hence as society changes so do ideas, ideologies and values (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Andrews, 2012). However, social constructionism is de-ontological, with ontology as a domain seeking to define what is real, this is, from a social-constructive approach, thus irrelevant. Rather the interest is in the way one recognizes and examines reality. In the following sections social constructionism is explained and linked to the epistemology and methodology of this study. 13/183

14 2.1.1 Social constructionism Social constructionism is the philosophical and epistemological basic premise that all human knowledge is socially constructed (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003; Bryman, 2012: 33). Designating that all forms of knowledge occurs via a framework of understanding that is not innate, but the result of the cultural and historical past in which the individual is part of (Burr, 2003). Social constructionism cautions us to be critical of our assumptions and ways of understanding the world (ibid.). Advocates of this paradigm reject the possibility of objective knowledge and stress in turn the cognition of social elements, which means that knowledge is sustained by social processes (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003: 4). When constructionist researchers do not believe in one truth, they refer to the subjective experience of every day life and thus the individual notion of reality and current ways of understanding the world (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003; Berger & Luckmann, 1966). As stated by Deacon et al. (2002: 6) the social constructionist worldview addresses and explores the way people make sense of their social worlds and how they express these understandings through language, sound, imagery, personal style and social rituals. Thus we as human beings enduringly reproduce knowledge and interpretation of the world of experience, and further our view on reality through cognitive processes in our daily interactions with each other and society. Social constructionism argues against the traditional conception of personality and moves away from the belief that personality is stable, and argues that it changes according to context (Burr, 2003). Hence, there are a number of real selves and not only one coherent personality, we are as human being constructed by our surroundings and are in constant development (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003). This corresponds well with the postmodern tradition, where the issue of representation is crucial (section 3.1; Holt, 2002; Bryman, 2012: 33). Moreover language is not seen in the traditional sense as means of a representation, rather language is a form of social action and what constructs the social world including the way this world is experienced (Burr, 2003: 7-8; Andrews, 2012). The world is thus not the things that surround us, but rather our understanding of them, and here the understanding will always be influenced by the connections and relationships in which we enter, for which reason, objectivity is not an option. It is from these thoughts that the study recognizes its philosophical branch of hermeneutics, described in the following section. 14/183

15 One must however note that social constructivism is also criticized in denying any objective knowledge, and hence its own basis (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003: 20). This makes it somewhat impossible to declare as an absolute and general philosophy. However, as social constructionism further is unconcerned with ontological questions, it can be argued that the criticism only exists beyond the social understanding of the world. Hence, social constructionism nonetheless remains the scientific standpoint of this study Philosophical hermeneutics and the hermeneutic circle Methodologically this study operates with a hermeneutic approach. Hermeneutics is the philosophy of meaning and how experience can be understood and interpreted (Lock & Strong, 2010: 53-54). This study more specifically takes the approach of Gadamer s (1986) philosophical hermeneutics, being the nature of understanding. Gardamer (1986) argues that understanding involves participation and that the shared reality occurs in the languages of our conversations with others. Thus the focus of hermeneutics lies in the embedded research interactions and the possibilities of exceeding that embeddedness through conversations and generate new languages and reality (Lock & Strong, 2010: 72-73). According to Gadamar (1986) one must be open and flexible in ones interaction with others in order to generate meaning and find ways to co-exist (Lock & Strong, 2010: 73). Within this discipline exists also the hermeneutic circle, a model to understand and interpret the relation between the receiver and the text the text being the social phenomena (Gadamer, 1986). It operates based on the principle that one must understand the whole in order to understand its parts, and vice versa (ibid.). As humans, one will always have historical presuppositions and understandings, which may be revised through experience and interactions, but which also determine what one learns and hereby help to transform these prior understandings through interpretation of new data and insights, as seen in figure 1 (ibid.). These presuppositions are no barrier, rather a condition to understanding (Gadamer, 1986). 15/183

16 Figure 1: The Hermeneutic Circle (compiled by the author, inspired by Gadamer, 1986) The philosophical hermeneutic approach agrees with the social constructionist worldview that nothing is an absolute truth (section 2.1.1), thus social constructivism and hermeneutics can be seen as two parts of the same mindset Social constructionism and hermeneutics in this study The scientific standpoint of this study initiates within the research background and aim, and is lived by in the process of exploring the research questions and milestones. The study takes a consumer perspective, in determining the understanding and experienced brand value of co-creation (section 1.3), and thus focuses on the process by which meanings are generated, sustained, and modified similar to the philosophy of both social constructionism and hermeneutics (Andrews, 2012: 40). The social constructionist view further comes to show especially in the theoretical framework (chapter 3), where postmodern market and consumer contexts direct the assessment of theory on both the development within the branding paradigm (section 3.2) and the perspective on co-creation (sections 3.3; 3.4). Social constructionism did in fact gain influence by the postmodern movement, sharing the goal of understanding the world of lived experience from the perspective of those who live in it (Andrews, 2012: 40). Hence the study does not interpret the static concept of co-creation, but rather explores through qualitative methods, consumers identification of reality herein and how they 16/183

17 identify with and add brand value and meaning to co-creation processes - marked by personal and situational contexts. When the study designs qualitative research methods, it is in this relation that knowledge is created, presuppositions come into play, and the understanding horizons are expanded. Here the hermeneutic circle acquires a central position, and the idea of part and whole comes to show when the analysis looks at the data from various inductive and deductive levels and continuously holds the individual parts against the whole. Thus, the data is divided up into individual parts, but also understood as a single empirical basis - a constant circular motion of interpretation (Gadamer, 1986). Overall, the effect of social constructivism and hermeneutics as scientific standpoints of this thesis, has forced the study to consider consumers as socially constructed, and be aware of the researcher s role in the production of the empirical data, which the research conclusions are based upon. 2.2 Introductions to the research methodology As mentioned above, a qualitative research method is chosen, as it is well associated with the subjective and interpretive nature of social reality (Daymon & Holloway, 2002: 4). Through qualitative research methods one is able to explore the way people make sense of a social phenomena and their subjective experience hereof in order provide insights from the perspective and world view of the informants (Burr, 2003, s. 149; Daymon & Holloway, 2002: 12). Research in social constructionism is generally associated with the gathering and interpretation of rich narrative data, conducted through inductive methods from which theories or patterns of meaning can be developed (Burr, 2003; Daymon & Holloway, 2002). This will also be the primary method of this study, when analyzing data inductively in relation to different semantic themes extracted from the data in question, leaving the analysis open and adaptable during the process (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). Further, as these themes develop, they will be examined through new analytical stages with elements of Foucauldian discourse analysis in managing the data collection and comparing it to the theory and conceptual framework put forth in chapter 3. Thus the study also uses a deductive approach based on the researcher s presuppositions of co-creation and the branding paradigm (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). Hence it is argued that this qualitative approach is iterative, as it involves a continuous interaction between theory, data 17/183

18 collection, and analysis (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). The qualitative methodology will take form of a focus group and 3 supporting interviews, as these methods will let the researcher interact with that being researched and thus experience the knowledge construct from the point of view of the respondents (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 242). The full elaboration of research methodology and strategy is found in chapter 4. 18/183

19 3 Theoretical Framework In order to establish a suitable theoretical background for resolving the aim of this thesis, and to answer research question one, this chapter attends to milestone one and two (section 1.3) and presents the foundation on which the research is founded by emphasizing literature relevant to the area in question. To unravel the importance of the context the chapter initially, in section 3.1, introduces the theoretical and philosophical context of postmodernism. Subsequent hereto, the developments within the branding paradigm are accounted for in section 3.2, in order to reach the introduction and establishment of the key concept of co-creation. Section 3.3 will then clarify and elaborate on co-creation and the perspective of branding that this concept comprises and initiates; this is done against the backdrop of a literature review on cocreation. Section 3.4 explores the relationship between co-creation and brand identification and the relation to the developing branding paradigm and the postmodern consumer culture. From this a conceptual framework is introduced in section 3.5, which will function as a base and inspiration for the empirical research and analysis (chapter 5). 3.1 A postmodern context In line with and as an extension of the social constructionist approach of this study (chapter 2), the theoretical framework is generated and works from a postmodern recognition that there are new conditions for branding and marketing operating in a market that is far more complex and fragmented than earlier (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993). The following sections will elaborate on the postmodernist thinking and the market and consumer culture transformations it has activated. Ever since the beginning of innovation theory (Schumpeter, 1934) marketers have been assuming that brands produce and consumers receive, meaning that innovation and brand experiences would originate from within the brand and that the value hereof would be ultimately created by the exclusive resources of the brand (Arvidsson, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). With a more emergent approach to the dynamic market, the postmodern revolution is driven by the idea of continuous progress and has emerged from a doubt in and response to the modern 19/183

20 society's rational perceptions of the market structure, where the power was with brands (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Christensen et al., 2005: 157). Postmodernism puts focus on the individual consumption and lifestyle and moves marketing from a production perspective to a consumer perspective (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993). Within the postmodern society production and consumption are repositioned in the sense that consumption is now a premise for production (ibid.). Production in itself does not create value; instead consumers create value through their consumption and experiences (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993: 235; Bostman & Rogers, 2010). Thus within these market changes the primary action through which value is created shifts from optimized, managerially planned activities or labor to innovation and events; and the substrate through which value is created shifts from the physical and material to the immaterialities of knowledge, language and sociality (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013: 100). Consequently consumption is not seen as the termination of the brand cycle, but a moment where much is created and produced, it is a social act wherein symbolic meanings, social codes, political ideologies, and relationships are produced and reproduced (Breen, 1993 in Firat & Venkatesh, 1995: 251). Postmodern thinkers show skepticism toward metanarratives and deny their validity to one universal reason (Firat & Schultz, 1997). This is equivalent with the social constructionist belief of meaning being contextual and subjective (section 2.1.1). With the collapse of order and unity comes fragmentation, allowing for diversity and paradox structures to co-exist without common purpose (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993). This implies that postmodernism accommodates an irrational and subjective reality, where each instance of consumption and brand relationship is independent and fragmented to fulfill unconnected needs (ibid.) Postmodern consumer culture Postmodernist thinking adapts to consumer characteristics and consumption patterns (Berner & Tonder, 2003; Holt, 2002), which is the main influence on the concept of cocreation. The postmodern approach makes markets more unpredictable; consumers are not just passive and manipulative recipients of products and services, they are and insist on being collaborators in generating and sharing meaning and value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004: 7; Christensenet al., 2005: 164; Ind et al., 2012). At the heart of 20/183

21 postmodern critique of modern marketing principles is the assumption that consumers are consistent and compliant with preferences and behavior patterns possible to predict (Firat & Venkatesh, 1995). Contrary postmodernism has located consumers within uncontrolled spaces, and suggests that each individual consumer should be viewed within the context of everyday life, instead of observing them as unified through segmentation towards which brands can aim mass communication (Firat & Venkatesh, 1995: 255; Brown, 2006). Postmodern sensibility even encourages the avoidance of commitment to just one single way of being. According to Firat & Schultz (1997: 198) the principal goal of these postmodern individuals is to (re)produce and (re)present oneself as an image. Hereby consumers merely exercise freedom of choice and movement where impulse commands (Firat & Schultz, 1997; Brown, 2006). Such a stance clearly allows for an expansion of fragmentation and of fragmented moments of experience (section 3.1). As argued by Cova (1996: 18), the essence of postmodern experience is participation; without participation, the consumer is merely entertained and does not experience. He thus argues for the postmodern consumer to be more concerned with the social links of consumption and the corresponding identities than the consumption of objects alone (Cova & Dalli, 2009). Postmodernism creates arenas of consumption and value creation where it is possible to explore the multiple identities that correspond to the image that the postmodern consumer wants to convey to their social environment in each of the fragmented moments (Christensen et al., 2005; Firat & Schultz, 1997; Holt, 2002). This potential for choice further frees consumers from the need to remain loyal (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993: 233). Consumers do not to the same extent as earlier redeem ownership of products or brands; rather an economy of sharing has developed. As Gansky (2012) in her book The Mesh very well pinpoints that human beings have a long tradition of sharing experiences, entertainment, knowledge etc. and she argues for an increased use hereof - a fundamental shift in our relationship with the things in our lives. Consumers are more than ever rethinking this relationship relative to the value hereof, and seek to engage and share in new ways to achieve this value and the social representation hereof (Gansky, 2012). For brands this fragmentation presents a challenge and new demands on marketing, as it becomes harder to adapt to continuously increasing diversified consumers, and to further create coherent values between the consumers and the brand (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Cova, 1996). Brands should no longer analyze consumer through segmentation, rather focus 21/183

22 should be on the communication and participation of creating consumers image (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993). According to Christensen et al. (2005: ) the postmodern response to this postmodern condition is not to try and control the meanings linked to the products or brands, but to playfully engage (with) the consumers in constructing and navigating experiences. Within the postmodern realism both the liberated individual and the individual s social connections apply to concumer behavior (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Cova, 1996). Therefore the brand and communication hereof is to live up to the individual's personal preferences, but also social wants and needs. Brands should bring together consumers ability to connect and share values and thus be an integrated part of this connection, as argued by Gansky the brand is a voice and a product is a souvenir (Gansky, 2012: 10) Consumer empowerment through social technologies Recent social changes, especially those associated with the Internet and Web 2.0 have given social interactions and consumer participation greater pace and significance (McKinsey Global Institute, 2012; Bostman & Rogers, 2010: ). In short, web 2.0 is technology beyond the static Internet pages; it is a growing development of usergenerated content and collaboration through social media, e.g. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (Li & Bernoff, 2008; Fournier & Avery, 2011). These new social technologies have created a shift in people s ability to be informed, networked, and empowered (McKinsey Global Institute, 2012; Ramaswamy, 2011; Arvidsson, 2011). As argued by Fisher and Smith (2011: ) any consumer can become a writer ; that is, consumers are now able to author content and distribute it at almost no cost through a proliferation of videos, pictures, blogs, forum discussions. These technologies empower consumers to create their own personalized experiences and share content with like-minded that earlier was not in their possession to share (Fisher & Smith, 2011). Further these technologies endorse two-way symmetric communication and serve as platforms facilitating interaction with and amongst consumers, providing brands with unique and creative opportunities to capitalize on stakeholders innovative potential and knowledge (Brodie, et al., 2013; Fisher & Smith, 2011; Fournier & Avery, 2011). Technology has not only enabled new means for engagement but also changed the overall mindset of consumers roles in the interaction and communication with 22/183

23 brands, shifting the locus of control from the brand to consumers, suggesting a new discourse in the relationship between the two (Fisher & Smith, 2011: 328). Accordingly, consumers are empowered to challenge a brand promise, while the effectiveness of managing and communicating a consistent brand image through traditional advertising is decreasing (Knox & Lawer, 2006). The technological developments and the subsequent enhanced social disclosure can be said to be a precedent for brands to stop framing consumers as passive observers, but instead recognize a new mutuality, where also the consumer can make the brand target of criticism or debate (Fisher & Smith, 2011; sections 3.1; 3.1.1). As stated in the recent report from McKinsey Global Institute (2012: 10) u ltimately, the power of social technologies hinges on the full and enthusiastic participation c reating these conditions will be far more challenging than implementing the technologies themselves. Thus to acquire the full potential value and impact of consumer empowerment brands must thus change their mindsets and structures and become extended networked enterprises (McKinsey Global Institute, 2012: 2). Through these sections postmodernism has been elaborated on in order to understand the contemporaries and contexts in which the research questions exist. Brands are faced with changing consumer characteristics, bringing active interpretations to the market in a constantly play with multiple identities. For the postmodern consumer, it is not an either/or relation but a both/and. Having attended to this overall framing, complying the first part of milestone one, the following sections 3.2 and 3.3 will now specify and explore the second part of the milestone; the developments within the branding paradigm (section 1.3). 3.2 The transforming fields of branding As depicted in the above sections, the postmodern phenomenon has provided key implications for marketers who are deeply rooted in the traditional approach to marketing and branding tools often tailored the modern consumer (e.g. marketing management towards mass markets, pure product focus, one-way communication etc.). To act in a present society, the guidelines of postmodernism should be introduced into marketing research, and marketers should attempt to walk-the-talk in adopting new 23/183

24 thinking to replace old tools (Brown, 2006). However when postmodernism is merely a critique and not a concept (section 3.1), it offers no solution on what to replace traditional marketing with. Fact is that traditional marketing modes still have a permanent place in the marketing department, as argued by Brown (2006: 221) just because the market has changed, or is supposed to have changed, it does not necessarily follow that tried and trusted methods of marketing research must change as well. Thus a part of adapting to postmodernism could also be to apply proven tools to the phenomenon of postmodernism From a product to value perspective In the wake of the new postmodern ontological conceptualizations, softer approaches to marketing have occurred (Hanby, 1999: 9). The branding paradigm, traditionally build on Laswell s (1948) linear communication formula (appendix 1), moved away from the mechanical product perspective with focus on transmission towards an identity perspective (Hanby, 1999). The passive brand as an extended product with Kotler (1987) in front, arguing for a focus on functional benefits and a communication as a one-way linear process (appendix 2), was replaced with Aaker s (1996) and Kapferer s (1997) brand identity perspective. Here brands were regarded as respectively established positions and holistic entities, and branding was focused on the brand's 'identity' and 'personality' (Aaker, 1996; Kapferer, 1997; Hanby, 1999: 10). Aaker (1996) too believes that a brand includes product related features, and thus started his research within the product perspective. However, in his creation of the brand identity system, he also accepts that a brand is more that just a product (Aaker, 1996; Aaker, 1997), a view that is incorporated and further developed by Kapferer (1997). The perspectives and work of both scholars are further elaborated on in appendix three and four. Aaker s (1996) identity system is an encoding and decoding model in the sense that opinions are encoded by the brand (identity), which is then decoded and incorporated by a passive recipient (image), thus the marketer is defining the brand identity without special considerations for consumers perceptions (Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1996). Kapferer (1997) supports Aaker's (1996) claim that the brand identity construction is a competence within the brand; according to him consumers do not possess the right skills needed to understand what the brand's inner core values consist of. Both scholars are thus strongly rooted in the sender-oriented optics, warning against 24/183

25 including the uncontrollable consumer opinions, however they note that the brand image should not be fully ignored (Aaker, 1996: 181; Kapferer, 2004: 113). Within the identity perspective the single purpose of branding is thus to construct and communicate a coherent, consistent and meaningful identity that consumers can acquire (Kapferer, 1997; Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1996). However, despite being a progressing reaction to the more static brand as a product paradigm, both Aaker (1996) and Kapferer (1997) still point to a somewhat different way of thinking consumers into the branding process compared to the more postmodern branding approaches (Cova, 1996; Firat & Schultz, 1997). From confronting the identity metaphor from a classic existential perspective, a more nuanced perspective of identity is needed, incorporating a relational and dynamic concept of identity, which is discursively constituted and thus formulated and negotiated within and between different stakeholder groups (Hanby, 1999). Thus, the stage is set for a concept of identity away from the classic brand management literature, as the examples represented by Aaker (1996) and Kapferer (1997). The purpose of incorporating Aaker (1996) and Kapferer s (1997) view on brand identity is to emphasize their roots in a sender-oriented (and defined) brand identity tradition, focusing on identity as something substantial, coherent, essential and unchanging (Hanby, 1999). Further, both theorists incorporate a brand personality perspective in their identity optics (appendix 5; Aaker, 1996; Aaker, 1997; Kapferer, 1997) that within the right context demonstrate a slight move towards the more relational branding paradigm. The next section introduces the more nuanced branding concept more suitable to the postmodern thinking Towards a relational brand perspective Firat and Venkatesh (1993) argues for marketing to be considered as the ultimate social practice of postmodernity and regards the new relational perspectives on marketing as a postmodern institution that can liberate the individual from modernity's grand narratives and tyranny of 'absolute truths' and 'objective reality' (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Firat & Schultz, 1997). The postmodern consumer has given rise to the development of relationship marketing. By recognizing the consequences of the postmodern trends in society and consumer culture, relationship marketing is oriented by a dynamic and ambiguous identity concept with a multiple meaning that is constantly negotiable (Hanby, 1999). One of the strong exponents of a dynamic 25/183

26 approach to branding is Fournier (1998), arguing that the brand is an active and contributing partner in a relationship existing between the consumer and the brand. One of Fournier's (1998) central points is that the consumer does not just take over the brand's identity, but rather seems to negotiate its meaning in relation to both individual and social life projects. This matches the postmodern thinking, in regards to both Cova (1996) and Firat s (1995) viewpoints (section 3.1). Fournier s (1998) relationship approach to the conceptualization of a brand prioritizes the consumer in the construction of the brand meaning (appendix 6; Fournier, 1998), and together with the development of the postmodern consumer, this perspective forms the basis for a higher level of interaction between consumers and brands. It is all about understanding the person behind the consumer and not just trying to manage the consumer as in CRM (customer relation management), since doing so often devalues emotional values and the potential of consumer relationships (Fournier & Avery, 2011: 63-64). Fournier and Avery thus include a social constructivist perspective on relationships. This consumer-oriented approach to brands stands in direct opposition to the classic references in the field (Hanby, 1999), and although Kotler s (1987) marketing mix, Laswell s (1948) communication model, as well as Aaker (1996) and Kapferer s (1997) brand identity and personality finds still seem to be important elements in today's branding practice, new ways of conceptualizing the marketplace has taken shape with the consumer in the center (Hanby, 1999). As depicted in figure 2, there has been a move from a sender-oriented transmission of communication, where focus is on the functional product features with no contextual consideration, through a identity oriented perspective with the analysis of consumer needs to generate value, towards an interaction paradigm recognizing the complex and dynamic process of relationships in which people form their opinions in collaboration with brands (Heding et al., 2009). This new marketing philosophy places greater demands on brands ability to innovate. Alongside with the movement towards social relations and consumer focus, Fournier s (1998) relationship perspective has also been further developed. Among others, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) have introduced the concept of value co-creation, suggesting an approach in which meaning and experience are constructed and communicated based on consumer premises. Co-creation, which is the key concept in 26/183

27 this study, will be elaborated in the following sections when attending research milestone two. Figure 2: The developing perspective on branding (compiled by the author) 3.3 Co-creation a new corner of branding Energized by new technology (section 3.1.2) and postmodern trends in society (sections 3.1; 3.1.1), co-creation brings along a new holistic and social perspective on energizing consumers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). Consumers are a major source of product innovation, but are also becoming more than just innovators, they actively get involved in co-creating their own personalized brand experiences and thus in the process of generating individual and collective brand value to pursue their desired self-identity (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; section 3.1.1). This reflects a pattern that not only leads to new innovation and collaboration designs but further spreads to marketing and more recently branding (Hatch & Schultz, 2010). The previous assumption of consumers only being involved in the point of exchange is being 27/183

28 challenges by the active, connected and empowered consumers seeking to exercise their influence in every part of the business system (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 6). Attempting to define the co-creation concept is not an easy task, especially not when traveling under several different names, such as value co-creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), consumers-as-innovators (Hippel et al., 2011), the ethical economy (Arvidsson, 2011), and a service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). However, the basic principle behind these terms is more or less the same. Most scholars yet, define the concept based on the primary account made by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). According to the two scholars, co-creation refers to the processes by which both consumers and the brand cooperate in creating value, being a function of the individual experiences in the market, being it through the development and creation of new systems, products, services, experiences etc. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 6-8). It is joint problem solving and not just the brand trying to please the consumer (ibid.). Thus differing much from the traditional firm-centric construct with passive consumers, segmented to match products and services (section 3.2.1). Instead of increasing product variety, co-creation attains differentiation by creating experience variety, where consumers can engage in an active dialogue with the brand and coconstruct personalized experiences here through (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 8). While the informed, networked, empowered and active consumers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 6) have challenged the notion of value, the scholars advise companies to escape their product-centered thinking and instead focus on the experiences that customers seek to co-create and hereby create value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 7). The notion of co-creation thus breaks with the one-way brand to consumer relationship in which consumer segments are shaped to fit into corporate offerings, rather it encourages active involvement. Gouillart (2010) further adds to Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) theory on co-creation, and concisely describes it as a theory of interactions (Gouillart, 2010). This involves changing the way the brand interacts with individuals and setting up new modes of engagement that allow these individuals to insert themselves in the value chain of the brand. According to Gouillart (2010) the idea of co-creation is thus to unleash the creative energy of consumers in such a way that it transforms both their individual experience and the economics of the brand that enables it. As it remains beyond the scope and ability of this thesis to assign a 28/183

29 clearly bounded definition of co-creation, this study builds on a combination of these above perspectives on co-creation, but finds it relevant to add a consumer outlook since the co-creation of value is not necessarily always initiated by the brand. As argued by Arvidsson (2010; 2011), value creation further unfolds in the fringes of the brand, and derives from forms of social cooperation with consumers and other stakeholders that are less receptive to corporate control. An increased transparency of brands (section 3.1.2) provides consumers with previously exclusive information and vigor, allowing them to engage in effective dialogue and creativity, often outside of the brand s registration. This uncontrollability is further supported by Merz et al. s (2009) notion of brand value in stating that brand value is not only co-created through isolated, dyadic relationships between firms and individual customers [ ] it is also co-created through network relationships and social interactions among the ecosystem of all the stakeholders (Merz et al., 2009: 338). Thus, co-creation, both in relation to the concept itself and to the branding paradigm it sits within, functions as a new take on communication to and interaction with the empowered postmodern consumers. Cocreation thus encourages a blurring of the role between the brand and the consumers, and goes beyond the relationship perspective of branding. Within co-creation value becomes a function of the individual experiences in the market both the one of brand engagement and of social interactions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Gouillart, 2010), thus co-creation encourages a new mode of value creation, turning the market into a forum for co-creation of experiences between the brand and consumers (Lopdrup- Hjorth, 2013), as visualized in figure 3. Figure 3: The emerging concept of the market inspired by (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) 29/183

30 From the perspective of social constructionism and postmodernism this study argues for the importance of acknowledging the individual within the consumer and not see consumers as static subjects of segmentation. Within co-creation and thus the developed branding perspective, consumers are individuals choosing their own relationships and ways of consumption (Ramaswamy, 2011). Enabled by new interactive technologies (section 3.1.2), this new logic in branding indicates that, a brand s meaning and value can now be significantly created and modified from the bottom-up instead of from the top-down (Fisher & Smith, 2011: 347). Hence the value within the interactions of the developed approach should not be found in quantitative elements such as buying behavior and customer loyalty, yet rather the value lies in the individual experience and the creations of emotions and social interactions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; sections 1.2; 3.1; 3.1.1). As stated by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004: 13) t he experience is the brand. The brand is co-created and evolves with experiences. Supporting this notion is an increased focus on brand experiences in branding literature, e.g. Payne et al. (2009) use the term brand relationship experience to describe the brand, underlining a relationship-based view of the brand with a focus on continuous consumer experiences. The close relation to new technology and the relationship that it enables (section 3.2.2) further indicates that co-creation is likely to be central to the emerging knowledge society (Arvidsson, 2011; Ramaswamy, 2011), a social and networked nature of consumption that the product-centric understandings of consumer behavior do not recognize (Fisher & Smith, 2011). Brands are networks wherein co-creation is assumed to generate value for consumers by having them realize their potential to utilize consumption to share and demonstrate knowledge, and construct and maintain their identity (Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). Thus, brands are not ends themselves, but a means to experiences. The way this new age of consumer engagement and empowerment recognizes a shift in corporate and marketing thinking is specified in table 3. 30/183

31 From To Passive buyers Active agents Listening Dialogue Consumers as buyers Consumers as resources Researching needs Understanding experiences Reliance on experts Consumer knowledge Centered on products Centered on consumer need and experiences Table 3: The shift in corporate and marketing thinking (inspired by Roser et al., 2009) Relating co-creation to the democratization and decentralization of value creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010a) postmodernist recognitions is incorporated in questioning the firm-centric view and extending the issue of value creation to a mutual interaction (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; section 3.1). Which seemingly has profound consequences not only for the purposes of value creation in general, but for brands as well, now required to establish an active, explicit, and ongoing dialogue with consumers in order to manage these market and consumer changes (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000: 81; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013) The Co-creation design In the attempt to explain the relation between the postmodern thinking and the new branding perspective Prahalad and Ramaswamy have introduced four building blocks of co-creation, seen in figure 4 (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9). They explain the market changes towards the co-creation of value as a joint outcome of these four building blocks with the acronym DART; dialogue, access, transparency, and riskbenefits that challenge the traditional mindset and make up the interaction between brands and consumers (ibid.). This focus on active collaboration is essential, because co-creation of value only exists if interactions occur (Cova et al., 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 11; Grönroos, 2011: 290). The four building blocks are however mostly directed towards brands, as they are the ones encouraged and able to act on these parameters. Hence there is a need to look into the consumer value and discourse of co-creation as well, which will be done in the following sections, and further empirically explored in chapter five. 31/183

32 Figure 4: Building blocks of co-creation of value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9) The core prerequisite of co-creation is, according to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), the interaction that occurs and can be created between the brand and consumers. Herein dialogue is an important element as it implies interaction, deep engagement and the ability and willingness to act on both sides (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9); it is the growing conversations and equal partnerships between brands and consumers (ibid.). However in order to have a meaningful dialogue, it is crucial that consumers are provided with the required access and transparency from the brand, as co-creation should be an equal connectivity (ibid.). The goal of consumers is increasingly to access experiences and not necessarily to own products, thus brands must provide resources for consumers to create new and personal experiences and opportunities (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2005: 25-26). With the access consumers have online today, they will quickly be able to find the information needed through other channels if the brand does not open up by itself, leaving the brand as the bad guy (section 3.1.2). It is therefore important for brands to incorporate transparency and move away from the previous information asymmetry. They must provide the information consumers need in order to interact and create value for both the brand and themselves (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2005: 30). Together the three (dialogue, access, and transparency) lead to the consumers assessment of the risk-benefits when entering into a relationship with the brand (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9). Rather than just depending on the brand and experts as previously done, the decision processes are 32/183

33 becoming more personalized alongside experiences (ibid.). Both consumers and brands must make adjustments for co-creation to succeed; this involves recognizing that the interaction between the two must be built on the above four building blocks (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 13). Altogether co-creation is about understanding the dynamic market and reconceptualizing brand identities, being co-constructed by consumers (Cova et al., 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Co-creation thus transforms the static into vibrant and opens up for negotiation of the brand. Brands are no longer the sole authors of the brand s destination and purpose; so are also consumers with their individual voice and empowerment (section 3.3). This stresses the importance of interaction to ensure alignment and valuable outcome for both brands and consumers. In this study Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) building blocks will function as a starting point and prerequisite for the co-creation process and as the prelude for further understanding and development hereof, which will be explored in sections 3.4 and Routes of co-creation Just as the different branding paradigms continue to co-exist despite their different levels of relevance and match to the current market (cf. sections 3.2; 3.3), co-creation can also be seen from various perspectives. The importance of value co-creation has fundamentally increased together with the postmodern approach, whether being downstream or upstream in the value chain, and focus is on the co-creation of value, experiences and meaning (Gouillart, 2010). However some perspectives of co-creation still allude a product-perspective where the process of co-creation is foremost focused on the joint product or service development between consumers and the brand, which empower, encourage and guide users to develop solutions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). This is further compared to the term open innovation ; a consumer-centric innovation process, where consumers are involved as a source for ideas, technical solutions, designs, or even first prototypes (Kohler et al., 2011). Instead of the brand creating innovations and exchanging it with their customers, during open innovation consumers take an active role and co-create innovation together with the brand (ibid.). The lines between these different co-creation alluding perspectives are somewhat blurred, and the perspectives, being it focus on the product, innovation, 33/183

34 technology, or social experience, overlap because they are originally founded on the same thinking (Ind et al., 2012). Thus indicating many different uses, understandings and subdivisions of the concept, making the concept rather complex. Moreover it is argued that the different forms of co-creation are not mutually exclusive, rather they can reinforce each other and provide different benefits, each of which help to create a deeper and stronger relationship between the brand and consumer. This study will merely focus on the more holistic value co-creation concerned merely with the creation of an innovative environment where consumers can co-construct personalized experiences - the product or service in matter might not always change trough cocreation, rather so does the individual consumer experience construct (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This focus will emphasize the consumer attention that is equal to the postmodern thinking (sections 3.1; 3.2) and incorporate the more emotional and social aspects as the drivers of branding and consumer involvement. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) further argue that value co-creation does not include product development in its sole form, as this is a staged experience and the brand will still have a product/service-oriented focus with the intention to attract consumer attention, not corresponding to the current market (ibid.). Co-creation as a practice and approach rather breaks with the traditional roles and the asymmetrical communications herein, and encompasses all points of the consumer-brand interaction, as they are all opportunities for the creation of value (ibid.). In order to briefly illustrate the magnitude of co-creation, a few examples are here incorporated in figure 5. These examples support the fact that the use of co-creation can vary in form and purpose and will further be used in the focus group research, as cases to initiate discussion (section 4.1.2; appendix 7). The first example is the LEGO Group that with its famous user-linked approaches has introduced the CUUSOO platform, incorporating mostly co-creation elements of design and innovation. The unique platform invites consumers to use their creativity to come up with new LEGO ideas/designs, and submit and share these for review amongst other consumers with the purpose of collecting votes to be considered as future LEGO products (appendix 7). Hereby LEGO embraces the idea of open innovation when the brand openly incorporates consumers in product development. The second example with BMW is focused more on the community sense of co-creation. The automotive brand has created 34/183

35 a virtual meeting place for consumers interested in car related topics and eager to share their ideas and opinions on tomorrows automotive world (Bartl et al., 2010: 5). The interactive platform offers idea contests, user toolkits, and innovation research studies (appendix 7). It is an on-going co-creation process, where user interactions and ideas are displayed and saved on the platform, and used in the development departments of BWM (ibid.), thus also social by the innovative element. Lastly, the DANONE example is incorporated for its co-creation work with the Activia brand. Here the co-creation is again about shared knowledge, but also more clearly about the future of the brand. DANONE has created an online Activia advisory board and community of 400 women, to discuss the different product and marketing initiatives in order to make sure that the 10-year-old Activia brand continues to grow and show results both for the brand and for consumers (appendix 7). Here through DANONE use co-creation to understand and attain valuable insights and ideas from its target audience and further ensure new positions for the brand (ibid.). Having illustrated the different modes and uses of co-creation, the following sections will elaborate on motivational factors driving co-creation engagement. Co-creation of design - open innovation Co-creation community of ideas and opinions Co-creation of knowledge and a route forward Figure 5: Co-creation examples (complied by the author from appendix 7) Motivation and value of co-creation Co-creation redefines the meaning of value and the process of creating value (section 3.3). It is no longer just about how brands can create value for consumers, but rather how consumers can co-construct experiences, bring new relevance to the brand, and thus create value in a joint collaboration with the brand (Arvidsson, 2011). With this mutual interaction, being essential for successful co-creation (section 3.3.1), it is found 35/183

36 important to look into the motivational factors behind, to better understand the concept and identify possible outcomes hereof Consumer motivation for co-creation Consumer motivations for engaging in co-creation are wide-ranging and include both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits (Füller, 2010; Yanning, 2011). Based on an analysis of existing co-creation theory, consumer motivations for co-creation can be divided into different benefit clusters of rational, hedonic, personal, and social benefits. Rational motivations are based on dissatisfaction with existing brand and/or product offerings and involve the satisfaction of utilitarian needs in the possibility of affecting the usefulness of a product (Füller, 2010). Hedonic benefits are the sense of pleasure and entertainment based on consumer curiosity and brand interest (Füller, 2010; Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). Personal motivations are merely the positive rewards of feedback and the increase in reputation and recognition from the brand and other peers, comprising the more emotional benefits of self-development and expression as discussed in the section on postmodern consumer culture (section 3.1.1; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010). Herein lie also financial rewards, although rarely used today (Füller, 2010; Grarup, 2012). Lastly the social motivation entitles consumer interest in the social and networking aspects of the co-creation activity. Social needs are here rewarded through identity creation and interaction with the brand and other consumers, hence the experience value of co-creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Grönroos, 2011). Co-creation is a way for consumers to feel empowered to influence and interact with the particular brands that help making their lives meaningful and strengthens their self-conception (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). It is argued that motivations have likewise changed alongside the postmodern consumer culture (section 3.1.1), and that intrinsic consumer motivations are strongly inclining in todays evolving market, as this personal rewarding engagement and behavior will be the most valuable option merely based on social needs (section 3.1; Roser et al., 2009). However the forthcoming qualitative research will be able to elaborate heron (chapter 5). It is important to note that co-creation, belonging to the field of marketing, is bilateral with a stand on each side of the interaction (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). It supports 36/183

37 and generates value for both consumers and brands. Thus despite of this study s focus on merely consumers value creation, it is important to look into motivational factors for the brand as well, in order to discuss the forthcoming research findings from a holistic perspective Brand motivation for co-creation Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) approach to value co-creation likewise emphasizes the organizational benefits of encountering consumers interests and abilities to enhance relevance, build strong relations, and help generate innovations. The brand perspective is as mentioned further the attention of many scholars (section 1.2). Hereto the discussed market changes suggest that collaboration and co-creation is the new mode of competition (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Grönroos, 2011; Gouillart, 2010). By meeting consumers desire to generate innovation and their demands for engagement and unique experiences, co-creation is reducing the previous gap between the brand and the consumer, reinforcing the human connection (Roser et al., 2009). Moreover co-creation and the shift in value creation take a function usually performed internally by producers and marketers, and outsource central parts to the innovative and creative minds of consumers, making consumers a part of brand resources and very much valuable to the brand (ibid.). This further opens for cost-reductive and optimization benefits in terms of market research and innovation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Grarup, 2012; Füller, 2010). Managed effectively, brands will through the unique value ultimately unlock new sources of sustainable competitive advantage of productivity and knowledge benefits through increased efficiency and improved effectiveness (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Payne et al., 2009). Thus cocreation brings several brand benefits of differentiation, brand awareness, cost reduction, and higher consumer satisfaction in being able to co-create solutions that best fit consumer needs with individualized consumption experiences (Yanning, 2011; Roser et al., 2009; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010; Grarup, 2012). As stated by Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a: 100), give your stakeholders a bigger say, and they ll lead you to better insights, revenues, and profits. However it is found important to note that the developing mode of value creation, moving away from the sole domain of economics (sections 1.6; 3.3), hereto induces a risk of speculations, when benefits are directly equated with profit and revenue (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). Through co-creation 37/183

38 brands gain valuable insights that allow them to make safer and more successful choices (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Thus, co-creation further reduces risk for brands, as they, not to the same extent as before, must predict whether consumers will accept innovations and brand identities (ibid.). The degree of value and benefits created for the brand is determined by the total consumer experience, being the center of cocreation (section 3.3). Thus, all together these brand benefits further stress the importance of dialogue and interaction; it should be a win-win mode of value creation (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). 3.4 Brand identification through co-creation With knowledge about how co-creation has refocused the branding approach, (section 3.3) and with a thesis focus on consumer value creation, and an interest in consumers discourse of co-creation in relation to brand value (section 1.2), it is deemed relevant to incorporate the term of brand identification. Based on the theoretical review of both the branding paradigm and co-creation, brand identification is presumed to be a valuable outcome of co-creation. Driven by the quest for authenticity and the importance of personalization, postmodern consumers pursue true identification through individual brand consumption and modification (Fisher & Smith, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Thus, brand identification can be argued to determine the power and potential of the value co-creation. In order to understand this identification and the increasing influence of co-creation in a postmodern society, one needs to again look into significant factors within the branding paradigm that too have been driven to accommodate the postmodern consumer culture (Holt, 2002; sections 3.21; 3.2.2). Because the brand is important, as it is the brand that frames the co-creation process and moreover inspires the value outcomes hereof, and vise versa, the outcome of co-creation further affects the meaning of the brand (Ind & Coates, 2013). Identification refers to the emotional and social connection the consumer has with the brand (Aaker et al., 2004), and the selfcongruity process between the brand image and the consumer s self-concept, being the main driver of brand identification (Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011: 309; Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004; section 3.1.1). Thus brand identification relates to both the notion of brand identity introduced by Aaker (1997) and Kapferer (1997) (section 3.2.1), and the one of brand relationship by Fournier (1997) (section 3.2.2). However by using the 38/183

39 concepts of identification and identity in relation to the developed brand paradigm of co-creation, this study differ especially from Aaker (1997) and Kapferer (1997) in the terms of use. They work by the hypothesis that brand identity has only one function, namely to build a favorable image through representations of the identity of the brand (section 3.2.1). However, as a result of the more relational and social optics (section 3.2.2; 3.3), the brand identity and image are somewhat ambiguous and should rather be understood as a mutual and social construction (section 3.1; 3.3). It is argued that the brand identification, in this postmodern society, will not be one dominant conception of the brand, but the individual experience of the brand that varies from situation to situation. Within a postmodern marketplace identity is fragmented and under continuous transformation (section 3.1), making the social and contextual aspects of the identification imperative. Postmodernism and co-creation calls for an emphasis on connectivity and creativity, and not least the possibility to construct different experiences of the same brand that utilizes the representation of different self-images (section 3.1; Firat & Venkatesh, 1993) Interaction human-to-human For the postmodern consumer, brand identification involves interaction with the brand, hereto Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) building blocs of interaction are, as mentioned, regarded as the starting point for further development within the branding paradigm (section 3.3.1). With this vast importance of a mutual dialogue 2, it is found relevant to continue the branding development and build hereon, in the pursue of new perspectives matching the present market. Interaction and dialogue in their direct forms allude a perspective of human-to-human, and refer to the brand as an equal participant in the social connection with consumers. Thus one could argue that Aaker s (1997) brand personality factor (section 3.2.1; appendix 5) still plays a role in the brand-consumer relationship, providing a set of personality traits to the brand based on it actions, which equal consumers current self-reference (Aaker, 1997; Keller, 1993; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011). However as identity is fragmented and not static as earlier (section 3.1.1), the brand personality further needs to be seen within the recognition of a new brand approach. Postmodern consumers construct, represent, and 2 Comprising access, transparency, and risk-benefits (section 3.3.2) 39/183

40 maintain their self-identity through brand experiences, but not necessarily based on the brand status, rather the value of the experience itself is what heightens the self-concept (sections 3.1; 3.3). Thus the brand personality perspective in this study would merely concern the brand as a relationship partner and not as an isolated personality applied to the brand/product. Co-creation facilitates consumer engagement on a mutual level and enables this consumer self-exhibition through brand experiences (section 3.3; Ramaswamy, 2011). One could hereby argue that co-creation helps provide human traits and personality to the non-human form of a brand, as it sets the stage for close interaction and further gives the brand the human ability to listen and understand, being an important outcome for consumers to engage in co-creation (section 3.3.3; Payne et al., 2009) Interaction as a social construction With the brand being a relationship partner in the co-creation process, there is as mentioned a focus on the social awareness and the contextual aspects within the consumption, experience, and identification of a brand (section 3.2.2). A strong brand relationship will ensure that the interaction does not comprise of two parallel processes but one merged and shared process (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Therefore brands can no longer function as the authority of consumer choices and behavior; rather they are merely a means to value, in a market where consumers enrich their social identities through the brand experience (sections 3.1; 3.3). As argued by Holt (2002: 83) the postmodern branding paradigm is premised upon the idea that brands will be more valuable if they are offered not as cultural blueprints but as cultural resources, as useful ingredients to produce self as one chooses. Brands and consumers should no longer exist in a void, they need to interact and co-create value for each other, human-tohuman. Co-creation requires certain closeness between consumers and brands and is proven to benefit both brands and consumers, giving both parties the roles of providers as well as beneficiaries (section 3.3.3; Cova & Dalli, 2009: 333; Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011: 309). Hence co-creation is argued to bring brands and consumers closer together through shared values and mutual exchange of intangible resources (section 3.1.1). By increasing the number of connection points between the brand and consumers, co-creation becomes a driver of relationships and may even strengthen the relationship between the two (Hoyer et al., 2010: 292; Grarup, 2012). This refers back 40/183

41 to the discussed relational brand perspective lead by Fournier (1998), arguing that the brand meaning occurs in the relationship between the brand and the consumer (section 3.2.2; appendix 6). However, in line with other brand perspectives Fournier s (1998) relationship view is too being challenged by co-creation and the advanced relational focus (sections 3.2.2; 3.3). The consumer is not only an individual as recognized in Fournier s perspective, but also a part of a social and cultural fabric. Thus apart from the relationship between the brand and the consumer (section 3.2.2), another area needs to be recognized with also interactions between the consumer and other consumers (section 3.3; Heding et al., 2009). From this perspective, it is argued that peer-to-peer communication formats influence the more traditional, vertical brand-toconsumer interaction, designating a new social and joint value creation independent from brand attentions (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). The difference can be summarized in the figure 6 below. Figure 6: The developed relations perspective (complied by the author) It is, thus, important to note that when considering consumers as collaborators in the co-creation process of generating value and meaning (section 3.3), it does not necessarily imply that these consumers are interested in an actual relationship with the brand. As pointed out by Cova (1996) the postmodern consumer prefers to create and maintain relations with other consumers, not necessarily with a brand or a company behind the brand (Cova in Christensen et al., 2005: 159). Thus co-creation should encourage stronger relationships, but not necessarily for the traditional sake of brand loyalty, which is questionable in a fragmented postmodern consumer culture (section 3.1.1). Rather it should be for the brand identification that can just as well be applied in a consumer-to-consumer relation (Tuškej et al., 2013). Through co-creation, one moves away from simply two-way communication and towards active interaction shaping 41/183

42 expectations on a multilevel access and hereby co-creating brand value on the base of dialogue, access, transparency, and risk-benefits (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000; section 3.3.1). Thus brand identification should be a result of synergy between all types of relationships, being it consumer-to-brand or consumer-to-consumer. Hereby the ability to build a strong brand will further depend on its participatory market orientation and thus ability to engage consumers in dialogue (Ind & Coates, 2013). All in all these above discussed brand factors of brand experience, brand personality in the form of human-to-human brand relationships, social peer connections, and brand value and evaluation are mutually dependent factors encouraged and strengthened by co-creation. Together they can, as advocated, comprise and result in brand identification, which of course differ from situation to situation, dependent on social interaction and context. The following section brings together the theoretical review and evaluation to inquire into contemporary accounts of co-creation, and presents a conceptual framework based hereon. 3.5 Theoretical subset and conceptual framework Through this theoretical chapter the concept of co-creation has been specified in its relation to the context of a postmodern consumer approach and developments within the branding paradigm, thus answering research question one and attending milestone one and soon also milestone two of this thesis. The development of co-creation has changed the understanding and perspective of branding; having evolved to focus on social relations and experiences, being the driving force and output of co-creation and brand value (sections 3.3; 3.4). Having emerged as a response to postmodern market changes, the co-creation of value focuses on consumer demands for active participation and takes a new holistic and social perspective on consumer interaction. With an indicated mutual beneficial engagement between consumers, brands, and other consumers, there is a need for a social and contextual dialogue in the creation of unique brand experiences (sections 3.3.1; 3.3.3). Co-creation is in its true nature a relational process, and therefore interaction is paramount. As clarified in section this interaction encompasses four building blocks of co-creation being dialogue, access, transparency, and risk-benefits. Thus with inspiration from Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) these parameters are incorporated as prerequisites for co-creation in this 42/183

43 study s conceptual framework below in figure 7. Based on the theory clarified in the above sections, the study suggests that successful co-creation 3 leads to greater brand identification among consumers (section 3.4). A result that is very much determined by and dependent on consumers reflections and negotiations of the factors of brand experience, relationship, brand value, and social connections (sections 3.4.1; 3.4.2), being the expected value assets of co-creation as visualized below. Hereby the first stage of the framework highlights the input in co-creation, followed by the interaction and the actual co-creation process. The third stage shows the value impact on consumers listed as the four brand factors and value assets. These factors can through different configurations and consumer valuation increase the likelihood of consumers brand identification, and thus a shared valuable outcome of co-creation. The increased focus on mutual and equal dialogue thus shapes new recognitions of the brand identity construct through co-creation. Figure 7: Conceptual framework (complied by the author) By suggesting the complexity of co-creation and its relation to brand identification, the conceptual framework contributes to the understanding of this complexity by accepting the many parallel processes of interaction and means of value. This furthermore calls 3 Being it co-creation of products, services, experiences or something different. 43/183

44 for a reflection of the values and understandings that consumers realize of co-creation and how they build discourses from their notion hereof. Through this theoretical review, the study has thus highlighted some preliminary configurations of consumer value assets influenced by co-creation, as visualized in figure 7 and clarified in table 4 below. These value assets will affect the research collection, and will thus be further explored and elaborated in the forthcoming analysis and discussion, together with consumers discourses of co-creation, to attend milestone three and four. However it is important to note that the study moreover engages in the research with an open and inductive perspective to the data, utilizing the qualitative iterative approach as mentioned in section 2.2. Value asset Description Theoretical sections Brand experience It is argued that co-creation lead to richer brand experiences, which might increase the extent to which (sections 3.3; 3.4) each individual incorporate the brand into his/her self-concept. Brand relationship Co-creation is argued to bring brands and consumers closer together and thus foster stronger relationships - but different from (sections 3.4.1; 3.4.2) the traditional vertical brand-toconsumer interaction, rather a human-to-human relationship. Social peer connection Co-creation is said to foster social connections with other peers that not necessarily involve the brand (section 3.4.2) in its traditional form. Brand value (evaluation) Co-creation is argued to create brand value through relationships, and thus make consumers evaluate brands more favorably. (section 3.4) Table 4: Suggested value assets of co-creation (complied by the author) Having argued for the overall theoretical framework, and thus addressed research question one, and proposed a conceptual framework on the relationship between cocreation and brand identification as foundation for the empirical analysis, the subsequent chapter accounts and argues for the overall research strategy, methodology, and analysis employed to answer research question two. 44/183

45 4 Research Methodology This chapter operates as a guide and basis for the analytical parts of the study in order to outline the reflections made to encounter the research aim (section 1.3; Aaker et al., 2007). The intention of this chapter is thus to demonstrate a clear linkage between the study s scientific foundations and the choice of research methodology. 4.1 Methodology To answer research question two and acquire the most qualified data for analysis, a qualitative methodology of a focus group and three supporting interviews is chosen. Both have the same beneficial attributes to explore the perspectives of participants indepth and be flexible when allowing answers to form the evolving conversation and knowledge creation (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: ). The focus group is chosen as the main means for data collection as it is well suited for this explorative study with its collective group interaction encouraging more spontaneous expressive and emotional views, and will be less cognitive than individual interviews alone (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 150; Bryman, 2012). From a social constructionist viewpoint it is thus suitable to produce data that says something about the construction of meaning. This means that a focus group will generate more diverse knowledge providing evidence from a range of different attitudes on the same subject (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 242). The purpose is to stimulate ideas, thoughts and opinions about the value and experience of cocreation from the point of view of the participants (section 1.3). Through qualitative research one is able to go beyond the rational answers of asking people what they want, and instead ask why, in order to attain deeper thoughts and reasons behind the rational answer (Ind et al., 2012: 1). However as the group interaction of a focus group might also reduce control, and lack the ability to go in depth with the individual opinions (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 150), individual interviews with three of the participants are included for research support. This further allows for additional themes to be explored that might arise during the focus group, and the interviews will thus be able to unfold the meaning behind the expressed opinions in the focus group. Figure 8 illustrates the empirical methods chosen and purpose of use of the same. 45/183

46 Figure 8: Overview of empirical data (complied by the author) Selection of respondents The type of sampling used, when selecting respondents is purposeful and thus based on conditions determined by the aims of the study (Daymon & Holloway, 2002: 245). The research is aimed at the general consumer, more specifically generation Y 4 as they will be used to maneuvering in the postmodern marketplace as a more connected and communicating generation. The selected respondents all have an association to the area of communication, and thus have knowledge of the terminology used herein, which will appear in their comments. This is by the researcher argued to be an advantage when unfolding a complex and rather new concept such as co-creation. Six respondents are chosen for the focus group (table 5), a size large enough to provide a variety of perspectives and keep the dynamics going, and small enough to avoid disorder (Daymon & Holloway, 2011; Bryman, 2012: ). From these six participants, three are chosen for the individual interviews, to further explore opinions (table 6). 4 Generation Y (born in the mid-1980's and later) is the core of the postmodern consumers a generation that is flexible in its consciousness and communication (Schroer). 46/183

47 Females Males L - 26 years old, Planner R - 28 years old, HR D - 27 years old, PR assistant M - 29 years old, Unemployed C - 25 years old, Model K - 25 years old, Student Table 5: List of interviewed respondents for the focus group Individual interviews R - 28 years old, HR D - 27 years old, PR assistant K - 25 years old, Student Table 6: List of interviewed respondents for the individual interviews Semi structured interviews As full objectivity is not an option from this study s scientific realization (section 2.1.1), there will always be presuppositions present, impacting the study s approach to the subject of research. Therefore both the focus group and the individual interviews are semi-structured, meaning that interview guides (appendixes 9; 10) are designed beforehand, including an outline of topics, questions, and case examples (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 225; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 130). The focus group guide is created based on the theoretical review and the conceptual topics specified in section 3.5. The individual interviews are designed based on the focus group and the additional themes that aroused herein in need for further assessment. A semi-structured mode ensures that similar types of data are collected from all participants (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: ). However the questions are guiding and not leading, hence the structure also has an explorative purpose and allows for spontaneous occurrences of linked topics, as these will only strengthen the proximity to the research object (ibid.). The purpose of the introductory questions and case examples are merely used to open and stimulate opinions of the co-creation concept, and the questions are open-ended to help respondents initiate and form the conversation. Having a semi-structured mode means that the moderator can focus on listening and following up on the different answers to 47/183

48 best produce relevant knowledge (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 106; Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 227). Having argued for the overall research methodology and accounted for the sample studied, the subsequent sections account for the mode of analysis and reflections hereof. 4.2 Analytical strategy The approach to the qualitative research represents a social constructionist and hermeneutic approach, where the interpretation of meaning from language constructs is central (sections 2.1.3; 2.2). As the qualitative research focuses on an understanding and interpretation of meanings, so should the mode of analysis. Therefore elements of Foucauldian discourse analysis are applied, in order to understand the discourses articulated by concept and value of co-creation. According to Foucault (1972), discourses are representations in society that are constituted by and operating through language and other symbolic systems ] through which we experience the world (Burr, 2003: 18). Discourse analysis is thus a tool for social and conversational analysis, and by looking at what is constituted as object and subject positions (what is being said and in what connections it is being said), one can analyze different discursive repertoires that participants draw upon (Brown & Yule, 1983). Hereto it is, with a hermeneutic approach, argued that each participant has a presupposition pool of prior knowledge and contexts, which comes to show as the conversation and discourse proceeds (Brown & Yule, 1983: 80; section 2.1.2). Hence discourse analysis is here used methodologically to access the process of rhetorical connections within the data collected, and the meanings of the participants, being the discourse references and narratives through which they elaborate on the position of co-creation (Davies & Haré, 1990: 47; Brown & Yule, 1983; Paltridge, 2012). As for the discourse analysis in this study, it is not conducted on a text-linguistic level; rather it is used in terms of the holistic language and conversation perspective. To achieve a substantive outcome and to examine the discourses that construct the participants understanding of co-creation, topic coding or deconstruction is needed (Burr, 2003: 18; Gibson & Brown, 2009). Inspired by the hermeneutic text interpretation, the study uses coding to reduce, 48/183

49 organize, and categorize the semantic data into different themes and subthemes salient to the area of enquiry (Gibson & Brown, 2009; Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 306; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: ; Burr, 2003: 18). Working with the codes the study has searched both inductively and deductively for relationships that indicate patterns to provide structure for analysis. Deductively the codes are theory-driven based on themes from the theoretical framework (chapter 3), and inductively the coding is dataderived in identifying additional patterns of interest that emerged during the research and data examination (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 202). According to Braun and Clarke (2006: 82) a theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set, hereto it is further argued that a theme is flexible depending on the context of use. The themes are added to the transcriptions with code numbers and letters in appendixes while table 7 illustrates an overview of the appointed themes and subthemes. Theme Code Subthemes Co-creation 1 Brand identification 2 Brand Relationship 3 Brand Value 4 Motivation 5 Brand loyalty 6 Brand skepticism 7 a) Product centered b) Customization c) Negotiation open interpretation d) Modes of co-creation e) Value added f) Co-creation communication a) Prior brand relationship and knowledge b) Purpose c) Self-recognition d) Product quality a) Dialogue b) Brand exploration c) Involvement a) Brand evaluation b) Brand preference a) Feedback b) Feeling unique c) Social recognition d) Brand profit a) Purchase intention b) Brand commitment a) Risk b) Exploitation c) Marketing stunt 49/183

50 Social connections 8 a) Networks b) Belonging c) Social influence Personal image 9 a) Self expression b) Social identity Brand experience 10 a) Fun b) Interactions/ social connections c) Knowledge generation Trust and honesty 11 a) Brand behavior b) CSR c) Brand promise Table 7: Overview of themes and subthemes used for analysis (compiled by the author) From the identified themes, different elements and discourses of co-creation are recognized and used to structure the analysis and discussion, however they will not all be given equal attention. One is hereby, through the use of the hermeneutic circle and it s iterate functions, able to understand the data as a whole by interpreting its parts in relation to the research context, providing the possibility of a continuously deepened understanding of meaning (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: ). In answering research question two and attending milestone three and four, the codes and discourses of the research data will further be held up against the scientific and theoretical background put forth in chapter 2 and 3. The process is visualized in figure 9 below, depicting the empirical analysis and research process of this study. Based on the theoretical and scientific understanding gained by the researcher, the empirical research is initiated with the focus group and elaborated on through the three individual interviews (sections 4.1; 4.1.2). Together they form the data material for analysis that trough coding and meaning condensation is taken through elements of discourse analyses, whereto new knowledge is developed. 50/183

51 Figure 9: Analytical process (complied by the author) 4.3 Method reflections Although focus group and interview research is beneficial in many ways, it also has limitations; these research methods are distinct events of conversations following their own rules that to some extent will differ from everyday context of conversations (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 255). This should, however, not keep this study in employing them as use of data, but rather increase awareness of the limitations that commonly involve lack of control, domination from one or two participants, influences from the moderator, and/or group density altering individual opinions (Daymon & Holloway, 2011; Bryman, 2012: 359). Furthermore both interview forms might make some participants exaggerate their answers in the attempt to control their appearance, thus affecting the reliability of knowledge generated (Daymon & Holloway, 2011). It is recognized that the researcher is not necessarily able to analyze participants' real and ultimate relation to what is being discussed, however the insights should not be viewed as right or wrong, yet rather as products of the research context and inference 51/183

52 (Smithson, 2000; Brown & Yule, 1983; section 2.1.3). Moreover one must note that analyses of discourses will vary depending on the context; the system is developed as one comprehends the data and identifies discourses (Burr, 2003; Brown & Yule, 1983: 27). Hereby the data studied will always be a fragment of the discourse chosen by the researcher as relevant and by the researchers assumption of coherence, producing one particular interpretation that would be different within another setting. However adopting a social constructionist and hermeneutic approach it is argued as acceptable to take a subjective approach to interpretation (sections 2.1.1; 2.1.2). Nonetheless this does not exclude the importance of considering context and the need for ongoing reflections, as this will create a better understanding of the meaning and dynamics (Brown & Yule, 1983; Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 239). It is recognized that because the empirical analysis aims to understand participants interpretations, it results in a double hermeneutic approach as the social reality observed and interpreted by the researcher has already been interpreted by the informants (Lock & Strong, 2010: ). The scientific point of departure therefore has implications for this study s research process, and also for the role of the researcher who too is influenced by a cultural and social context Research evaluation and value In order to evaluate the quality of the research it is important to account for the truthvalue of the findings (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 244). However, due to the subjective nature of qualitative research and the social constructionist approach, the usual questions of and criteria for reliability and validity, stemming from a more positivistic perspective, is somewhat discharged (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 78). Rather this study recognizes that designs are emergent and not necessarily replicable, as there are no absolute truths and objectivity is not for the researcher to claim (chapter 2). Hereto Guba and Lincoln (1985) introduced four new trustworthiness terms to replace the conventional formulations, which are considered in this study (Bryman, 2012:273; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 244). These are credibility (in place of internal validity), transferability (in place of external validity), dependability (in place of reliability), and conformability (in place of objectivity) (Guba & Lincoln, 1985: 219). 52/183

53 In order to ensure that findings and interpretations are credible one must ensure that the research is carried out based on good practice, and that the findings are approved by participants (Bryman, 2012: ). Lincoln & Guba (1985: 314) refer to this as respondent validation or member check, which has been implemented in this study after the analysis of the data. The participants were surprised by some of their own statements and contradictions, but had no significant objections. Transferability refers to the contextual uniqueness of the research, making it difficult to specify external validity and directly transfer it to other studies in other contexts or times (Guba & Lincoln, 1985: 316). As a qualitative researcher one can however provide others with a thick description of the research, enabling them to conclude whether transfer is a possibility (Bryman, 2012: 275). In this chapter, the interview guides, and transcriptions will form this description. As a parallel to reliability Lincoln & Guba (1985: ) propose the idea of dependability involving an outside inquiry audit to authenticate the research. However the auditing is not used to its full extent in this study, as due to the thorough transcriptions hereof it is not found imperative (Bryman, 2012: 275). Lastly conformability is introduced to ensure that the researcher not overtly allow s personal values or theoretical inclinations manifestly to sway the conduct of the research and findings derived from it (Bryman, 2012: 276). This is ensured by using both inductive and deductive research through semi-structured methods, so that the focus group and interviews are guided, but with an open mind and room for exploration (sections 4.2; 4.2.1). From the preceding chapter it should be evident that the research design and research aim have been carefully interlinked. The following chapter now turns attention to the analysis and discussion of the research findings. 53/183

54 5 Data analysis and discussion In answering research question two, this chapter sets out to analyze and discuss the research findings from the focus group and interviews. In pursuing the iterative approach of the hermeneutic circle with both an inductive and deductive method, the findings are evaluated against the literature and conceptual framework outlined in chapter 3 and moreover through coding and discourse representations found through analysis to identify new themes and connotations of interest (section 4.3). Throughout the chapter, discourse fragments (citations) will be provided with a reference to the transcriptions 5, and a unit number as listed in the appendixes. The researcher will base the identification of respondents opinions on their linguistic articulations, which is said to be consistent with their discourse representations unless otherwise indicated (Brown & Yule, 1983). In the course of this chapter, the researcher shall examine and discuss the overall understanding of the concept of co-creation, initially based on the focus group data. Subsequently, the notion of co-creation in relation to brand identification and value assets (section 3.5) will be considered in relation to discourse representations made by participants in both the focus group and interviews. 5.1 The discourse of co-creation When attending the first part of research question two, and thus also milestone three of this study (section 1.3), it is argued that the conversations from the data collected produce discursive resources that create a collective identity and translate it into the meaning and discourses of co-creation. In contributing to the lack of knowledge of how consumers understand co-creation and identify with brands here through (section 1.2), respondents were initially asked to elaborate on their immediate reflections of cocreation and if they believed they had ever engaged in co-creation processes (appendixes 9; 12). From the initial reflections it is evident that respondents articulate co-creation as merely centered on the product or service, as seen in the remarks below: L: I think it co-creation maybe has something to do with the product or service of the organization. (Appx. 12: 13) 5 The focus group transcription is found in appendix 12, the interview with K in appendix 13, the interview with D in appendix 14, and the interview with R in appendix /183

55 D: I think my initial thoughts are *hmm* maybe product related as well. As well as procedure related But then I think, for me, I maybe combine co-creation with value added to the brand as well. If that makes sense? (Appx. 12: 14) C: I think it adds value both to consumers, seeing it from the other side of the table, but also for the brands, because they can then represent what the consumers actually want. (Appx. 12: 66) Aside from the product perspective, value creation moreover develops as a topic of conversation, as being part of co-creation. The latter remark is made after the participants are introduced to some examples of co-creation, indicating that they, when provided with discourse representations, also acknowledge the importance of mutual value in co-creation. This is too emphasized in the theoretical perspective of especially Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) definition of co-creation being the processes by which both consumers and the brand cooperate in creating value (sections 3.3; 3.3.2). However, this concept assessment moreover reveals how most participants held limited knowledge of co-creation, and the initial stages of the focus group contributes to the complexity of the concept as a result of the many modes hereof (sections 3.3; 3.3.2). The participants were confused and somewhat cautious in their assumptions using phrases like if that makes sense, I think, and maybe (appendix 12), indicating not only an insecurity on the subject but also a hesitant ambience, with the participants awaiting the opinion of others before they fully articulate their own. This is noteworthy, as it confirms the assumption of continuous development in meaning and discourse, with participants being influenced by the social surroundings and their own outward appearance (section 3.1.1; Cova & Dalli, 2009; Firat & Schultz, 1997). In these initial stages of assertion the term customization was further mentioned as a part of the complex understanding of co-creation, initially with a proposition that customization must differ from co-creation: M: I normally think about the fact that it co-creation is different from customization. (Appx. 12: 17) R: I thought of build-a-bear to begin with as co-creation, but that must then be more about customizing. (Appx. 12: 18) 55/183

56 As framed from the above conversational fragment, being the first to mention the term customization, M influences the other participants understanding and discourse reflections with his presupposed assumptions hereof (Brown & Yule, 1983: 28-29), adding a term that was not introduced by the moderator. The subsequent remark by R indicates that he has accepted this presupposition, and incorporated this in his developing reflections. This is moreover an interesting observation as the term customization is consequently used fairly prompt when the participants have to think of and explain their own experiences with co-creation. A cognitive occurrence that might not have been their first thought, had M not mentioned it as his initial remarks of defining co-creation. Hence accompanying the contextual notion of today s postmodern consumers that, as humans, we are very much affected by the present social environment and social interactions, in taking into consideration the features of M s developing discourse representation (Brown & Yule, 1983; sections 2.1.1; 3.1.1). When talking about personal co-creation experiences, the majority of respondents hereby referred to customization, not that they necessarily paralleled it with co-creation, but because that was now top of mind and had become a common ground and representation of the participants, as manifested in the following remarks: Moderator: Have you ever engaged in co-creation processes? (Appx. 12: 23) L: More customization I think For example adding a color to a shoe, or something like that - or the build-a-bear as [R] mentioned. (Appx. 12: 27; 30) D: Yes, maybe more customization (Appx. 12: 28) Only one respondent could initially recall a personal experience that he would actually label co-creation, an open knowledge-sharing workshop he attended for a greener city project (appendix 12: 31). A few of the others also remembered examples of co-creation as the conversation went along, and their cognitions were more activated on the topic. However, they were not recollections that occurred as a response to their personal cocreation experiences, but merely in talking about the concept in general. Thus highlighting the importance of examples and concretization when attempting to define 56/183

57 the complex concept of co-creation and activating the cognitive minds of participant 6. The researcher can from this argue that co-creation, as a concept, is somewhat diffuse, and a process that consumers might engage in or be a part of without truly recognizing it as being co-creation. This further comes to show in the following remark from the individual interview with R, where he recognizes and positions co-creation within in a developing branding discourse: R: I think it ads an extra layer of fuzziness to branding. Branding without co-creation is more straightforward. There is a lot of brands competing and a lot of noise, but it is much more approachable. When you ad an element of co-creation, you sometimes are lured into it, and sometimes you realize that I have just been a part of a co-creation process without even knowing it'. That can be good or bad. (Appx. 14: 89) The conversation fragment above further indicates that the fuzziness of co-creation leads to some skepticism in using the phrase lured into. Acknowledging this uncontrollability from both the consumer and brand point of view (sections 3.1.1; 3.3), the research findings encourage a discussion of this skepticism and risk assessment in relation to co-creation, which will be initiated in section All together, this indication of fuzziness and different observations of co-creation confirms the methodological standpoint and theoretical notion that co-creation is a social construct (sections 2.1.1; 3.3). Moreover the findings indicate that the concept might not be as prevalent among consumers as depicted in literature, and has not reached the everyday life and immediate interest of consumers yet Negotiating brands In unfolding the concept of co-creation and adding a discourse of branding, the element of brand negotiation is further incorporated as seen in the following statements - an element that is moreover emphasized in the theoretical framework as being an important factor in the co-creation process (sections 3.3; 3.3.1). K: When I think of co-creation, I think of how we negotiate brands Like if you have a brand and you leave it up to consumers to add value to the brand. (Appx. 12: 19) 6 Which is why examples were used in the focus group to initiate discussion (appendix 9). It is recognized that these examples will moreover influence participants discursive references. 57/183

58 D: I think that the co-creative process of involving consumers and taking their ideas into account in developing something for your brand then it is not just a one-way brand, but a negotiated brand. (Appx. 15: 9) When linking brand negotiation to the concept of co-creation, the participants concur with Fournier s (1998) central points in brand relationship, being that, the consumers seem to negotiate the brand s meaning in relation to both individual and social life projects (section 3.2.2). Thus recognizing the relational and interactive discourse and nature of co-creation (section 3.4.2). Through this link it is further argued that the participants see co-creation as a personal brand experience, and thus endorse Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) assertion that the brand is co-created by consumers and changes along with experiences, and hereby creates value through interaction and negotiation (section 3.3). However seeing co-creation as an experience further fuels the complexity and confusion among respondents, as this very much blurs the lines in the framework of co-creation. What in theory can be very simple seemingly is very complex in the minds of consumers, which inter alia comes to show in the following remark: D: I think it is hard if you look at it in that way as an experience, then everything becomes co-creation even the way you use your Mac computer. You would then position the brand in a situation where you would make other people perceive it depending on how they are interacting with the brand through the product. (Appx. 12: 88) Despite the participants being confused about the co-creation of experiences and its unclear lines, this study will with its theoretical background argue that co-creation put the brand in a vibrant and negotiable situation where the brand value is affected by the interaction and experience with the brand/product (sections 3.3; 3.3.1). The question is whether this happens unknowingly in the eyes of consumers? Nonetheless, in order to move respondents closer towards the recognition of co-creation of experiences, a new co-creation example was incorporated in the second round of data collection; the three supporting interviews (appendix 10), now to be further elaborated on Routes of co-creation In section of the theoretical framework and further in the focus group, examples of co-creation were given to illustrate the variation in form and purpose of the concept, and to initiate discussion. Co-creation of design and open innovation was exemplified 58/183

59 using the LEGO CUUSOO platform while co-creation community of ideas was illustrated through BMW s co-creation lab. Lastly DANONE and its Activia advisory board were used to demonstrate co-creation of knowledge (section 3.3.2; appendix 7). However as a result of the focus group research, it was found that respondents had difficulties in visualizing and understanding the co-creation of experiences (section 5.1) that according to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) is the idea that every use of a brand involves individual co-creation of consumption experiences (sections 3.3; 3.3.2). This is the most progressive level of co-creation, which might also be the reason why it is the one that caused the greatest confusion among the focus group participants (section 5.1). Consequently it was found relevant to incorporate an additional example of co-creation, illustrating the mode of experience, for use in the interviews and thus further discussion and elaboration of co-creation. Hereby the thesis iterative qualitative approach (sections 2.2; 4.2) comes to show as the researcher has learned from the first mode of analysis and accordingly incorporates new inputs to the second round of data collection (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). These results will then again be analyzed alongside the focus group findings in the remainder of this chapter. The example chosen to expand this understanding is Nike s running system: Nike+. It consists of a censor that runners can insert in their shoes, a connected device, such as an ipod or a Nike Fuelband, and then the Nike+ website and community for interaction between all the devices (appendix 8). Here the product and design is already created, and the co-creation process is focused on the holistic experience and personal use of the product and brand in general. Nike+ sets the stage for a community of runners that cocreate their own experiences around the Nike product every time they use it and engage with other consumers doing the same (Ramaswamy & Goulliart, 2010b; appendix 8). Hence Nike connects with the experience of the runners as they interact with the product and brand, now being the engagement platform opening up to multiple types of co-creators. With the inclusion of this new example for use in the interviews, the researcher moreover recognizes the need for an improved illustration of the co-creation examples within figure 5 in section To properly illustrate the overall routes of cocreation the figure is modified to the below figure 10, where the DANONE example is merged into the idea and knowledge route with BWM, and the Nike+ example is added as a more advanced level. Again it is important to note that these different forms of co- 59/183

60 creation are not mutually exclusive; rather they can be used together to reinforce the value outcome (section 3.3.2). Co-creation of design open innovation Co-creation of ideas and knowledge Co-creation based on personal experiences Figure 10: Modification of co-creation examples (section 3.3.2; appendix 7; 8) Within the supporting interviews, the factor of experience is thus again discussed and backed with new knowledge and input from the added case example. The participants feel equally favorable about the Nike+ initiative in itself; one of them actually uses the system. However they still have difficulties aligning this experience mode of co-creation with their understanding of the concept. They see the use of Nike+ as being their own personal experience that they could have with any other brand or product. They see it more as a service and way of supporting the brand, than as co-creation, which comes to show in the following remarks: D: I am not sure I see it as co-creation, maybe more of a service. (Appx. 15: 43) K: I think in this type of co-creation I am not affecting the brand I am supporting the brand. So in that way I would think positively about Nike and still identify with Nike, but I wouldn't think that I am co-creating the brand as such. (Appx. 13: 50; 55) R: It per definition might be co-created, but I would feel a lot more that it is my fault alone that I get this experience. ] I could still have the same experience with another product. The co-creation needs an element where I can say 'without Nike I wouldn't have had this experience' (Appx. 14: 77, 79, 83). Hereto it is further argued that the participants in their discourse of the concept presuppose brand involvement as a condition for co-creation, as they do not recognize Nike+ as co-creation because they themselves own the experience. Thus Prahalad and 60/183

61 Ramaswamy s (2004) approach to co-creation of experience might be among the more ultimate of ideas, or at least not something that knowingly is recognized by consumers. It seems that the respondents would think more positively about Nike through this type of experience, so even though they do not believe they engage directly with the brand, what is intended as co-creation of experience still affects their brand evaluation favorably. Therefore co-creation of experience as in the Nike+ example might not be cocreation in the eyes of the consumers, however it is from the point of view of the brand, adding value to the brand. The question is then, if co-creation needs to be recognized by consumers to be successful and lead to brand identification? Customization as co-creation? When discussing the routes of co-creation and thus the different modes hereof, the term customization, mentioned in section 5.1, is brought up again later in the conversation. This time in the context of a co-creation example introduced by one of the respondents, with the brand Kit Kat that launched new product flavors, where people had to vote for the flavor that they preferred. As a result, Kit Kat would take the other three of the market, knowing that the one remaining would be the one selling the most (appendix 12: 211). The respondents positively discuss the example and further allude that they find this mode of co-creation, which they label customization, more simple and easily accessible: L: If I should want to participate in a co-creation process with a brand that is not like my heart and soul, then the customization way is just easier for me. It doesn t take as much effort. (Appx 12: 214) D: I think for me personally, it is a more fun way. Because, even though I couldn t really care less about what Kit Kat products are like *smile*, they made me go to the shop and buy one just to taste it, because the flavors were so ridiculous that I just had to taste them. And then I just kind of went into a battle with everyone else on the Facebook page, because I wanted the peanut butter one to win. (Appx. 12: 215) The respondents here to some extent equate customization with co-creation, despite the somewhat clear distinction earlier in the conversation (section 5.1). Hence the notion, put forth by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), that co-creation does not include product development in its sole form (section 3.3.2), might still be somewhat too 61/183

62 idealistic. The product focus appears to still be appealing and relevant among consumers. Nonetheless, despite the accessibility of customization and thus framing product focus as a part of co-creation, the respondents articulate that the more motivating and valuable form of co-creation is the one where they as consumers are empowered and involved in the more important dialogues and thus are indispensable for the brand and not just the customization of a product: R: I am more into co-creation where the brand or company could not have done it without the consumers. (Appx. 12: 75) This again only strengthens the complexity of co-creation, and suggests that the routes and different modes of co-creation, inscribed in many different discourses, might have a greater impact on the outcome and consumer mindset, than first anticipated (sections 3.3.2; 3.5). With the existing understanding of co-creation among participants, it is not possible to talk only of the general co-creation of shared value (section 3.3). The participants aspire to more specific examples and modes of co-creation in order to consciously discuss the concept, and are affected hereof when determining the value and the outcome, as manifested in the below remarks: D: The type of co-creation would definitely affect my view on the co-creation process. (Appx 12: 91) K: The form of co-creation would also be a part of how it co-creation for me affects the outcome, the brand relationship, value and so on. (Appx 12: 92) This is a noteworthy finding that supplements the characteristics of the fragmented postmodern consumer who pursues different entities to match different moments and the desired identity herein (section 3.1.1; Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Firat & Schultz, 1997). Therefore, this individualization of consumers is argued to moreover affect their desire to distinguish between co-creation routes and ability to choose the mode that fits their current needs and situation at hand. 5.2 Brand identification through co-creation From the theoretical review it is argued that brand identification is an imperative factor for co-creation to fully succeed brand wise (sections 3.4; 3.5), and this following section 62/183

63 will look further into the research findings hereto, attending the second part of research question two. The discourse of brand identification is included prior to the value assets of co-creation, also in the focus group guide, as it is believed that by introducing the element of brand identification the respondents initiate discourse representations hereto and activate presuppositions concerning the value outcome of co-creation. This might be perceived as influencing the discourse development, however it is deemed essential to stay within the limited scope of the research. In line with the theoretical assessments (section 3.4) there is across the respondents supporting confirmations that brand identification can be a positive outcome of cocreation, however with several conditions mooted as requirements hereto and elements hereof. Although a couple of the respondents claim indifference to the brand behind the co-creation initiatives, they yet acknowledge brands that have engaged successfully in co-creation. Other respondents emphasize that co-creation would only result in brand identification in so far that they are familiar with the brand beforehand, and thus have a favorable prior relationship with and knowledge about the brand. This perception reflects a standpoint that is supported, one way or another, by all participants and thus develops as common ground when talking about brand identification. The standpoint will be further explored in the following section Brand identification in itself is discussed as strongly connected to personal and emotional values and the brand purpose. The below statements assembles the overall attitudes held by respondents towards brand identification as well as its relation to co-creation: C: It co-creation does actually change how I view the brands. (Appx. 12: 66) L: I am tired of brands that are not here for anything. There has to be some greater purpose with the brand for them to make an impact in my life. (Appx. 12: 46) K: I think that when you get the opportunity to co-create with a brand, you agree to put part of yourself into the brand. For me to identify with a brand there has to be some shared values and an emotional connection, if that makes sense. I need to se my self in the brand before I can identify with it. (Appx. 13: 10; 53) 63/183

64 M: It is really about identifying something in the brand that is also how I want to be seen and how I am as a person. So the experience will also change my own identity that I show others. I will be more committed to the brand further on. (Appx. 12: 45; 99) R: On a conscious level I don t think it co-creation affects me at all, on a subconscious level perhaps. But I don t think you will be able to see a difference in my bank receipts to be honest. It really need to have me be involved in a long period of time before I make any big changes, for me it is more hyped than actual value. I identify with brands that are approachable, honesty and that you know what you get, that is important. (Appx. 12: 231; 50) The latter statement by R is the only contradictory opinion towards co-creation leading to brand identification. Here R chooses not to accept and adopt the other participants presuppositions, and rather add his own, thus this contradiction further allows some perspective on the developing discourses and encourages reflections among participants. However in the individual interview, R accepts and adopts some of the discourse representations and presuppositions from the focus group, and conversely recognizes the importance of identification and its interrelation with co-creation: R: I would also look at it the other way around, if you can't identify with the brand, how can you co-create it, why would you co-create? If At some point in the co-creation process you will have to identify to a certain extent. Otherwise, how can it make sense? Unless the co-creation process is so detached from the company, that you don't realize the brand. So I think it is just a part of the process. (Appx. 13: 15) These findings back the theoretical argument made by the researcher in section 3.4 and 3.5 that brand identification is a valuable outcome of co-creation. The participants supplement the fact that brand identification is an emotional connection and a selfcongruity process between the brand image and the consumer s self-concept (section 3.4; Aaker et al., 2004; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011), and they further add that within this process rests also factors of social connections and other brand influences. Consequently, brand identification is not stimulated by co-creation alone and is not a guaranteed outcome hereof. It is the holistic brand experience that determines whether consumers identify with a brand or not; co-creation does as established however function as a strong influencer hereto. Just as expected in the theoretical assessment there are certain requirements in order for brand identification to arise, assumed cocreation value assets that through different connections can result in brand 64/183

65 identification (section 3.5). When discussing the process of and relationship between co-creation and brand identification, the respondents highlight different related benefits and effects as conditions hereof. Aside from the above-mentioned importance of prior brand familiarity, especially factors of brand relationship, social connections of likeminded, self-expression, brand commitment, and trust were emphasized and considered in different associations. It is thus determined that co-creation affects consumers brand attitude, however for it to affect brand identification as well, a combination of these elements should be present. These value assets, as they are referred to in the conceptual framework (section 3.5), will be further analyzed and expanded in the subsequent section 5.3 and the remainder of this chapter. In analyzing participants discourses around brand identification, the research findings further show that involvement is framed as a paramount for identification, indicating that consumers are more inclined to identify with brands through co-creation initiatives that they themselves have been involved in. Conversely, just as well as involvement in co-creation can reinforce brand identification, involvement in a poor co-creation experience can damage the brand evaluation and image, and very much make consumers retain from identifying with the brand: L: If I was involved in co-creation and it was poorly executed it would devaluate my brand experience and relationship, and would put a greater distance between the brand and myself. (Appx. 12: 82) D: Or if the co-creation outcome and promises was not acted upon afterwards. (Appx. 12: 83) The above fragments of conversation moreover present yet another indicator of underlying brand skepticism among participants. They represent the informed group of postmodern consumers who see value in brand interaction, but also is aware of the underlying agendas for brands, recognizing the possible negative effect of poorly executed and maintained interaction. As mentioned, this skepticism will be discussed in section Nonetheless, despite this element of risk, the significance of involvement further emphasizes the previous discussed fundamentals of interaction and negotiation (sections 5.1; 5.1.1). Therefore, together with the postmodern approach (section 3.1), 65/183

66 and the branding paradigm developments (sections 3.2; 3.4), research findings suggest that brand identity and identification should be a participatory process of negotiations and reflections on consumers selves, hence a co-constructed brand identification. This brand identification, creating a sense of self-brand connection among consumers, is argued to positively serve brands in a competitive market, provided that the value assets are established Prior brand knowledge and relationship Having a social constructionist and hermeneutic framework, it is assumed that the participants are affected by presuppositions of their past experiences and understandings of social processes, and thus are subjective in talking in the light of their present understanding of the situation (section 2.1.2). An influence and subjectivity that, as mentioned, further appears in the research findings, when the importance of prior knowledge about the brand is highlighted, in the determination of opinion and identification (section 5.2). Following the initial assessment of the effect that cocreation has on brand identification, the researcher soon discovers a tendency of reflection of and reference to previous brand experiences and knowledge: D: You need to be very much familiar with the brand, and have had some kind of relationship with it. I need to know how they behave business wise. I mean it doesn t really add any value to me that they co-create, when I do not know if they use child labor or are underpaying their employees. I am not just going to buy DANONE because I have taken part in some co-creation activity, if I don t like the rest of their business values. (Appx. 12: 54; 67; 69; 171) K: I think you would never engage in a co-creation process if you weren't interested in a brand. Or I wouldn t. (Appx. 13: 20) C: I don t think you would participate in a co-creation process if you didn t have the relationship in the first place. I wouldn t engage with DANONE either because I don t have a relationship with them, but I might engage in some other co-creation process where I already have a relationship with the brand. Then, when this prior relationship exists, cocreation can add value to me and how I see and identify with the brand, and maybe also lead to loyalty. (Appx. 12: 173) 66/183

67 As evident from the above remarks the prior brand relationship and knowledge is a heavy and imperative influencer at the outset of the co-creation process, thus not only a prerequisite for brand identification though co-creation, but also for co-creation engagement in general. Findings here frame the hermeneutic approach in the study of brands, when arguing that the understanding of a brand cannot be isolated from earlier interpretations. A framing that is supported by Hatch and Rubin (2006), who have included Gadamer's (1986) views in a context of branding, and argue that understanding past and present brand meanings plays a key role in developing a brands potential (Hatch & Rubin, 2006: 41). Within the above remarks, the participants moreover add a corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse to the conversation, in the sense of brand promise and behavior. When talking about prior brand knowledge, the participants refer to the relationship but also the business code of conduct and social behavior. They thereby emphasize the importance of the holistic brand experience where a single occurrence of co-creation will not affect the brand identification and value alone (sections 3.3; 5.2). Thus, the brand needs to align co-creation with the remainder of activities and core values, which further argues for the importance of brands following up on the cocreation processes and keeping their promises. As seen from the findings so far, it is noteworthy that the DANONE co-creation example (presented by the researcher in the focus group) is equally disregarded among the participants, partly because they influence each other s opinions hereof but also due to cognitive reasoning. Since they have just agreed that brand identification requires a prior familiarity with the brand, being unfamiliar with DANONE s brand values, which they all seem to be, hereby cognitively equals DANONE as an unidentifiable brand Brand status This prior brand association further comes to show within a discourse of brand status. The respondents dynamically achieve meanings from the discourse of co-creation throughout the discussion and are, when talking about brand identification, divided in their opinions on the self-representation through brands. Where most of them follow the postmodern consumer construct (section 3.4) and seem to be forming and representing their self-identity based on the value of the co-creation experience itself, 67/183

68 others seem to do so based on the brand status, hence challenging the theoretical proposition. Of example, L expresses that she neither is in favor of the DANONE cocreation example, due to it being just a community with no other purpose, at least this is how she sees it (appendix 12: 157). However, when providing an example of valuable co-creation she talks about a similar community by Unilever in San Francisco or New York that she sees as very cool (ibid.). Thus her evaluation of the co-creation initiative is very much determined by the prior knowledge and relationship with the brand, herein what she deems to be cool. Supported by the individual interviews and the discussion of the Nike+ example, this also applies for brand popularity: K: I think that because Nike is really popular, I would be more intrigued to go into cocreation with them. I use Endomondo myself for when I run they have a community too, and I have never even updated how I run or... whereas I presume that Nike would facilitate this community in some way that is professional, and I would then engage more because I see Nike as a professional company. (Appx. 13: 60) Hereby it is found that the brand popularity and status might as well encourage cocreation engagement and positive results hereof, a popularity that also comes with higher expectations from consumers as articulated in the above remark where Nike is perceived as more professional due to its popularity. This indicates that without the prior relationship as a prerequisite of co-creation, brands are much more receptive to consumer skepticism and distrust. In developing this discourse on brand familiarity, the respondents supplement with a metaphor of the human-to-human relationship, as seen in the following conversation fragment in table 8. This fragment demonstrates a jointly produced view, where the flow of conversations is framed as instances of conversational completion. Here L proposes an alternate reflection on the discourse, which is accepted and further developed by the other participants, thus they are together producing an opinion as one collective voice (Brown & Yule, 1983), a conversational construction facilitated and constituted by the focus group setting (section 4.1). 68/183

69 L: I think it is cool to use a metaphor of people relationships. Like if didn t know you, you would never ask me to co-create something with you without having the prior relationship. So co-creation also needs to come as a natural consequence to a relationship that already exists with the brand. In the beginning, when I might only be slightly familiar with the brand, co-creation will not make sense, because we don t have the foundation to build it on. C: I agree with that, I don t think you would participate in a co-creation process if you didn t have the relationship in the first place. Then, when this prior relationship exists, co-creation can add value to me, and how I see and identify with the brand, and maybe also lead to loyalty. L: I agree. D: Yes. So it is kind of like dating *smile*, going from the dating-stage into a relationship. K: *laughing* Yes you wouldn t be engaged to someone you don t already have a relationship with. M: Exactly *smiling* L: *laughing* R: And you wouldn t start talking about children in the first stages. Table 8: Conversation fragment from focus group (appendix 12: ) The human-to-human perspective is a noteworthy finding, as it independently is supported by the theoretical review in alluding human characteristics to the nonhuman form of a brand (sections 3.4.1; 3.4.2). Thus the evaluation and development made to the branding paradigm in chapter 3 is moreover applicable and recognized by participants. With references to the brand as an equal participant in the relationship and interaction, co-creation does in fact reinforce the human connection and reduce the previous gap between brand and consumers (Roser et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2009) Spoken discourse and social identity With regards to the discussion on brand identification it is found relevant to go back to a previous mentioned fragment concerning the Kit Kat example (section 5.1.3), and look into how the focus group setting and interaction moreover add to the element of identification: 69/183

70 D: I think it is for me personally, it customization is a more fun way. Because, even though I couldn t really care less about what Kit Kat products are like *smile*, they made me go to the shop and buy one just to taste it, because the flavors were so ridiculous that I just had to taste them. And then I just kind of went into a battle with everyone else on the Facebook page, because I wanted the peanut butter one to win. So it sort of became a personal competition as well. (Appx. 12: 215) The choice of wording and spoken discourse here says something about how D wishes to position herself in terms of her social identity, as these choices inevitably will contain imaginings that invoke ways of being (Brown & Yule, 1983). This is interesting to observe as she, and the other respondents, most likely are not aware of the discourses they draw upon when speaking, as they simply regard it as the way they talk. In using the remark; even though I couldn t really care less about what Kit Kat products are like and because the flavors were so ridiculous, it is argued that D purposely, as a part of her intergroup behavior, tries to justify her engagement with the Kit Kat brand and further to position herself as a consumer who is actually not devoted to minor details as the flavors of Kit Kat. Thus, motivated by interpersonal needs and the social self she uses language to perform and create a particular social identity within the focus group setting (Brown & Yule, 1983; Paltridge, 2012: 26). Together with the following remarks from the same respondent and the identified CSR discourse (section 5.2.1) it is argued that for D, it is important to be identified with brands that have a prominent stance against the environment and responsibility in general: D: I was actually reading on the back of a milk carton the other day, I think it was Thise. They where saying that by 2015 five organic farmers have chosen to leave and be nonorganic, because it was too expensive or something But then this milk company appealed for help, so if you knew any farmers that would like to become organic farmers, one could put the two in contact. That was interesting for me, because I like to drink organic milk. So I thought I want to help the under-dog here, even though I don t know any farmers. (Appx. 12: 131) D: At Waitrose English supermarket ] you get a coin after you have purchased something, and they have then already chosen three different courses that they will donate money to, and the cause that receives the most amount of coins from the customers, will also receive the most amount of money. That for me made me feel that I had something to say in regards to how the supermarket that I put my money in, how they help the local community. (Appx. 12: 243) 70/183

71 This does not mean that she cannot appreciate the Kit Kat co-creation example, which she still does in talking very enthusiastic about it (Appendix 12: 211). Kit Kat is just not the brand that she whishes to position herself as related to, rather Thise and Waitrose, as in her above remarks, are brands that she visibly identifies with towards her social surroundings. These observations are found particularly interesting in the linking of cocreation and brand identification, emphasizing the prominence of the prior relationship and knowledge (section 5.2.1). It designates that the brand character and social values might be of strong influence on the co-creation and brand identification, as consumers may be more likely to socially endorse the initiatives that match their desired selfrepresentation. Therefore it is further noteworthy when seen in connection with the contextual approach of the postmodern consumer (section 3.1.1), supporting the notion of both the fragmented postmodern consumer and the importance of the social image. This relevance of social connections will be further discussed in sections and Lastly, this fragment of interaction further addresses one of the limitations to qualitative research put forth in section 4.3, with participants amplification and positioning affecting the reliability of the data (Daymon & Holloway, 2011), however put into context, the observation is being unraveled and it only strengthens the knowledge creation. 5.3 Value assets of co-creation When looking at the participants conversations and utterances about co-creation and brand identification, as discussed above, they also refer to why they would engage in cocreation and thus draw on the discourses of motivation and benefits as a backdrop when attempting to explain the concepts and the value hereof. A discourse supported by Grönroos (2011) arguing that interaction between the brand and consumers only occur when motivational factors are present (section 3.3.3). As seen in the above sections and the following remarks, these consumer benefits and thus motivational factors for engagement, include brand familiarity, feedback and dialogue, stronger brand relationship, enriched social connections, the possibility of self-expression and identity creation, brand commitment and so forth (section 5.1; 5.2). All these factors are what in theory is referred to and outlined as probable value assets of co-creation (section 3.5). They moreover counterpart the four consumer benefit clusters put forth in section 71/183

72 ; particularly the personal and social benefits are highlighted within the research findings, comprising positive rewards of feedback, recognition, self-expression, identity creation, and interaction (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010;Grönroos, 2011). However the participants moreover designate that they are aware of the advantages that brands stand to gain from co-creation initiatives. They recognize and add the motivational factor behind as being guided by brand interest, such as profit, optimization, and knowledge, motives that correspond with what scholars (e.g. Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Payne et al., 2009; Füller, 2010; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b; Roser et al., 2009) emphasize as the main brand benefits of cocreation. Participants accordingly draw on the assumption that co-creation and the value hereof are inter alia defined by the motivational elements for both brands and consumers to engage herein: D: In terms of value added I think there is two aspects in it as well, that is value added to the product or procedure, or whatever is optimized. But then it is also value added in terms of the brand reputation and identification. For me it depends on how well the co-creation ties in with the rest of how the brand operates. Because we all know that the hidden agenda of this is merely their own profit and consumers image of the brand. (Appx. 12: 20; 67) C: I think the real value absolutely comes from the peers as well, but between the company and consumers the value comes from feedback and dialogue and the results of the cocreation. Your contributions also become the motivation. (Appx. 12: 128; 148) R: Yes and it co-creation also affects how you I suppose value the brand. Because if it is a good experience, [ ] if they provide you the environment, the scenario, the purpose of the co-creation that makes sense to you. That you actually feel that you are either developing something, you feel good about it, meeting new people, what ever your outcome is. If you are heightening some of these aspects I suppose that the brand value will also follow along. (Appx. 14: 23) The above remarks conversely articulate that co-creation, however, only creates value when conforming to other elements of brand behavior, intention, and interaction (section 5.2.1). As argued in the theoretical framework, these elements of expectations within the brand-consumer interaction are all opportunities for the creation of value (section 3.4.2; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). In line with what in the theoretical chapter was referred to as the democratization and decentralization of value creation 72/183

73 (section 3.3), co-creation situations will thus result in a dynamic value concept (Degnegaard, 2014; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), as the understanding of value will differ depending on motivation, interaction, and benefits. Therefore the concept of value is extended and hard to capture, requiring these value assets to be researched further. The following sections will look into how the research findings specify the changing concept of value in co-creation. When talking about the values of co-creation, the participants commonly refer to these assets as to why they would engage in co-creation, thus the following sections of elaborations should not only be seen as an outcome of co-creation, but as an integrated part of co-creation that encourage consumers to engage in the first place. To create coherence and reference points to the theory, the value assets are comprised into sections of brand relationship, social peer connections, and the cocreation experience with an additional asset of self-expression Brand relationship With respect to participants attitudes towards co-creation and the value hereof, the research findings confirm a strong connection between co-creation processes and brand relationship, not only as a prior relationship but also as a valuable outcome of cocreation. This supports previous examined developments and discourses around Fournier s (1998) relationship perspective and Aaker s (1997) brand personality (sections 3.2.1; 3.2.2; 3.4.1; 3.4.2) in the sense that two sides of the relationship is highlighted. One is the relationship where the brand replaces a relation to a person, thus applying human traits to the brand (section 3.4.1), and the other is with the brand functioning as a facilitator of relations to other peers (section 3.4.2). The latter will be elaborated on in the following section Building on the human-to-human relationship metaphor introduced by the respondents (section 5.2.1), the research findings allude that not alone is the relationship important for engaging in co-creation, it is also very much strengthened through co-creation and the mutual dialogue herein. A relationship and dialogue that is found to be of utter importance satisfying both personal and social motives (sections 5.3; ). This strong influence on brand relationships is manifested in both the focus group and individual interviews: 73/183

74 K: Co-creation is kind of the door into the brand and it opens up for this relationship where you can go into dialogue with the brand and affect the brand in a way. (Appx. 13: 14) you wish to explore the brand, and to extent the brand in a way, with your own personality. To extent the relationship you have with the bran you need the co in the cocreation. This mutual dialogue is really important. (Appx. 12: 2; 13; 141) C: I think that co-creation can as we talked about make me feel closer to the brand. That s what I think is the ultimate value of co-creation the relationship. (Appx. 12: 97; 148) R: If you are not collaborating, then you are at least cooperating, and you need to know what is going on with the other partners, being it the company or other people. So the relationship aspect definitely has an impact on the co-creation outcome. And the brand will naturally be a part of it, if they orchestra the co-creation. So you could actually say that the perspective of a brand as a person, as we talked about in the focus group, is an entity in co-creation, and in that sense you would also include that in the relationship. (Appx. 14: 21) L: I read the co as meaning to-way, and if I feel that I have to keep contributing there has to be a balance. does it add value to me that they create a new product, maybe because I would like the product. But somehow it is more about the ongoing process, not only the end-outcome. I would constantly have to feel that I add value. It is just like if you have a conversation. If I feel that [D] is not listening *laughing*, then the relationship in that conversation goes down, because I don t feel appreciated. (Appx. 12: 124) As reflected from all above remarks, the respondents refer to the importance of a personalized relationship with the brand and that the novelty hereof could be what leads to brand identification and moreover a long-term relationship. It is noteworthy to see how their discourse of co-creation is developing during the interview processes, referring to the co in co-creation is argued to be an indication of enhanced understanding of the concept. When talking about this co in co-creation the respondents especially refer to discourse representations of a mutual relationship and dialogue: R: As long as the brand is loyal to you as well. That is again the co part of co-creation. And sometimes I think that brands forget that, it has to work both ways. (Appx. 12: 166) This emphasis on the mutual relationship is argued to be an enlarged understanding of value as a dynamic (sections 3.3.3; 5.3). It is, as seen in the research findings, an ongoing 74/183

75 potential across consumers and their relationship with the brand, and due to the fragmented characteristics of consumers, it is argued that much of this value of cocreation can only be captured in the relations (section 3.1.1; Degnegaard, 2014), supported by the fact that co-creation of value only exists within active collaboration and interaction (Cova et al. 2011; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 11). As articulated in the remarks, the relationship asset further involves the benefit and motivational factor of feedback. It seems that respondents are equating the relationship with feedback and the reassurance that they, as consumers, are adding value in the co-creation process. They need the brand to tell them they are appreciated and valuable for the brand, which again highlights the two-way dialogue of the relationship. However, the participants further recognize that there are restraints to their influence, and there is a general opinion that they as consumers are adaptable in the relationship. Hereto comes also the establishment of an ongoing process and dialogue that should help brands manage these changes within value creation (section 3.3; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000: 81; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013) Social peer connections Elaborating on the co in co-creation research findings indicate, as manifested, that the increased empowerment of and interaction among consumers to a certain degree decentralize the importance of the brand s presence. Inline with Cova (1996) participants suggest that they not necessarily need the brand in order to create valuable experiences, and that they just as well can do so through relations with other consumers. Thus, the argument made by the researcher in the development of the relationship view (sections 3.4.2; 3.5) that co-creation should encourage stronger relationships that can just as well be applied in a consumer-to-consumer relation, is evident from the findings as well: R: I am not sure that co-creation always will make me stronger connected to the brand as such Maybe more to the other participants involved. (Appx. 12: 98) L: This co-creation process then not only gives me the opportunity to grow in terms of interest and knowledge but also put me in connection to likeminded. (Appx. 12: 142) C: I think the real value absolutely comes from the peers as well. (Appx. 12: 148) 75/183

76 K: The social connections and relationship with others is definitely a part of co-creation and something that I would gain value from personally. I don't think it has to do directly with brand identification, but you can never be able to take it out of the co-creation. So it might also affect brand identification, but kind of isolated. (Appx. 13: 37) With reference to this social bonding that co-creation enables, the respondents frequently allude that a co-creation experience was enhanced if they participated with other people, especially those with whom they shared an interest. When, at the same time, value is being created socially between peers rather than solely from the brand, the changing value concept is again highlighted (section 5.3). Talking about the social connections with likeminded peers, the respondents again draw on the discourse of motivations and benefits, more precisely; the social motivations rewarding social needs through interaction (section ). However, despite respondents emphasis on the value of social connections, none of them engage in brand communities themselves. For instance when discussing the Nike+ example in the individual interviews, all participants expressed that they did not use the community part of the brand experience, as it might be intended, being it the Nike+ or another similar product/service (appendixes 13; 14; 15). Thus the findings here slightly contradict the theoretical review; arguing that the more you can involve and engage consumers the larger the competitive advantage is going to be (sections 3.3; ). Participants allude that consumers might not always be interested in or see value in this full involvement. Something that for brands should be kept in mind when establishing cocreation initiatives and the objectives hereof. As seen from the latter above remarks, the findings also indicate that the social peer connections, not necessarily is a value asset of co-creation leading to brand identification. Seeing the social part as detached from the brand relationship, this value asset also becomes somewhat a separated outcome equivalent to brand identification. Thus brand identification is not the only criterion for co-creation to be successful. Stronger social peer-to-peer connections might as well be the preferred outcome of cocreation for consumers, and need to be reconsidered within the conceptual framework as a parallel to brand identification (section 3.5). However, besides this separation it is argued that the power of social connections nevertheless also can be framed as an influencer on brand identification. These connections are a collective existence of social 76/183

77 and beneficial experiences around a brand, in the manner that consumers also benchmark their opinions and feelings about a brand against other consumers, constructing their own brand identification based hereon. As put by one of the respondents: R: The social connections are a valuable outcome; in the sense that other people also affect the way I perceive the brand. They will provide me with their understanding, their identification with the brand and I suppose that it is only natural to adopt some of these perceptions or reject them. If you reject them ] that will then just be a sign of how you identify with the brand. [ ] I don't think you are able to do that to the same extent in a context where it is not about co-creation. You should be, depending on how you facilitate it, be closer to these people, than in ordinary branding situations. (Appx. 14: 27) Therefore, the value of co-creation can further be regarded as an emergent property of social relations, and consumers are not only generating their own identities, rather they are participating in generating a social we (Bostman & Rogers, 2010). Consumers trust each other, they are often pursuing the same goals and do not think of hidden agendas when co-creating an experience or connecting with each other, they share the same value through peer-to-peer networks and new social technologies (sections 3.1.2; 3.4.2). The social connections of co-creation hereby not only reflect a separated outcome, they further initiate the processes and developments of brand connection and identification Utilization of the co-creation experience It is acknowledged that participants have difficulties in defining co-creation and the complexity of the different uses hereof (sections 5.1; 5.1.2), especially in terms of the co-creation of personal experiences, where they clearly state that they do not see the Nike+ initiative as co-creation of experience, and do not feel stronger connected to Nike as a rest hereof (ibid.). However they concurrently allude that they like the idea of an experience around co-creation, and see great value in the experience of being involved in the co-creation process, and more importantly remark how it affects the brand value and identification: 77/183

78 R: For me the experience adds more value than the given product. Because if the experience adds value, it doesn t matter if the product changes or if a new product emerges, as long as you had fun doing it or it changed your view or knowledge about something and got you involved. This would make me much more positive in my attitude towards the brand, however the brand doesn't mean that much to me - the experience can stand alone. (Appx. 12: 75; 77; 85) M: I think it might be easier to create a more intimate or holistic experience if you are involved in developing that experience....] that will also make you stronger connected to the others involved (Appx. 12: 87) D: Take TripAdvisor for example. There is so much value added if you get positive reviews to your brand and to the personal experience that you will have with that brand. Reading these reviews, maybe that would also affect my brand experience. Because other people s opinions would count. (Appx. 12: 96) Thus the findings support the theoretical argument of co-creation leading to richer brand experiences, which might increase the extent to which consumers incorporate the brand into their self-concepts and thus identify with the brand (section 3.5). Together with the social connections discussed in the previous section, the participants see value in sharing the co-creation experience with others, thus sharing the consumption of brands. The findings indicate that the excitement and satisfaction of an experience is catching and can spread from consumer to consumer, hereby it utilizes the great value of word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendations and brand advocacy the earned media (Roser et al., 2009), adding to the previous examined brand benefits of co-creation (section ): D: I would probably feel more comfortable if I knew that I had been involved in a cocreation project *hmm* I am not sure what the word is... I would maybe talk more positively about the brand to others than I would about other brands. (Appx. 15: 33) This, however, is also applicable in the contrary where a negative experience would generate negative WOM and put the brand relationship and value at risk. Nonetheless, the respondents used wordings such as: intimate, fun, happy memory, empowered, cool etc. to characterize feelings of excitement and delight. Thus these senses of excitement and positive brand involvement are considered to be a vital ingredient in the co-creation experience, attending the hedonic motivation factor of pleasure and 78/183

79 consumer curiosity (section ; Füller, 2010; Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). One of the respondents included the example of Harley Davidson as a noteworthy illustration of co-creating brand value and experiences in a community. An example that remarkably is comparable to the Nike+ example that the respondent did not see as co-creation (section 5.1.2): R: This adds a whole different level of value. The Harley community doesn t really have that much to do with the bike it self, but the perception of the brand and the value of the brand is totally different and much stronger. It is about the experience and the relations that they have with the brand and each other. (Appx. 12: 160) Looking further into the reasons behind this continuous obscurity and contradictions in the discussions of co-creation of experience, this study will argue that articulating the concept might just be making it more confusing than necessary. Experiences are occasions that often happen without the recognitions of the conscious mind, as most of consumers mental processing takes place unconsciously (Carbone, 2014). Moreover with participants differing much in their personal elaboration hereof, this study advocates that it might not be possible to implement an overall definition of co-creation of experience to the individual consumer experience; personal change is inevitable and it will be much depending of situation and context (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Quoidbach et al., 2013). Again here the actual interaction and involvement comes to be important (section 5.2), and based on theory and the discourse representations made by the participants, this study asserts that participation in itself can be framed as experience, constituting another apparent reason for these diverse and perplex findings Self-expression In accordance with the value of social connections, postmodernism further advocates the liberated self-expressive individual, recognizing that a brand is to live up to the individual s personal preferences (section 3.1.1; Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Cova, 1996). Hereto the research findings further demonstrate a consensus for co-creation and the value assets hereof to enable self-expression: 79/183

80 K: In the longer run I think you want to identify with the brand that says something about who you are as a person, and you kind of build your... or no you don't build your life around them, but you use them in your everyday life to show the world around you who you are. In a way... Which could be affected by co-creation. (Appx. 13: 63; 65) L: If I chose to engage in co-creation it is also a way to express some part of my own identity. (Appx. 12: 235) K: Also some sort of pride, if you do participate in co-creation and the product, your idea, is put in production. That would be the best part of my CV *smile*, that would be really cool! (Appx. 12: 149) Together with the positive WOM these remarks indicate that co-creation can be a way for consumers to portray themselves to their surroundings through the value that the co-creating situation or brand provides. Thus the findings allude that consumers are not only defined by what they own, as earlier (section 3.1.1), rather the move is towards being defined by reputation, community, and the sharing behavior herein (Bostman & Rogers, 2010; Gansky, 2010). As the following conversation fragment in table 9 illustrates, the participants opinions hereof are however divided. Where some talk of self-expressiveness through co-creation others refer to a hint of superficiality herein: M: If you co-create with a cool brand it makes you cool. L: Yes exactly. It would be either for the inside personal gain or for the outside perception of me. D: But it would again for me depend on how deeply involved I am and the brand makes me. If I am just one out of a 1000 I wouldn t use that to brand my self. L: I think that D: But if I am one among 5 people I would. L: I think I see it differently; I will maybe make my decision before even going into the co-creation. R: Here we are talking about the purpose again L: g into the co-creation process I would evaluate if it were something I would do for me to grow and to become more knowledgeable, or have an interest in whatever the product is. Or if I do it because I want to use it to actively communicating who I am. D: I think it is very rational and very non-likely. Unless it is a product that you have made a lot of considerations about. L, R & M: *laughing* 80/183

81 L: But lets say a brand like BMW. I really identify with that brand and really want to attain the personality -creating with BMW, and maybe sharing it on my Facebook, would allow me to also take advantage of the brand and position mythan to buy the BMW. D: It would depend on what you are developing and what you are co-creating with them. If you are creating a product, yes that is pretty cool to communicate, are you voting on four different types on Kit Kat products, not so cool to communicate. R: where you have actually done some more besides clicking to a flavor. Then you are really engaged and can sort of proof that to your surroundings. D: Yeah 100% Table 9: Conversation fragment 2 from focus group (appendix 12: ) Therefore it is argued that the individual consumers constitute themselves through the various discursive practices, in which they participate, co-creation being one (Brown & Yule, 1983; Firat & Schultz, 1997). However the above findings further suggest that not all forms of co-creation will encourage self-expression, or be accepted as cool and valueadded among other consumers. Nevertheless it is argued to be much dependent on the individual opinion and attitude whether or not a specific co-creation engagement is deemed cool as providing social and self-expressive value. Once again this value asset entitles motivational factors of both the personal and social (section ), when participants suggest that they through co-creation and brand identification benefit from the emotional self-expression, identity creation, and the social recognition hereof (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010; Grönroos, 2011). Through co-creation brands become vehicles for self-expression, another dimension that needs to be considered in relation to the conceptual framework (section 3.5), however maybe more as a valuable outcome of brand identification and the social connections through cocreation, than of co-creation alone. 5.4 Co-creation requires trust and honesty When studying the respondents utterances about co-creation and the brand engagement, there is a strong agreement that trust and honesty are vital factors throughout the co-creation process, but especially as an initial requirement of the engagement in co-creation. As an extension to the significance of the prior brand relationship and knowledge (section 5.2.1), the respondents articulate a concern for the co-creation purpose and that brands should be honest in their expression hereof, even if 81/183

82 the purpose of co-creation is initiated in a shortage of knowledge or failure from the brand. Hence, trusting that the purpose is legitimate and that the brand takes care of you as a consumer in the process and ensures that you benefit from it as well, is an essential factor and motivation for engaging in co-creation, or choosing not to. This attitude and concern comes to show in the following comments: K: I think you have to have some sort of trust in the brand to even go into consider cocreating with the brand, and you would have to trust the brand facilitating this cocreation properly, and not just exploit you as a consumer. (Appx. 13: 77) R: You could say that if there is distrust, there is not going to be any co-creation or relationship. It has at least to be neutral. But if it is neutral, then it is because you don't know the company, and then how can you trust them? (Appx. 14: 67) D: Well for me the brand would have to be trustworthy and honest in everything they do. otherwise it would no longer be a brand that I could identify with. (Appx. 15: 55) R: If they are here to make money, then say so. Thank you. Honesty and that you know what you get, is important. even if it is not what I want to hear, it is still nice to hear. (Appx. 12: 50) The participants here again draw on the CSR and responsibility discourse, with an overall agreement that you as a consumer need to be able to trust that the brand will stick to its core values, the values that the consumer can identify with and might be the reason they engaged themselves in co-creation to begin with. Hereby the conditions of risk-benefit and transparency in the co-creation interaction, introduced by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), stand as important input on and assessment of co-creation (sections 3.3.1; 3.5). However, it is argued from the findings that the factor of trust comprises additional conditions in consumers assessment of co-creation that affect the initiation of co-creation beyond transparency and risk-benefit. In this context, it seems to stress that this credibility and trustworthiness is argued to be a receiver-oriented design, the brand may try to interfere through the discourse of responsibility and ethos, but in the end it is the consumer that determines the degree of trust. Within co-creation the gap between sender and receiver (brand and consumer) is reduced (sections ; ), creating closeness that is argued to help generate credibility and 82/183

83 mutual trust, however with reservations for the implementation and continuance of the interaction Brand skepticism Owing to the suggested positive impacts, co-creation may yield, the research findings lend support to the idea that co-creation through the value assets of relationships, brand value, self-expression, and experience can yield brand identification (sections 3.4; 3.5; 5.2). However any skepticism or negative experiences might affect this as discussed in section 5.1, and inline with the above discussed trust and honesty, brand skepticism is argued to be an important factor of influence of the success of co-creation. As mentioned, the research participants acknowledge that brands too have an agenda by engaging in co-creation, and that it can add value to both parties (section 5.3). However, this recognition further pledges skeptic attitudes towards the value outcome that brands attain when engaging in co-creation, as manifested in the participants use of articulations such as PR stunt, something of a marketing stunt, we all know that the hidden agenda of this is merely their own profit, and you cannot trust them (appendix 13: 77; appendixes 12: 67; 70; 100; 188). With this study s designation of cocreation and value in mind (sections 1.6; 3.3), these references to economic conceptualizations of value further creates some clarification complications for brands and their co-creation initiatives (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), as they thus allude value as one-way beneficial and not collective as prescribed by co-creation principles. In talking about the value for brands, one respondent particularly shows skepticism through a concern for exploitation: D: I also think that there is some kind of insurance bank in the co-creation for brands, if something goes wrong or if they don t do well, or if they get criticized, they can always say that this came from a co-creation process with consumers. They are not completely responsible, well they are, but they can sort of present it in a way that make them seem less responsible if it doesn t turn out as it should. (Appx. 12: 186) Hereby the importance of a positive brand relationship with mutual trust and dialogue may not be as apparent in co-creation as expected (sections 3.3; 3.3.1; Ramaswamy, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Scholars have further predicted this skepticism as a result of a one-way approach to consumer involvement (Cova & Dalli, 2009; 83/183

84 Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), where the changes in value creation not only empower consumers but also make brands capable of employing and exploiting competences outside the conventional institutes (ibid.). Thus emphasizing the importance of brands to move past the co-opting lens and engage stakeholders in a mutually useful way. The skepticism further comes to show in the findings when discussing the communication of co-creation. Consistent with the WOM emphasized earlier, participants show a somewhat indifferent and critical attitude towards brands communicating their cocreation initiative: R: For me it communication doesn t make any difference. For all I know they could just be making it up. If it was Jens from Roskilde who came up with the idea, I don t care. It is the same thing as CSR, if you advertise your CSR very aggressively for me it doesn t have any affect, but if I somehow hear from other sources that this company actually donates 10% of its profits, then it is a completely different story. Also actions speak louder than words. (Appx. 12: 116; 154) The above remark thus also highlights the importance and effect of third party communication. As consumers decision processes are becoming more personalized (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9), they no longer depend on brands and experts to direct them, and as the research participants allude, they are much more influenced by their social surroundings (section 5.3.2). Third party endorsement and WOM hence generate more authentic communication that would heighten the co-creation initiative more than the brands own communication hereof. It is argued that the many brand influencers in today s marketplace (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) transform consumers, who might have been true brand believers, into more critical consumers and brand skeptics, complicating their open-mindedness towards new initiatives including co-creation. The research findings hereby indicate that participants assessment of trust and acceptance of co-creation initiatives merely depend on their present opinion of the brand (section 5.2.1), the communication, and present social context (section 5.3.2). Hence brands shall in their communication openly acknowledge own benefits of co-creation and simultaneously draw more attention to how consumers also benefit from these initiatives by putting focus on the unique values (section 3.3.3). 84/183

85 5.4.2 The question of brand Loyalty Throughout the developing discourse on co-creation and brand identification, the research participants touched upon the topic of loyalty, and the opinions are here too divided. Within the above-presented theoretical framework, it is argued that brand loyalty is questionably in a fragmented postmodern consumer culture (sections 3.1.1; 3.4.2), however some of the respondents oppose this argument and indicate that it is sill possible to be loyal to brands: K: I think the fact that you can identify some of your own personal values in a brand for example that means that you might be more... that you might prefer one brand over the other. I think... The co-creation and the relationship you get out of it strengthens that loyalty. (Appx. 13: 18; 71) L: Loyalty can increase due to co-creation, but the co-creation has to come at a natural point where I am already having a relationship with a brand. (Appx. 12: 172) Here the trust factor again plays an important role. As much as trust is a prerequisite of co-creation it further needs to continue throughout the process and relationship, and must go both ways for the relationship to last more long-term and maybe even generate loyalty. Other respondents concur with the theoretical arguments and believe that loyalty is not possible, especially R, also being the advocator of other brand critical arguments, argues for this, as articulated in the below remark. In questioning the term he later suggests that maybe loyalty in today s market is parallel to being fanatic. Respondent D questions loyalty as well and replaces it with purchase intention: R: I mean we can't even stay loyal to the people we are married to *smile*. If that is the case, how should companies expect people to be loyal to one brand? (Appx. 14: 57) D: Co-creation might not necessarily make me loyal, but as you said [K], because you have been involved in something fun you might because of your heuristics, that might be the product that you purchase. If you are faced with having to choose between different products. (Appx. 12: 268) Therefore it is argued that loyalty after all might not be a liable strategy and objective for brands, and should not be the criteria for success in terms of co-creation. Rather the long-term relationship of continuous co-creation should be the aim and what affects 85/183

86 brand decisions and commitment. Among today s fragmented consumers, short-term memory is precious (section 3.1.1), thus creating and adding value in a certain period of time should in itself be a success factor. However, research findings further show that the fragmentation might not be present to the same definite extent as argued in the theoretical framework. Participants indicate that they are affected by many different brands at the same time, but seeing that their comments and discourse representations moreover indicate a vast importance of a prior relationship with the brand, they further allude that they stick to and is influenced by a brand for a longer period of time, when talking about co-creation at least. Thus despite the fragmented consumer behavior, brand commitment is still applicable, maybe not as the more intense loyalty, but rather as commitment and preference possibly towards many brands at the time, matching different self-constructs. With the analysis and discussion of the data collected, the following chapter will recollect the conceptual framework created based on the theory review and evaluation, and accumulate the research findings into an improved version hereof. 86/183

87 6 Analytical impact and perspective 6.1 Evaluation and further development of conceptual framework The subsequent chapter of analysis and discussion is in its both inductive and deductive mode of examination able to demonstrate and specify the concept of co-creation and its relation to the branding paradigm and brand identification, attending research question two and thus also milestone three of this thesis. Based hereon, this following part will evaluate the conceptual framework established from theory in section 3.5, and further develop it to capture the research findings, attending milestone four. The following conceptual framework therefore depicts the overall theoretical and research findings and thus the answer to the research questions. The framework still holds that cocreation interaction based on Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) building blocks as brand prerequisites allows consumers to attain certain value assets that improve and increase the likelihood of consumer brand identification (section 3.5). However as a result of the analysis and discussion, different elements has been added and altered compared to the initial framework, as seen in figure 11. Figure 11: Modified conceptual framework (complied by the author) 87/183

88 In the analysis and discussion of co-creation manifested from a consumer perspective research, there has been a focus on ambiguity and complexity but also on the vibrant relation between the concept and brand identification. It is found that co-creation can lead to routes of value from which both consumers and brands can benefit. However for consumers to engage in co-creation and for it to be a source of brand identification, it is found that besides Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) building blocks of interaction (dialogue, access, risk-benefits, and transparency), additional and very vital factors of trust and honesty should be added and hereby also the context of prior brand knowledge and relationship (sections 5.2.1; 5.4). As established, the brand character and social values are of strong influence on the co-creation and brand identification (section 5.2.2). Findings hereby correspond to the hermeneutic approach and the importance of including both the past and the present to understand the whole of the brand so as to put the brand into a new context of interpretation (Hatch & Rubin, 2006: 47) that is further applied to the process of co-creation and likability of brand identification. Moreover, it is articulated that the mode of co-creation is an important influencer on the value outcome (section 5.1.3). With regards to brand identification, the brand relationship, experience, and evaluations are all factors that through the analysis is found to be valuable motivations for co-creation, that all have a great impact on the process towards brand identification. Despite much confusion, consumers see great value in the brand experience created by co-creation. However it is found that the co-creation experience have a strong influence on the enhanced connections with other consumers and not only on the actual brand identification, thus consumers do not need the brand in order to create valuable experiences, not on a conscious level at least (section 5.3.3). Nonetheless, the social elements within the co-creation experience still initiate the processes and developments of brand identification and connectedness. It is likewise found that the mutual dialogue through co-creation will strengthen the humanto-human relationship between brands and consumers, a relationship that from the perspective of consumers further is an important motivational factor comprising the feedback and recognition from brands, and framed as a strong influence on the identification (section 5.3.1). Brand evaluation is not given a separate section within the analysis and discussion, as it is merely seen as an overall factor, being affected throughout the process and by the other value assets. Nevertheless, it is still kept as a separate impact in the framework as participants indirectly refer to brand evaluations 88/183

89 throughout the findings, interestingly this is one of the few factors that seemingly can be affected without direct involvement in the co-creation process, as it just as well by other consumers opinions and WOM (sections 5.3.2; 5.3.3). The benefit and value of social connections is found to be a dominant and somewhat separated outcome for consumers that not logically would lead to brand identification (section 5.3.2). Thus, within the adaptive framework it has been relocated as a separate co-creation outcome, affected by the brand experience, but also just the co-creation interaction itself. Moreover, research findings recognize self-expression as an important benefit and value among consumers (section 5.3.4), hence a value asset of self-expression is added, however not as a result of co-creation alone, rather a valuable consumer benefit of the stronger social connections and brand identification. Inline with the benefit of selfexpression, more long-term value elements of brand commitment and long-term relationship are added. These are in the analysis discussed in relation to the question of loyalty and are, despite articulations of brand skepticism, found relevant to implement as alternates hereof to match the current consumer culture (section 5.4.2). Here the context of brand knowledge and status (section 5.2.1; ) further comes to show, in the argument that consumers can co-create with all sorts of brands, but the co-creation only leads to a stronger long-term relationship and commitment if they identify with the brand and find it cool. Additionally, the continuous integration and development of cocreation processes is essential to obtain these value assets and not least long-term benefits, therefore co-creation should not simply be a communication strategy and marketing show but rather an ongoing process as illustrated in the modified framework. Throughout the entire analysis and discussion, context is found to be an important factor, as the value assessment and success of co-creation initiatives will always vary depending on the situation, mode of co-creation and very much the parties involved. The element of context further encompass the much discussed and emphasized prior brand knowledge and relationship, being a strong influence especially within the initial phases of co-creation engagement (section 5.2.1). This implies that those brands that build co-creation into their corporate DNA will be more likely to succeed, and generate value on the long run. It seems from the research findings that consumers are open towards the many possibilities of co-creation, but if brands are not willing to take it all 89/183

90 the way, they violate consumers trust and leave them skeptic (section 5.4; 5.4.1). As the conceptual framework is significant to the unit of analysis, it should not be seen as a generalization of the research findings; yet merely as a depiction of what the findings indicate. 6.2 Analytical perspective The study is initially based on an interest in the increased importance of and academic attention to the emerging concept of co-creation (section 1.2). However the identified complexity and skepticism among research participants further indicate that the concept of co-creation may have been subject to arbitrary interpretations and practices, resulting in the term serving as a marketing stunt for other similar initiatives or simply to attain consumers attention and preference (sections 5.1; 5.2; 5.4.1; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). Thus putting the findings into perspective, it can be argued that co-creation is becoming a buzzword. The highly promoted benefits for brands (e.g. Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Grönroos, 2011) might have initiated great excitement of the associations of the concept, encouraging brands to engage in co-creation with no further ado or consideration. It seems that the involvement of consumers is becoming more and more of a mantra for brands, however without a measured and considered basis for interaction questions arise: Is it co-creation just for the sake of co-creation, and are brands more caught up with the buzz, than the actual value in the mutual interaction? Having presented the conceptual framework, and thereby attended milestone four, and further briefly put the research findings into perspective, the final chapter now outlines the central contributions of this study, and reflects on limitations and future research. 90/183

91 7 Conclusion & future research The aim of this thesis was to unfold the concept of co-creation and build new knowledge and a broader perspective hereto by answering the two research questions: (1) How is the concept of co-creation influencing the more traditional branding paradigm? (2) How do consumers understand co-creation and how does co-creation affect their creation of brand value as means to brand identification? As a guide to answer these questions, five milestones where developed for further clarification. Here it was presupposed that there exists a relation of connection and influence between the emerging concept of cocreation and brand identification, with it being a part of the branding paradigm. The presupposition was confirmed throughout the study In attending research question one, an extensive review of relevant literature was carried out. Initially the study accounted for the postmodern market and consumer trends and examined the developing branding paradigm in which co-creation emerged and now appears, and thus accounted for milestone one. The literature review revealed that postmodernism has had a great impact on the transforming branding paradigm, especially by changing consumers perspective on value creation. Co-creation is a reaction to this postmodern consumer culture, and has transformed the traditional brand perspectives, with solely product or relational focus, towards a more holistic and social energizing of consumers. However, despite being the effects of developing market and consumer trends, this consumer centric approach of co-creation was argued to still encompass the more traditional brand perspectives (e.g. Aaker s (1997) brand personality and Fournier s (1998) relationship approach), simply within a new context. Based hereon a conceptual framework was generated, asserting that successful cocreation initiatives can potentially lead to greater brand identification among consumers, provided that the co-creation process favorably affects elements of brand relationship, experience, value, and social connections. Hereby the study accounted for and answered research question one and also milestone two. These theoretical assumptions were then used in the preparation, execution, and processing of the qualitative research. 91/183

92 An empirical study in the form of a focus group and three supporting interviews was conducted to explore the perspectives of consumers and answer research question two. Constituted by participants articulations and manifestations, the researcher was able to analyze the discourses surrounding the concept and brand value of co-creation. The findings indicated that participants understanding of co-creation is not as straightforward and prevalent as depicted by theory. Nevertheless despite complexity of the concept, participants recognized both relational and interactive discourses, much supported by theory. Overall it was found that participants acknowledge the mutual benefits of co-creation and hereto merely understand and evaluate co-creation based on motivational discourses, and not least prior knowledge of and relationship with the brand behind. Thus the study adds to the motivational factors and the prerequisites of co-creation participation discussed in theory (e.g. Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010; Grönroos, 2011). Here the element of mutual trust was likewise found essential to the participation and process of co-creation. The findings further indicated that participants recognize several beneficial brand values and connections of co-creation, affecting their attitudes towards both the interaction and the brand itself. Especially factors of brand relationship and familiarity, social connections, brand commitment, identity creation, and self-expression were highlighted. Factors that moderately correspond to the brand assets identified from theory and the conceptual framework. However the element of co-creation as experience, caused great confusion and was thus in need for reevaluation. In this connection it was found that the co-creation mode of experience from theory might be too idealistic, as an experience is an individual and very much context-depending factor. The co-creation of experiences should merely be framed in connection with the actual participation and engagement, and not as an actual mode of co-creation. There was agreement across the participants that the process of co-creation, together with a presence of the recognized brand values, could lead to and be a source of brand identification and maybe even commitment. Consequently, brand identification is not stimulated by co-creation alone and not a guaranteed outcome hereof, the holistic brand involvement is what determines whether consumers identify with a brand or not. Cocreation does, as established, however functions as a strong influencer hereto. 92/183

93 Alongside with brand identification the element of social connections was moreover articulated as a positive and desirable outcome of co-creation, equal to brand identification, and thus a dominant factor of motivation. Participants indicated a social dependence in their actions and not least opinions, they want to feel a part of something and co-creation can be a provider hereof. This is further closely connected to the identified value of self-expression, articulating that participants through co-creation and the social relationships it provides are able to express their desired personality and image. Going back to the element of trust, participants moreover indicated brand skepticism with a concern for distrust and the negative co-creation experience, affecting the brand related outcome. The findings thus designated that brand behavior, intentions, and interactions are important elements for brands to encounter positive outcome of cocreation. It seems evident that co-creation should be a mutual beneficial and continuous process that moreover should be part of the brand s DNA to determine the more longterm success hereof. Hereto comes also the long-term outcome of brand commitment that was found to be the new and revised brand loyalty. Having explored consumers understanding of co-creation and its relation to brand value as well as having emphasized that a mutual ongoing brand interaction will positively affect attitudes towards co-creation and the likelihood of brand identification, milestone three has been attended. On the basis of the overall findings, the study submitted a modification of the conceptual framework generated from the theoretical review, and thus attended milestone four providing a new setup for co-creation in relation to brand assets and identification. Hence the outcome of the study has further been theory building in terms of a developed conceptual framework contributing to the field and study of co-creation. All together the findings suggested that co-creation very much is a social construct with the understanding and value hereof being individual and context-dependent. In the light of the findings provided, the research further lends insight into the practice of managing co-creation and the dialogue herein. The succeeding section will emphasize the theoretical and practical implications encouraged by this study, and thereby attend milestone five and complete this thesis. 93/183

94 7.1 Contribution to knowledge Theoretical Implications By attending the lack of insight into how co-creation influences and is established within the traditional branding paradigm, this thesis contributes with new knowledge to the limited existing literature on co-creation and the branding paradigm. The theoretical review contributes to the developments of traditional branding perspectives (e.g. Aaker, 1996; Fournier, 1998), assigning them to an updated context. The theory and research findings further contribute to the frame of co-creation literature by establishing a conceptual framework demonstrating the dynamic relations between the process of co-creation and brand identification, revealing new elements of brand value and consumers desired results hereof. Hereby the study not only esteemed traditional research directions, it also built hereon for it to adequate the emerging postmodern market and consumer trends. Scholars and academics will be able to use the framework as basis for future research. Using Prahalad and Ramaswamy s (2004) research as main pillar of the co-creation literature review and their DART building blocks as basis for the conceptual framework, the findings also lend new insights hereto. It is argued that the four building blocks of co-creation should become five, adding the important factor and prerequisite of cocreation: trust. The study thus suggests a modification in the acronym to DARTT. Hereby the theoretical perspectives put forth in this study both compliment and enhance existing literature on co-creation Practical Implications The research findings are of relevance to brands engaging in co-creation initiatives, as their benefits hereof are very much determined by consumers acuity of the experience and value. Thus adapting to the findings should improve the chances for co-creation success and long-term benefits. As the findings are founded in the particular research context, it is not possible to provide concrete generalizable proposals for brands, however managers will be able to use the conceptual framework to help align and optimize brand value through co-creation. The findings have highlighted some important focus points: 94/183

95 1) The brand must be honest and trustworthy With trust and honesty being paramount in consumers relationship to and co-creation with brands, these are argued to be implications that brands first and foremost should to turn to and incorporate. The findings indicate that when consumers trust brands to be honest in their engagement and purpose, they are more likely to attain positive brand values from the co-creative interaction, and identify with the brand. An obligation for genuine involvement thus emerges as an essential aspect for brands to avoid skepticism and dissociation. 2) A clear and consistent co-creation strategy Genuine involvement moreover involves a shift in co-creation strategy and focus. To fully adopt the co-creative mindset, brands must adopt the co-creation mentality into their DNA and thus into the brand behavior and processes along the value chain. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) advocate that brands must build new capabilities around relations with consumers, the research findings add hereto in arguing that the changing concept of value and dynamic interaction requires new ways of understanding co-creation possibilities and challenges. Co-creation should be viewed and used as a means of extending and operationalizing value creation, it is not about whether or not to use co-creation, it is more a questions of how it is done inline with the remainder brand actions. To ensure long-term effects, co-creation should moreover be an initiative offering continuous development of experience and value. 3) Not to be caught up with the buzz With the findings further indicating that not all consumers are ready, able or even willing to co-create, it is important for brands not to be caught up with the buzz and entirely diminish traditional branding as a part of their strategy. They should also sustain the more traditional modes of branding as a parallel to co-creation, as these will still define the core of the brand and provide consumers with the prior knowledge needed for potentially engaging in co-creation initiatives. Successful brands should thus become a hybrid of both traditional branding and co-creation when applicable; embracing that it increasingly takes interaction and strong relationships to create brand value. 95/183

96 With the above recommendations, the study has suggested how the research findings can be instructive in practice. As a final summit, research limitations and suggestions for future research directions will now be accounted for. 7.2 Limitations and future research There are a few limitations of this research that need to be taken into account in order to stimulate future research on the topic of co-creation. First the extensiveness and complexity of the concept of co-creation bring limitations as far as this study approaches the concept from a rather narrow empirical perspective. The rather low number of research participants is very beneficial for a deeper understanding of the concept, being the aim of the study. However, as mentioned within the method reflections (section 4.3), it further constitutes a possible limitation, as its contextual uniqueness will not result in high external validity of the results (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). Therefore it is recognized that the data and findings are not generalizable to the greater consumer group and directly transferable to other contexts, thus the study might lack more objective perspectives on the subject. Nonetheless, with the standpoint from social constructionism it is neither possible nor intentional to arrive at certain generalizable knowledge (section 2.1.1), the aim of this thesis is not to provide closure; rather it wishes to build further suspense and directions for future research. Therefore future research should endeavor to obtain a larger sample of data to enhance validity and transferability to a larger population. Preferably the sample should also hold more respondents with specific co-creation experiences in order to obtain more significant results and possibly draw other conclusions that will contribute to existing knowledge. Future research should aim at discovering additional brand related outcomes of cocreation, which could lead to a diverse structure and connection of the concepts connotation. The conceptual framework developed in this study provides a possible basis for further examination and unfolding of co-creation in relation to the branding paradigm. Adopting the findings and conceptual framework to specific cases could also provide further insights into how consumers embrace their understanding and discourses to specific situations. 96/183

97 Another possible limitation of this study is the extensive focus on consumer-brand relationships within co-creation, hereby little attention is given to other stakeholder and network dynamics, that might have influence hereon (Merz et al., 2009). Moreover, new questions arise regarding the changing concept of value; how can brands interact effectively and equally with consumers who will increasingly recognize and leverage their own value to the brand, and how should co-creation settings be designed with the concept of value possibly being extended across many different stakeholders? Hereto comes also the increased power of consumers inter alia aided by the element of new technology and social media as an essential source of interaction and facilitation of cocreation. This aspect should also be looked into. Additionally the term individual used throughout the study, especially in relation to the co-creation experience, might present a limitation and is not the ideal term. Even though co-creation advocates the benefit of individualized experiences and brand value, it is acknowledged that the term further suggests separation, going against the emphasized social aspect of the study and findings. Thus it is argued that postmodernism is somewhat contradictive in calling for social fragmentation and individualism, while at the same time ushering a social reorganization (Cova, 1996: 18), something that should be taken into account for further research. Several aspects of the research findings draw attention to conditions that generate potential new perspectives on research with the brand in focus. With the concept possibly becoming a buzzword more than an actual strategy (section 6.2), resulting in unsystematic interpretations and use, there is a need for narrowing down the research of co-creation and the brand strategic use hereof. This study is only a small step in that direction, and further research is required to fully understand the emerging paradigm and value of co-creation. 97/183

98 8 References Aaker, D. A. (1996) Building Strong Brands. London: Simon & Schuster UK Ldt. Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (2007) Marketing Research (9th ed.). USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Aaker, J. L. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34(3), Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004) When Good Brands Do Bad. Journal of Consumer Research 31(1), Andrews, T. (2012) What is Social Constructionism?. The Grounded Theory Review 11(1), Arvidsson, A. (2011) Ethics and value in customer co-production. Marketing Theory 11(3), Arvidsson, A. (2010) The ethical economy: new forms of value in the information society?. Organization 17(5), Awards, C. 2. (2012) LEGO CUUSOO Project. Available at: Accessed Retrieved March 25, Baldwin, C., & Hippel, E. v. (2011) Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science 22(6), Bartl, M., Jawecki, G., & Wiegandt, P. (2010) Co-creation in new product development; conceptual framework and application in the automotive industry. Manchester: R&D Management Conference. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday & Co. Berner, A., & Tonder, C. V. (2003) The Postmodern Consumer: Implications of changing customer expectations for organization development in service organization. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 29(3), Blog, L. C. (2011, December 7) Minecraft project achieves 10,000 supporters on LEGO CUUSOO. Available at: Accessed March 25, BMW. BMW Co-creation Lab. Available at: Accessed March 13, /183

99 BMW. The BMW Group Co-Creators. Available at: Accessed March 25, Bostman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010) What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. London: HarperBusiness. Branaghan, R. J., & Hildebrand, E. A. (2011) Brand personality, self-congruity, and preference: A knowledge structures approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10(5), Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013) Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research 66(1), Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, S. (2006) Recycling Postmodern Marketing. The Marketing Review 6(3), Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. Carbone, L. (2014, March 11) Customer Experience and the Unconscious Mind. Available at: Accessed April 23, Christensen, L. T., Torp, S., & Firat, A. F. (2005) Integrated marketing communication and postmodernity: an odd couple? Corporate Communications 10(2), Cova, B. (1996) The Postmodern Explained To Managers: Implications For Marketing. Business Horizons 39(6), Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009) Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory? Marketing Theory 9(3), Cova, B., Dalli, D., & Zwick, D. (2011) Critical perspectives on consumers role as producers : Broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes. Marketing Theory 11(3), Davies, B., & Haré, R. (1990) Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1), Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. London: Routledge. 99/183

100 Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2011) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. London: Taylor and Francis. Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P., & Murdock, G. (2002) Researching Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis. London: Arnold. Degnegaard, R. (2014) Co-creation, prevailing streams and a future design trajectory. International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011) Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science 39, Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2013) Measurement Characteristics of Aaker s Brand Personality Dimensions: Lessons to be Learned from Human Personality Research. Psychology and Marketing 30(11), Füller, J. (2010). Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a Consumer Perspective. California Management Review, 52 (2), Firat, A. F., & Schultz, C. J. (1997) From segmentation to fragmentation; Markets and marketing strategy in the postmodern era. European Journal on Marketing 31(3/4), Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1995) Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 22(2), Firat, F., & Venkatesh, A. (1993) Postmodernity: The age of Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10(3), Fisher, D., & Smith, S. (2011) Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. MArketing Theory 11(3), Fournier, S. (1998) Consumers and Their Brands: Developing relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4), Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011) The uninvented brand. Business Horizons 54, Gadamer, H.-G. (1986) Philosophical Hermeneutics. In Q. Skinner, The return of grnd theory in human sciences (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gansky, Lisa. (2012) The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing. New York: Portfolio Trade. Gibson, W. J., & Brown, A. (2009) Working With Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications Ltd.. 100/183

101 Gouillart, F. (2010, 3 27) What the heck is co-creation? Available at: Accessed January 22, Grarup, T. (2012) Gaining power by giving it away: assessing LEGO s co-creation of value on the CUUSOO platform. Corporate Communication. Aahus: Aarhus University. Grönroos, C. (2011) Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory 11(3), Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage Publications. Hanby, T. (1999) Brands - dead or alive? Journal of the Market Research Society 41(1), Hatch, M. J., & Rubin, J. (2006) The hermeneutics of branding. Journal of Brand Management 14, Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010) Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance. Brand Management 17(8), Heding, T., Knudtzen, C. F., & Bjerre, M. (2009) Brand Management: Research, theory and practice. London: Routledge. Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004) A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity and brand personality: The impact of socially desirable responding. International Journal of Market Research 46(2), Hippel, E. v., de Jong, J., & Ogava, S. (2011) The Age of the Consumer-Innovator. MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 53(1), Holt, D. B. (2002) Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 29(1), Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M. K., & Singh, S. S. (2010) Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service Research 13(3), Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013) The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review 25(1), Ind, N., Fuller, C., & Trevail, C. (2012) Brand Together. How co-creation generates innovation and re-energizes brands. London: Kogan PAge Limited. Jesic, D. (2012, May 16) Open Innovation at LEGO: an interview with Erik Hansen. Available at: Accessed March 25, Kapferer, J.-N. (1997) Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Press. 101/183

102 Kapferer, J.-N. (2004) The New Strategic Brand Management. London: Kogan Page. Keller, K. L. (1993) Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Jouranal of MArketing 57(1), Knox, S., & Lawer, C. (2006) Consumer advocacy and brand development. Journal of Product and Brand Management 15(2), Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Stieger, D., & Matzler, K. (2011) Avatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in Human Behavior 27, Kotler, P. (1987) Marketing: an introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009) Marketing Management (13th Edition ed.). London: Pearson International Edition. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009) Interviews. Learning the craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (2. edition ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. LEGO. (2014a) LEGO CUUSOO. Available at: Accessed March 25, LEGO. (2014b) LEGO Mindstorms. Available at: Accessed March 25, LEGO. (2014c). Project Guidelines and House Rules. Available at: Accessed March 25, Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008) Groundswell - winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Lock, A., & Strong, T. (2010) Social Constructionism: Sources and Stirrings in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lopdrup-Hjorth, T. (2013) Let's go Outside. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. McKinsey Global Institute. (2012) The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. London. McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1993) Communication models for the study of mass communication. London: Longman. Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009) The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic perspective. Academy of Marketing Science 37(3), Nike. (2014) Nikeplus. Available at: Accessed March 25, /183

103 Paltridge, B. (2012) Discourse Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frowc, P., & Knox, S. (2009) Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research 62(3), Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998) Welcom to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, Pongsakornrungsilp, S., & Schroeder, J. E. (2011) Understanding value co-creation in a co-consuming brand community. Marketing Theory 11 (3), Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3), Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2005) The Future of Competition - Co-creating Unique Value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000) Co-opting Customer Competence. Harward Business Review, Quoidbach, J., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2013) The End of History Illusion. Science Magazine 339(6115), Ramaswamy, V. (2011) It's about human experiences... and beyond, to co-creation. Industrial Marketing Management 40, Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010a) Building the Co-Creative Enterprise. Harward Business Review, Ramaswamy, V., & Goulliart, F. J. (2010b) The Power of Co-Creation. Simon and Schuster. Roser et al. (2009) Co- creation: New pathways to value. Available at: Accessed May 3, Roser, T., Alain Samson, A., Humphreys, P., & Cruz-Valdivieso, E. (2009) Co-creation: New pathways to value. Available at: Accessed May 3, Rowley, J., Kupiec-Teahan, B., & Leeming, E. (2007) Customer community and cocreation: a case study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 25(2), Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Schwab, D. P. (2005) Research Methods for Organizational Studies. New York: Psychology Press. 103/183

104 Smithson, J. (2000) Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Social Research Methodology 3(2), Stories of Enterprise Co-creation. (2011, August 11) Nike+ Story. Available at: Accessed March 25, Trangbæk, R. R. (2012, March 2) LEGO CUUSOO heads into space with its second Japanese model. Available at: Accessed March 25, Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013) The role of consumer brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of business research 66(1), Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004) Evolving to New Dominant Locig for Marketing. Journal of Marketing 68, Yanning, R. (2011, 2 23) Fantastic Four motivations for co-creation. Available at: Accessed March 4, /183

105 Appendix 1: Laswell s Communication model Under the influence of the mass media growth the American media researcher Harold D. Laswell developed his now classic and very much traditional communication model in 1948 (figure 12) (McQuail & Windahl, 1993). The theory has been called the Laswell Formula and a needle theory as it primarily focuses on the effect or impact that the message has on the receiver (ibid.). The model and perspective behind is a part of the transmission paradigm, defining communication as a transmission of a message from sender to receiver - communication is thus seen as a linear and sequential process (ibid.). The model is very simple and exist of five parts; communicator (sender), message, medium, receive and effect. The idea is that on should ask the questions; who? Says what? In which channel? To whom? Whit what effect? Each of these issues form a loop in the communication process, of which the arrows in the model shows, there is a linear motion from left to right - from sender to receiver (ibid.). Figure 12: Laswell s communication model (McQuail & Windahl, 1993) Laswell s model is simple and does not account for how the message is shaped by the sender and interpreted by the receiver, moreover there is no also no opportunity for feedback (McQuail & Windahl, 1993). 105/183

106 Appendix 2: Kotler s Marketing Management Phillip Kotler is a typical example of how the traditional notion of communication takes data in use in marketing theory, Kotler's (1987) marketing management model of the communication process seen below are obviously partly inspired by Laswell. Working with 9 elements comprising persons (sender and receiver) tools (message and media) functions (encoding, decoding, response and feedback) and noise (figure 13) (Kotler, 1987). The governing principle the model is efficiency: it is the sender's task to get the message across to the receiver - at the expense of the hundreds of other commercial messages, which the receiver is bombarded with every day (Kotler, 1987; Kotler & Keller, 2009). Figure 13: Elements in the communications process (Kotler & Keller, 2009: 514) In the sender-oriented paradigm, also called the economic approach, Kotler further introduces his traditional marketing mix with the four P s: product, price, place, and promotion (figure 14; Heding et al., 2009). The idea is that the brand uses this mix to create an intended meaning and intentional image with consumers. The consumer is considered rationally thinking and as a predictable individual who is passively incorporates the brands product information (ibid.). The transaction between the company and the consumer is the functionalist nature in the form of a product that satisfies consumer's functional needs and desires (Heding et al., 2009: 33). 106/183

107 Figure 14: Kotler s marketing mix (Kotler & Keller, 2009: 63) 107/183

108 Appendix 3: Aaker s Brand Identity Model David H. Aaker s (1996) Brand Identity Planning model (see below) is a strategic model whose purpose is to construct and communicate a consistent and meaningful identity that defines the associations and meanings that should interfere with the consumer's perception of the brand (Aaker, 1996; Aaker, 1997). The sender and receiver relationship in Aakers optics expresses that he considers a significant difference between a brand identity and image; it is the brand that defines the brand identity without special consideration for consumers' perception of the brans (ibid.). Aaker (1997) see brand identity from four perspectives; brand as a product, brand as an organization, brand as a person, and brand as a symbol, as depicted in his brand identity system in the below figure 15 (Aaker, 1996: 79; Aaker, 1997). These elements are instructions for the brand on how to generate a strong and unique brand identity that includes both functional and emotional brand dimensions (Aaker, 1996: 78). The elements do not necessarily have the same degree of importance to brand identity, but should, according to Aaker all be considered in a branding process (Aaker, 1996: 79-80; Aaker 1997). What is important to emphasize is that it is the company that defines the brand's core values and brand's essential meaning, and thus the identity (Aaker, 1996: 85-89). The image that comes from consumers is reduced to more or less useless information, with no direct influence on the brand identity (ibid.). In his brand image trap Aaker warns brands about involving consumers and let them dictate what the brand is (Aaker, 1996: 69). 7 7 It is noted that Aaker consider both an internal and an external focus to be important. But his point in his brand image trap is that consumer perception of the brand is looking back in time and reflect past experiences with the brand, where brand identity reflects the future objectives and visions of the business, a power that lies within the business (Aaker, 1996: 70). 108/183

109 Figure 15: Aaker s brand identity system (Aaker, 1996: 79) 109/183

110 Appendix 4: Kapferer s Brand Identity Prism Kapferer (1997) is rooted in the sender-oriented branding perspective, and supports Aaker's (1997) claim that brand identity construction is a competence that lies within the brand. According to Kapferer consumer do simply not possess the right skills needed to understand what the brand's inner core values consist of (Kapferer, 1997). Consumer perception expresses the ideal notions of the brand and is therefore characterized as unrealistic and harmful to the brand's identity (ibid.). Kapferer (2004: 113) hereby warn against focusing on the receiver side of the communication, firms should begin two focus more on the transmission side of brand marketing and less on the Receiving side". Kapferer (2004: 96) introduced his brand identity prism, which comprise a combination of six internal and external facets (figure 16) that will affect which promises that the brand delivers, and how they are redeemed. Figure 16: Kapferer s Brand Identity Prism (Kapferer, 2004: 96) The six facets defines the identity of a brand and all six facets are related with each other, forming a structured whole, where the content of one facet both depend on and affect other facets (Kapferer, 1997: 105). In relation to branding and communication the upper part of the prism (physical and personality) defines the sender and provides a picture of the product (ibid.). The lower part of the prism (reflection and self-image) defines the receiver, which then becomes part of the brand's identity (ibid.). The last 110/183

111 two facets (relationship and culture) help to bridge the gap between sender and receiver. As a whole, the prism provides a broad and deep understanding of the brand and helps to understand the essence of brand identity (Kapferer, 1997: ). Physique Relationship Reflection Personality Culture Self image The physical and material distinguishing characteristics. A concept that lies just outside of the product itself, and is the brand's business conducts or code the style of behavior. The picture of the lifestyle that the consumer wish to have when purchasing the brand. The traits of human personality that can be attributed to the brand. The embedded values of the brand - the idea behind the brand. The consumer's own satisfaction or creation of identity when buying/using the brand. Table 10: Kapferer s he six identity facets (Kapferer, 1997: 105) 111/183

112 Appendix 5: Brand Personality A part of both Aaker s (1997) Brand Identity Model and Kapferer s (1997) Brand Identity Prism is brand personality, being the personality traits and interpretations ascribed to a brand based on its brand actions (Aaker, 1997: 79; Kapferer, 1997). Brand personality exists on the basis of the way the brand communicates on its product or service. When creating a personality around the brand, brands give the consumers the opportunity to express themselves through the product person (Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1996). Brand Personality acts as a self-expressive tool to reflect whom the consumers are and what values they stand for (Aaker, 1996: ). As argued both by postmodern and self-congruity theory, consumers prefer brands they associate with a set of personality traits congruent with their own (section 3.1.2) (Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011). Thus brand personality is important both in relation to the brand image but also to the consumers self-reference, as it encourages self-expression and enhance brand attitudes and preferences (Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011: 304). Brands do not have emotions, people do. Thus in order to encompass the enchanting elements of humanity that is aspired by postmodern consumers (section 3.1; 3.3), brands need to acquire a personality that can interact with consumers and embrace the human-to-human perspective. Aaker (1997) developed a framework for measuring the personality dimensions of a brand, inspired by the big five human personality scales originally used in psychology (Aaker, 1996: 144; Aaker, 1997) (Figure 17). Sincerity Excitement Brand Personality Competence Sophistication Ruggedness Figure 17: A brand personality framework (Aaker, 1997) (Aaker, 1996) 112/183

113 The framework consist of five personality dimensions; Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness, which then again consist of 42 personality traits in total (Aaker, 1997: ; Aaker, 1996: ; Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013: 951; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011). Just like a person a brand has a complex personality ranging across the five dimensions, a personality that is identified based on relevance and suitability (Aaker, 1997). As mentioned, postmodern consumers use the brand personality as a means to self-expression and to reinforce identity benefits (Aaker, 1997; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011), as they in their pursuit hereof tend to perceive brands as relationship partners (Fournier, 1998; section 3.2.2). Consequently consumers attribute human characteristics to the nonhuman form of a brand, a personality that will affect both brand perceptions and relationship (Aaker, 1997; Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). Co-creation facilitates consumer engagement on a mutual level and enables consumer self-exhibition through the brand experiences. Thus one could argue that co-creation helps provide human traits and a personality to a brand, as it sets the stage for close interaction and further gives the brand the human ability to listen and understand. 113/183

114 Appendix 6: Fournier s relationship perspective The brand is seen as an active and contributing partner in a relationship existing between consumers and the brand, a partner whose actions create trait interpretations that together summarize the consumers perceptions of the brand s personality and thus the brand in general (Fournier, 1998: 368; Aaker et al., 2004). Fournier has in her research construed four dependent indicators of brand relationship strength: commitment, intimacy, satisfaction and self-connection, as seen in figure 18 (Aaker et al., 2004; Fournier, 1998). Figure 18: Relationship strength (Fournier, 1998) High levels of commitment foster stability and in some cases higher loyalty in the relationship, the greater the need for commitment the more consumers will move towards a relationship. Furthermore commitment will increase contribution. Intimacy refers to the profound understanding, which occurs if the relationship is close and friendship-like and both parties are willing to openly share information, this will further reduce any uncertainty that might arise. Satisfaction is as it says; the satisfaction with and happiness in the relationship, thus taking in to consideration the expectations and benefits of relational engagements. Lastly self-connection refers to the basic human need of being a part of something, it adds strength to the relationship by activating the self-image, in cases where consumers and the brand have mutual perspectives and a common purpose. (Fournier, 1998; Grarup, 2012) The presence of these above indicators will increase the possibilities of a stronger relationship between the consumers and the brand; if of course the brand behind is able o utilize the potential 114/183

115 hereof (Fournier, 1998). From a value creation point of view, a strong relationship is key, as this will ensure that interactions do not include two parallel processes but one merged and interactive process (section 3.4). 115/183

116 Appendix 7: Case examples for the focus group Case 1 LEGO CUUSOO The details in the following case example are attained from a previous study of this thesis author (Grarup, 2012), however all the original sources have been researched again for this purpose. Within the last years LEGO has given this user-linked approach more attention, and is exploring co-creation as a valuable part of strategy. We want to engage more deeply with our fans and users [...] [and] listen more to their needs and wishes so that we can better deliver what they want, says Erik Hansen, Senior Director of Technology & Open Innovation at LEGO (Jesic, 2012). The company has touched upon co-creation when developing the Mindstorm products together with an online community (LEGO, 2014b), however recently an initiative called CUUSOO has generated a notable attention in regards to co-creation. LEGO s learning and development processes have more than ever opened up for external inputs. LEGO CUUSOO is a unique platform inviting consumers to submit and share their own LEGO ideas/designs and collect votes to be considered as future LEGO products (LEGO, 2014c). The site has a discover page letting users see what other users are proposing and where one can further discuss and support the designs. If a project gets more than 10,000 supporters LEGO might release it as a real product offer, and consumers having their idea chosen will benefit from their work and earn 1% of the product revenue. (LEGO, 2014a) The process is visualized in figure 20 below. Figure 19: The LEGO CUUSOO Process (own adaption inspiration from the CUUSOO platform) 116/183

117 LEGO CUUSOO began in 2008 with a Japanese site, and in 2011 it was launched globally, attracting hundreds of ideas and saw thousands of votes cast by a 35,000-strong community (Trangbæk, 2012). The LEGO Mindcraft was the first design to be released, receiving 10,000 votes worldwide in 48 hours (Blog, 2011). The CUUSOO platform is still a beta version, however the vast popularity and success indicate that in will only be developed further. The project also recently received the Core Design Award, with jury comments like the ones below in figure 21. Figure 20: Jury statements Core Design Awards (Awards, 2012) Case 2 BMW Co-creation Lab BMW use the creative minds and experiences of consumers to improve innovation. The automotive brand has integrated its various co-creation projects into their holistic and long-term co-creation initiative and platform; BMW Co-creation Lab (BMW, BMW Cocreation Lab). The lab enabled by the German innovation company HYVE addresses essential elements of co-creation. It is a virtual meeting place for individual consumers interested in car related topics and eager to share their ideas and opinions on tomorrows automotive world (Bartl et al., 2010: 5). The integrative platform offers activities ranging from idea contests, user toolkits, virtual concept tests, and innovation research studies up to lead user application forms (ibid.). It an ongoing co-creation process, where user (consumer) interactions and ideas are displayed and saved on the platform, and used as valuable insights in the development departments of BWM (ibid.). With its now 4613 co-creating users, the ideas and knowledge sharing continuous to grow (BMW, The BMW Group Co-Creators). As stated by the BMW Group Manager each time we launch such an initiative we remain impressed by the creative potential. The generated ideas added innovative and valuable input to the topics we are already 117/183

2 The Research Philosophy

2 The Research Philosophy 2 The Research Philosophy This chapter will give you information on: the relevance of philosophical issues in business research; the key concepts and positions of the philosophy of science; the logics

More information

Learning and Teaching

Learning and Teaching B E S T PRACTICES NEA RESEARCH BRIEF Learning and Teaching July 2006 This brief outlines nine leading research-based concepts that have served as a foundation for education reform. It compares existing

More information

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Management In Organizational Leadership. DM 004 Requirements

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Management In Organizational Leadership. DM 004 Requirements School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Management In Organizational Leadership The mission of the Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership degree program is to develop the critical and creative

More information

Job Design from an Alternative Perspective

Job Design from an Alternative Perspective Job Design from an Alternative Perspective Paula W. Potter Western Kentucky University Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explore a theoretical aspect of job design in a way that departs from the

More information

Communication in Social Media

Communication in Social Media Communication in Social Media The Starbucks Experience A Thesis by Anders Secher MA in International Business Communication Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 1. Introduction... 3 2. Problem Field...

More information

Phenomenological Research Methods

Phenomenological Research Methods Phenomenological Research Methods Clark Moustakas, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks California, 1994 I Human Science Perspectives and Models Moustakas starts with discussing different human science perspectives

More information

Leading Self. Leading Others. Leading Performance and Change. Leading the Coast Guard

Leading Self. Leading Others. Leading Performance and Change. Leading the Coast Guard Coast Guard Leadership Competencies Leadership competencies are the knowledge, skills, and expertise the Coast Guard expects of its leaders. The 28 leadership competencies are keys to career success. Developing

More information

Methodology in Social Psychology. Logics of inquiry

Methodology in Social Psychology. Logics of inquiry Methodology in Social Psychology Logics of inquiry How to carry out scientific research given our understanding of the nature of knowledge. Philosophy of Science clarifies why experimental, scientific

More information

Appendix B Data Quality Dimensions

Appendix B Data Quality Dimensions Appendix B Data Quality Dimensions Purpose Dimensions of data quality are fundamental to understanding how to improve data. This appendix summarizes, in chronological order of publication, three foundational

More information

Social Constructionism & Discourse Analysis. Pertti Alasuutari Academy professor University of Tampere

Social Constructionism & Discourse Analysis. Pertti Alasuutari Academy professor University of Tampere Social Constructionism & Discourse Analysis Pertti Alasuutari Academy professor University of Tampere Topics covered during the course Social constructionism Social theory & human reality Introduction

More information

Program Level Learning Outcomes for the Department of Philosophy Page 1

Program Level Learning Outcomes for the Department of Philosophy Page 1 Page 1 PHILOSOPHY General Major I. Depth and Breadth of Knowledge. A. Will be able to recall what a worldview is and recognize that we all possess one. B. Should recognize that philosophy is most broadly

More information

Unifying Epistemologies by Combining World, Description and Observer

Unifying Epistemologies by Combining World, Description and Observer Unifying Epistemologies by Combining World, Description and Observer Stuart Umpleby Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning The George Washington University Washington, DC Umpleby@gwu.edu

More information

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Management In Organizational Leadership/information Systems And Technology. DM/IST 004 Requirements

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Management In Organizational Leadership/information Systems And Technology. DM/IST 004 Requirements School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Management In Organizational Leadership/information Systems And Technology The mission of the Information Systems and Technology specialization of the Doctor of Management

More information

THIRD REGIONAL TRAINING WORKSHOP ON TAXATION. Brasilia, Brazil, December 3 5, 2002. Topic 4

THIRD REGIONAL TRAINING WORKSHOP ON TAXATION. Brasilia, Brazil, December 3 5, 2002. Topic 4 THIRD REGIONAL TRAINING WORKSHOP ON TAXATION Brasilia, Brazil, December 3 5, 2002 Topic 4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIONS AND TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE Nelson Gutierrez

More information

Course equivalencies for Aarhus School of Business Denmark

Course equivalencies for Aarhus School of Business Denmark Course equivalencies for Aarhus School of Business Denmark I. ACCOUNTING 6579 International Financial Accounting = ACCT 499t Jr/Sr Business Elective Contents: To work in an international environment it

More information

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the Autorité des Normes Comptables (ANC) jointly publish on their websites for

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the Autorité des Normes Comptables (ANC) jointly publish on their websites for The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the Autorité des Normes Comptables (ANC) jointly publish on their websites for information purpose a Research Paper on the proposed new Definition

More information

Critical Inquiry in Educational Research and Professional Practice

Critical Inquiry in Educational Research and Professional Practice DOCTOR IN EDUCATION COURSE DESCRIPTIONS A. CORE COURSES NEDD 800 Professionalism, Ethics, and the Self This introductory core course will explore and interrogate ideas surrounding professionalism and professionalization.

More information

Exploring the directions and methods of business development. A comparative multiple-case study on Ikea and Vodafone

Exploring the directions and methods of business development. A comparative multiple-case study on Ikea and Vodafone Exploring the directions and methods of business development A comparative multiple-case study on Ikea and Vodafone Michal Štefan Aalborg University Master thesis for MSc. in International Business Economics

More information

*Heinemann, London, 1979

*Heinemann, London, 1979 Burrell and Morgan s Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis * *Heinemann, London, 1979 Main 4 debates in Sociology Is reality given or is it a product of the mind? Must one experience something

More information

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Education In Educational Leadership With A Specialization In Educational Technology. EDD/ET 003 Requirements

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Education In Educational Leadership With A Specialization In Educational Technology. EDD/ET 003 Requirements School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Education In Educational Leadership With A Specialization In Educational Technology The mission of the Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership degree program

More information

A methodological proposal to analyse interactions in online collaborative learning environments

A methodological proposal to analyse interactions in online collaborative learning environments A methodological proposal to analyse interactions in online collaborative learning environments Manuela Repetto Doctorate on Educational and Cognitive Sciences University Ca Foscari, Venice, Italy repetto@itd.cnr.it

More information

French Language and Culture. Curriculum Framework 2011 2012

French Language and Culture. Curriculum Framework 2011 2012 AP French Language and Culture Curriculum Framework 2011 2012 Contents (click on a topic to jump to that page) Introduction... 3 Structure of the Curriculum Framework...4 Learning Objectives and Achievement

More information

Qualitative Research. A primer. Developed by: Vicki L. Wise, Ph.D. Portland State University

Qualitative Research. A primer. Developed by: Vicki L. Wise, Ph.D. Portland State University Qualitative Research A primer Developed by: Vicki L. Wise, Ph.D. Portland State University Overview In this session, we will investigate qualitative research methods. At the end, I am hopeful that you

More information

Chris Bell. Customer Experience Coach. www.customerexperiences.co.nz

Chris Bell. Customer Experience Coach. www.customerexperiences.co.nz Chris Bell Customer Experience Coach Developing Your Unique Customer Experience Introduction As more and more business leaders start to understand what a customer experience strategy is all about and more

More information

Building Loyalty in a Web 2.0 World

Building Loyalty in a Web 2.0 World Building Loyalty in a Web 2.0 World A Consona CRM White Paper By Nitin Badjatia, Enterprise Solutions Architect Over the last decade, a radical shift has occurred in the way customers interact with the

More information

WRITING A CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW

WRITING A CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW WRITING A CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW A critical article review briefly describes the content of an article and, more importantly, provides an in-depth analysis and evaluation of its ideas and purpose. The

More information

Rudy Hirschheim. E.J. Ourso College of Business Louisiana State University. rudy@lsu.edu http://projects.bus.lsu.edu/faculty/rudy

Rudy Hirschheim. E.J. Ourso College of Business Louisiana State University. rudy@lsu.edu http://projects.bus.lsu.edu/faculty/rudy Philosophy of Science and Research Methods in IS Rudy Hirschheim E.J. Ourso College of Business Louisiana State University rudy@lsu.edu http://projects.bus.lsu.edu/faculty/rudy Philosophy of Science Timeline

More information

Use Your Master s Thesis Supervisor

Use Your Master s Thesis Supervisor Use Your Master s Thesis Supervisor This booklet was prepared in dialogue with the heads of studies at the faculty, and it was approved by the dean of the faculty. Thus, this leaflet expresses the faculty

More information

INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS CONTENTS

INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS CONTENTS INTERNATIONAL FOR ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS (Effective for assurance reports issued on or after January 1, 2005) CONTENTS Paragraph Introduction... 1 6 Definition and Objective of an Assurance Engagement...

More information

Units of Study 9th Grade

Units of Study 9th Grade Units of Study 9th Grade First Semester Theme: The Journey Second Semester Theme: Choices The Big Ideas in English Language Arts that drive instruction: Independent thinkers construct meaning through language.

More information

Grounded Theory. 1 Introduction... 1. 2 Applications of grounded theory... 1. 3 Outline of the design... 2

Grounded Theory. 1 Introduction... 1. 2 Applications of grounded theory... 1. 3 Outline of the design... 2 Grounded Theory Contents 1 Introduction... 1 2 Applications of grounded theory... 1 3 Outline of the design... 2 4 Strengths and weaknesses of grounded theory... 6 5 References... 6 1 Introduction This

More information

GE Capital Engaging employees: Using internal communications to drive success

GE Capital Engaging employees: Using internal communications to drive success GE Capital Engaging employees: Using internal communications to drive success viewpoint GE Capital Today s workforce is more distributed than ever. It s no longer unusual for organizations to position

More information

Running head: PERSONAL STATEMENT ON LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION 1. Personal Statement on Learning and Instruction. Jay A. Bostwick

Running head: PERSONAL STATEMENT ON LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION 1. Personal Statement on Learning and Instruction. Jay A. Bostwick Running head: PERSONAL STATEMENT ON LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION 1 Personal Statement on Learning and Instruction Jay A. Bostwick IP&T 620 Principles of Learning PERSONAL STATEMENT ON LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION

More information

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative Student Focused Math Content Coaching

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative Student Focused Math Content Coaching Teacher Learning Content Student Math Assessment Collaborative Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative Student Focused Math Content Coaching Teacher Learning Content Student Math Assessment Collaborative

More information

Application and Infrastructure Monitoring In A Distributed World Beyond Summary Statistics

Application and Infrastructure Monitoring In A Distributed World Beyond Summary Statistics Beyond Summary Statistics Introduction As the world becomes ever more competitive, organizations are seeking ways to differentiate. Delivering data and applications to internal and external stakeholders

More information

WARSAW SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

WARSAW SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS WARSAW SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS mgr Ewelina Florczak The summary of doctoral dissertation THE TITLE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 1 Rationale topic A social enterprise as a business entity is subject

More information

BEPS ACTIONS 8-10. Revised Guidance on Profit Splits

BEPS ACTIONS 8-10. Revised Guidance on Profit Splits BEPS ACTIONS 8-10 Revised Guidance on Profit Splits DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE REVISED GUIDANCE ON PROFIT SPLITS 4 July 2016 Public comments are invited on this discussion draft which deals with the clarification

More information

Applied Interpretation: A Review of Interpretive Description by Sally Thorne

Applied Interpretation: A Review of Interpretive Description by Sally Thorne The Qualitative Report Volume 15 Number 6 November 2010 1624-1628 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/qr/qr15-6/stgeorge.pdf Applied Interpretation: A Review of Interpretive Description by Sally Thorne Sally St.

More information

Interviews and Focus Groups in Advertising, Public relations and Media

Interviews and Focus Groups in Advertising, Public relations and Media 1 Your topic: an essay about interviews and focus groups which has to be from the point of view of my course specialism which is ADVERTISING PUBLIC RELATIONS AND MEDIA! Your desired style of citation:

More information

The role of the marketing department in Danish companies: Drivers for influence

The role of the marketing department in Danish companies: Drivers for influence 42 nd EMAC Annual Conference Istanbul, June 2013 The role of the marketing department in Danish companies: Drivers for influence Suzanne C. Beckmann, Michala Jalving & Sarah Rohde Olsen Copenhagen Business

More information

RELEVANT TO FOUNDATION LEVEL PAPER FAB / ACCA QUALIFICATION PAPER F1

RELEVANT TO FOUNDATION LEVEL PAPER FAB / ACCA QUALIFICATION PAPER F1 RELEVANT TO FOUNDATION LEVEL PAPER FAB / ACCA QUALIFICATION PAPER F1 The role of marketing Section B2(e) of the Paper FAB Study Guide states that candidates should be able to describe the roles and functions

More information

Practical Research. Paul D. Leedy Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. Planning and Design. Tenth Edition

Practical Research. Paul D. Leedy Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. Planning and Design. Tenth Edition Practical Research Planning and Design Tenth Edition Paul D. Leedy Jeanne Ellis Ormrod 2013, 2010, 2005, 2001, 1997 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 1 The Nature and Tools of Research

More information

PUBLIC INTEREST IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. A NECESSARY ETHICAL AND REGULATORY CONCEPT FOR TERRITORIAL PLANNING

PUBLIC INTEREST IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. A NECESSARY ETHICAL AND REGULATORY CONCEPT FOR TERRITORIAL PLANNING Boletín de Public la Asociación interest in de political Geógrafos philosophy. Españoles A necessary N.º 53-2010, ethical págs. and regulatory 381-386 concept for territorial planning I.S.S.N.: 0212-9426

More information

E-LOGOS/2006 ISSN 1121-0442

E-LOGOS/2006 ISSN 1121-0442 E-LOGOS/2006 ISSN 1121-0442 On Hermeneutics Jessica Rutt Hermeneutical Inquiry Over the past 150 years, hermeneutical inquiry has exploded on the modern scene as a methodology for the interpretation of

More information

PG Diploma Business and Management

PG Diploma Business and Management PG Diploma Business and Management Module Specification Booklet Page 1 of 30 Contents Level 7 Modules... 3 Management: Principles and Practices... 4 Leadership in Practice... 6 Economics for Managers...

More information

Current Situation and Development Trend of Applied Linguistics Fang Li

Current Situation and Development Trend of Applied Linguistics Fang Li International Conference on Education Technology and Social Science (ICETSS 2014) Current Situation and Development Trend of Applied Linguistics Fang Li Zhengzhou Vocational College of Industrial Safety

More information

Executive Summary of Mastering Business Growth & Change Made Easy

Executive Summary of Mastering Business Growth & Change Made Easy Executive Summary of Mastering Business Growth & Change Made Easy by David Matteson & Jeff Hansen, June 2008 You stand at a crossroads. A new division of your company is about to be launched, and you need

More information

Kant s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals

Kant s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals Kant s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals G. J. Mattey Winter, 2015/ Philosophy 1 The Division of Philosophical Labor Kant generally endorses the ancient Greek division of philosophy into

More information

Reality in the Eyes of Descartes and Berkeley. By: Nada Shokry 5/21/2013 AUC - Philosophy

Reality in the Eyes of Descartes and Berkeley. By: Nada Shokry 5/21/2013 AUC - Philosophy Reality in the Eyes of Descartes and Berkeley By: Nada Shokry 5/21/2013 AUC - Philosophy Shokry, 2 One person's craziness is another person's reality. Tim Burton This quote best describes what one finds

More information

Resource Oriented Service Ideation: Integrating S-D Logic with Service Design Techniques.

Resource Oriented Service Ideation: Integrating S-D Logic with Service Design Techniques. Resource Oriented Service Ideation: Integrating S-D Logic with Service Design Techniques. Masanao Takeyama 1, Kahoru Tsukui 1, Yoshitaka Shibata 2 takeyama@econ.keio.ac.jp 1Keio University, Tokyo, Japan;

More information

Shaping The Workplace Of The Future insights from the 2008 symposium WALKING IN YOUR CUSTOMER S SHOES: ORGANIZATION

Shaping The Workplace Of The Future insights from the 2008 symposium WALKING IN YOUR CUSTOMER S SHOES: ORGANIZATION WALKING IN YOUR CUSTOMER S SHOES: USING PERSPECTIVE TAKING TO CREATE A CLIENT-CENTRIC ORGANIZATION Contributors: Seymour Adler, Ph.D., executive vice president, aon consulting Miriam Nelson, Ph.D., senior

More information

Kant on Time. Diana Mertz Hsieh (diana@dianahsieh.com) Kant (Phil 5010, Hanna) 28 September 2004

Kant on Time. Diana Mertz Hsieh (diana@dianahsieh.com) Kant (Phil 5010, Hanna) 28 September 2004 Kant on Time Diana Mertz Hsieh (diana@dianahsieh.com) Kant (Phil 5010, Hanna) 28 September 2004 In the Transcendental Aesthetic of his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant offers a series of dense arguments

More information

THE AGILE WATERFALL MIX DELIVERING SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

THE AGILE WATERFALL MIX DELIVERING SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS THE AGILE WATERFALL MIX DELIVERING SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS Amit Aggarwal FIS Consulting Services 800.822.6758 Overview The fintech explosion, the Internet of Things and the

More information

COMPETENCY ACC LEVEL PCC LEVEL MCC LEVEL 1. Ethics and Standards

COMPETENCY ACC LEVEL PCC LEVEL MCC LEVEL 1. Ethics and Standards ICF CORE COMPETENCIES RATING LEVELS Adapted from the Minimum Skills Requirements documents for each credential level (Includes will-not-receive-passing-score criteria- gray background) COMPETENCY ACC LEVEL

More information

THE CONTROVERSY OVER GLOBALIZATION A CONSPIRACY THEORY APPROACH -SUMMARY-

THE CONTROVERSY OVER GLOBALIZATION A CONSPIRACY THEORY APPROACH -SUMMARY- Doctoral School of Economics and Business Administration THE CONTROVERSY OVER GLOBALIZATION A CONSPIRACY THEORY APPROACH -SUMMARY- SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR: PhD Professor VICTOR PLOAE PhD Student: PÎNZARU

More information

Research Design and Research Methods

Research Design and Research Methods CHAPTER 3 Research Design and Research Methods Overview This chapter uses an emphasis on research design to discuss qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research as three major approaches to research

More information

How does the problem of relativity relate to Thomas Kuhn s concept of paradigm?

How does the problem of relativity relate to Thomas Kuhn s concept of paradigm? How does the problem of relativity relate to Thomas Kuhn s concept of paradigm? Eli Bjørhusdal After having published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, Kuhn was much criticised for the use

More information

Valuing Diversity. Cornerstones. 1. Diversity is about inclusion and engagement!

Valuing Diversity. Cornerstones. 1. Diversity is about inclusion and engagement! Valuing Diversity Cornerstones 1. Diversity is about inclusion and engagement! 2. The most important issue is always human dignity and total quality respect! 3. Prejudice is eliminated by developing high

More information

SomeEmergingResearchAreasinMarketing

SomeEmergingResearchAreasinMarketing Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume 12 Issue 13 Version 1.0 Year 2012 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA) Online

More information

RESEARCH PROCESS AND THEORY

RESEARCH PROCESS AND THEORY INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH PROCESS AND THEORY ALLEN F. REPKO The University of Texas at Arlington SAGE Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Detailed Contents Preface Acknowledgments About

More information

Relationship Marketing: Is It a Paradigm Shift?

Relationship Marketing: Is It a Paradigm Shift? Introduction Relationship marketing emerged as a contestant to traditional marketing theories since the early 1990s. Proponents of relationship marketing as a paradigm shift to traditional marketing theories

More information

Need Information? Go to: www.chr.alberta.ca/apscompetencies. Have Questions? Email: apscompetencies@gov.ab.ca

Need Information? Go to: www.chr.alberta.ca/apscompetencies. Have Questions? Email: apscompetencies@gov.ab.ca Need Information? Go to: www.chr.alberta.ca/apscompetencies Have Questions? Email: apscompetencies@gov.ab.ca Table of Contents Background... 3 Why Behavioural Competencies?... 3 The APS Competency Model...

More information

HIGH SCHOOL MASS MEDIA AND MEDIA LITERACY STANDARDS

HIGH SCHOOL MASS MEDIA AND MEDIA LITERACY STANDARDS Guidelines for Syllabus Development of Mass Media Course (1084) DRAFT 1 of 7 HIGH SCHOOL MASS MEDIA AND MEDIA LITERACY STANDARDS Students study the importance of mass media as pervasive in modern life

More information

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS 3000 ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS OTHER THAN AUDITS OR REVIEWS OF HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION CONTENTS

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS 3000 ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS OTHER THAN AUDITS OR REVIEWS OF HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION CONTENTS INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS 3000 ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS OTHER THAN AUDITS OR REVIEWS OF HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION (Effective for assurance reports dated on or after January 1,

More information

The Leadership Pipeline Ram Charan, Stephen Drotter, and James Noel

The Leadership Pipeline Ram Charan, Stephen Drotter, and James Noel The Big Idea The Leadership Pipeline Ram Charan, Stephen Drotter, and James Noel There is a growing need to develop leaders within many corporations. The demand for leaders greatly outpaces the supply.

More information

GM Is Still Writing Its Social CRM

GM Is Still Writing Its Social CRM GM Is Still Writing Its Social CRM Success Story By Jim Moloney General Motors continues to evolve its support of the connected consumer through social engagement, expanding its reach in new ways. In the

More information

What Are the Benefits of Analyzing Student Work?

What Are the Benefits of Analyzing Student Work? 01-Bella.qxd 11/17/03 3:40 PM Page 1 What Are the Benefits of Analyzing Student Work? 1 W hat s in it for me? That s the question many educators secretly ask themselves when they are presented with a new

More information

CURRICULUM for Diploma in Leadership

CURRICULUM for Diploma in Leadership Diploma in Leadership 1 January 2013 CURRICULUM for Diploma in Leadership (revised 27 January 2014) 1 Contents 1. Introduction...3 2. Purpose of the education...3 3. Length of the education...4 4. Title

More information

Disrupting Class How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns

Disrupting Class How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns Disrupting Class How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns Clayton Christensen, Michael B Horn Curtis W Johnson Mc Graw Hill, 2008 Introduction This book is about how to reform the

More information

Scholarship Programme

Scholarship Programme Department of Children and Youth Affairs Scholarship Programme Note No. 7 Research Briefing Consuming Talk: Youth Culture and the Mobile Phone 1. What is the study s background? This study was the subject

More information

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WHOLE BRAIN TECHNOLOGY

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WHOLE BRAIN TECHNOLOGY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WHOLE BRAIN TECHNOLOGY Whole Brain Thinking: Quick View This Quick View will answer the following questions: What is Whole Brain Thinking? What are the four

More information

Course Guide Masters of Education Program (UOIT)

Course Guide Masters of Education Program (UOIT) Course Guide Masters of Education Program (UOIT) Note: 1 course = 3 credits Students need 12 credits (4 courses) to obtain Graduate Diploma Students need 30 credits (10 courses) to obtain M.Ed. Or M.A

More information

MOTIVATION CHECKLIST

MOTIVATION CHECKLIST 2011 Dr. Mary Kay Whitaker Need Satisfaction is Directly Related to Motivation The purpose of this Motivation Checklist is for you, as a leader, to proactively uncover what the people on your team need

More information

How To Manage The Council

How To Manage The Council Mole Valley District Council Corporate Communications Strategy 2002-2005 CONTENTS Content Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Stakeholders Section 3: Objectives Section 4: Targets Section 5: Principles

More information

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Health Administration. DHA 003 Requirements

School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Health Administration. DHA 003 Requirements School of Advanced Studies Doctor Of Health Administration The mission of the Doctor of Health Administration degree program is to develop healthcare leaders by educating them in the areas of active inquiry,

More information

ANOTHER GENERATION OF GENERAL EDUCATION

ANOTHER GENERATION OF GENERAL EDUCATION ANOTHER GENERATION OF GENERAL EDUCATION Peter K. Bol Charles H. Carswell Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations I was asked to set forth some personal reflections rather than to summarize

More information

Virtual co-creation A mixture between control and freedom

Virtual co-creation A mixture between control and freedom Virtual co-creation A mixture between control and freedom Saskia Bräunlich Sigrid Werner Master Thesis BUSM08 International Marketing and Brand Management Abstract Title: Virtual co-creation A mixture

More information

INVESTORS IN PEOPLE: WHAT S IT ALL ABOUT? Sue Greener and Tom Bourner

INVESTORS IN PEOPLE: WHAT S IT ALL ABOUT? Sue Greener and Tom Bourner INVESTORS IN PEOPLE: WHAT S IT ALL ABOUT? Sue Greener and Tom Bourner Sue Greener and Tom Bourner, May 2005 Brighton Business School University of Brighton Occasioal/Working Paper Series Working Paper

More information

Request for Proposal For Qualitative Research to Increase Viewing Frequency and Loyalty

Request for Proposal For Qualitative Research to Increase Viewing Frequency and Loyalty Request for Proposal For Qualitative Research to Increase Viewing Frequency and Loyalty Corporation for Public Broadcasting is hereby announcing a Request for Proposal ( RFP ) entitled Enthusiastic & Open

More information

Comparison of Research Designs Template

Comparison of Research Designs Template Comparison of Comparison of The following seven tables provide an annotated template to guide you through the comparison of research designs assignment in this course. These tables help you organize your

More information

Designing for Brand Experience Mauricy Alves da Motta Filho mauricyfilho@gmail.com

Designing for Brand Experience Mauricy Alves da Motta Filho mauricyfilho@gmail.com Designing for Brand Experience Mauricy Alves da Motta Filho mauricyfilho@gmail.com Customer experiences have for a time now been recognized as the new arena for building competitive advantage, and the

More information

1/9. Locke 1: Critique of Innate Ideas

1/9. Locke 1: Critique of Innate Ideas 1/9 Locke 1: Critique of Innate Ideas This week we are going to begin looking at a new area by turning our attention to the work of John Locke, who is probably the most famous English philosopher of all

More information

Executive Doctorate in Higher Education Management Curriculum Guide

Executive Doctorate in Higher Education Management Curriculum Guide Executive Doctorate in Higher Education Management Curriculum Guide The Executive Doctorate in Higher Education Management Program consists of six consecutive terms, starting with a late summer term and

More information

A PLANNING MODEL FOR ABET ENGINEERING CRITERIA 2000

A PLANNING MODEL FOR ABET ENGINEERING CRITERIA 2000 A PLANNING MODEL FOR ABET ENGINEERING CRITERIA 2000 M. Dayne Aldridge and Larry Benefield College of Engineering Auburn University, AL 36849 Introduction ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 provides a new basis

More information

Correlation between competency profile and course learning objectives for Full-time MBA

Correlation between competency profile and course learning objectives for Full-time MBA Correlation between competency and course for Full-time MBA Competency management in the Organizational Behavior and Leadership Managing Sustainable Corporations Accounting Marketing Economics Human Resource

More information

Sartre and Freedom. Leo Franchi. Human freedom is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental ideas that has driven the

Sartre and Freedom. Leo Franchi. Human freedom is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental ideas that has driven the Sartre and Freedom Leo Franchi Human freedom is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental ideas that has driven the development of democratic politics in the last few hundred years. Freedom is taught in

More information

Five Key Questions of Media Literacy. Five Core Concepts

Five Key Questions of Media Literacy. Five Core Concepts PMS 187 U Five Key Questions of Media Literacy 2005 / Center for Media Literacy PMS 187 C 1. 2. Who created this message? What creative techniques are used to attract my attention? 3. How might different

More information

ICF CORE COMPETENCIES RATING LEVELS

ICF CORE COMPETENCIES RATING LEVELS coachfederation.org ICF CORE COMPETENCIES RATING LEVELS Adapted from the Minimum Skills Requirements documents for each credential level Includes will-not-receive-passing-score criteria. COMPETENCY 1.

More information

Dr. Jonathan Passmore s Publications Library:

Dr. Jonathan Passmore s Publications Library: Dr. Jonathan Passmore s Publications Library: This paper is the source text for the published paper or chapter. It is made available free of charge for use in research. For the published version of this

More information

Reviewed by Egill H. Bragason, Ph.D.

Reviewed by Egill H. Bragason, Ph.D. David J. Nightingale and John Cromby (Eds.) (1999). Social Constructionist Psychology a Critical Analysis of Theory and Practice. Open University Press, 236 pages. Reviewed by Egill H. Bragason, Ph.D.

More information

Reviewed by Anna Lehnen. Introduction

Reviewed by Anna Lehnen. Introduction 1 Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership: The no-fads, heart-of-thematter facts you need to know. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reviewed by Anna Lehnen Introduction James M.

More information

Investment manager research

Investment manager research Page 1 of 10 Investment manager research Due diligence and selection process Table of contents 2 Introduction 2 Disciplined search criteria 3 Comprehensive evaluation process 4 Firm and product 5 Investment

More information

THE STANDARD FOR DOCTORAL DEGREES IN LAW AT THE FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ

THE STANDARD FOR DOCTORAL DEGREES IN LAW AT THE FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ THE FACULTY OF LAW THE STANDARD FOR DOCTORAL DEGREES IN LAW AT THE FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ Guidelines for the Faculty of Law in Tromsø, adopted by the Faculty Board on 31 May 2010. 1 Background

More information

EXECUTIVE MASTER IN. Increasing corporate value in today s complex digital world through reputation management and communication with stakeholders.

EXECUTIVE MASTER IN. Increasing corporate value in today s complex digital world through reputation management and communication with stakeholders. EXECUTIVE MASTER IN CORPORATE COMMUNICATION Increasing corporate value in today s complex digital world through reputation management and communication with stakeholders. COURSE DESCRIPTION At a Glance

More information

Customer Experience Management-As a Key strategy to build Brands in International Markets

Customer Experience Management-As a Key strategy to build Brands in International Markets Customer Experience Management-As a Key strategy to build Brands in International Markets Ms.Sunitha Chakravarthy* Prof.G.V.Bhavani Prasad** * Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Kakatiya Institute

More information

Analysing Qualitative Data

Analysing Qualitative Data Analysing Qualitative Data Workshop Professor Debra Myhill Philosophical Assumptions It is important to think about the philosophical assumptions that underpin the interpretation of all data. Your ontological

More information

Curriculum atelier head. Bernardine Walrecht. Mathieu Meijers tutors. Fred Nagengast. Iris Toonen. content Mission and Qualities Competences per Year

Curriculum atelier head. Bernardine Walrecht. Mathieu Meijers tutors. Fred Nagengast. Iris Toonen. content Mission and Qualities Competences per Year Curriculum atelier head Bernardine Walrecht coordinator Liesbeth Fit Rien Derks Teun Hocks Mathieu Meijers tutors Fred Nagengast Pier Luigi Pompeï Stefan Silvestri Iris Toonen content Mission and Qualities

More information

The Transpersonal (Spiritual) Journey Towards Leadership Excellence Using 8ICOL

The Transpersonal (Spiritual) Journey Towards Leadership Excellence Using 8ICOL The Transpersonal (Spiritual) Journey Towards Leadership Excellence Using 8ICOL Travelling from Ego Based Leadership to Transpersonal Leadership where the focus is beyond the ego to the needs of ALL the

More information

CHEA. Accreditation and Accountability: A CHEA Special Report. CHEA Institute for Research and Study of Acceditation and Quality Assurance

CHEA. Accreditation and Accountability: A CHEA Special Report. CHEA Institute for Research and Study of Acceditation and Quality Assurance CHEA Institute for Research and Study of Acceditation and Quality Assurance Accreditation and Accountability: A CHEA Special Report CHEA Occasional Paper Special Report December 2006 CHEA The Council for

More information