Download This campaign clearly demonstrates that co

Co-creation communication
A research on the appreciation and willingness of Dutch
consumers for co-creation communication.
September 2007
By: Dominique de Thouars (0356387)
Master Thesis
Communicationstudies
University of Utrecht
Supervisors:
Dr. J. D. ten Thije
Drs. J. Evertse
Utrecht University
Dhr. Antonie van Schendel
TBWA\Brand Experience Company
0
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have helped me
during the creation of this thesis. Without the help of these people I could never
have managed to succeed in producing this thesis.
First of all, I would like to thank my mentor Dr. Jan ten Thije from the
University of Utrecht, who has always encouraged me to follow my own path, both
during my studies as well as in the choice of the topic of my thesis. He also helped
me a lot during the writing of my thesis, and I could always count on him when I
had questions.
Second, I would like to thank Drs. Judith Evertse for supporting me during
the times I was struggling with SPSS, and for shedding a bit of light on the more
obscure areas of this program.
I would like to thank Mr. Antonie van Schendel for giving me the chance to
gain experience at TBWA\Brand Experience Company and for helping me to find my
thesis subject. The support he gave me with the execution of the quantitative
research and by offering me the chance to tap into his extensive network to contact
people for my qualitative research was invaluable. I can only hope that, by
presenting the results of this research to TBWA\Brand Experience Company, I have
given back (at least) a fraction of the support and knowledge they provided me
with throughout the past year.
Furthermore, I would like to thank all my colleagues at TBWA\Brand
Experience Company for their patience and understanding when deadlines were
closing in rapidly on me (and them!), especially Janet den Butter for always being
flexible and helpful.
I would like to thank the University of Utrecht and especially Bureau Aboard
for offering me the chance to study in the USA and to gain meaningful knowledge
on the concept of co-creation and advertising.
Finally, I want to thank my family and especially my brother Rolf and my
sister-in-law Gail on whom I could always count to help me with language issues,
and for being there at the very end to help me finish this paper and ‘crossing the
t’s’, even while living abroad.
1
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
With the help of all these people, I was able to complete this research in
what I continue to see as an exciting new and interesting field in the world of
external communication. I can only hope that you, as a reader, will also enjoy and
be tempted by the phenomenon of co-creation communication while reading my
thesis.
Utrecht, September 2007
2
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Summary
In the following I will present a quantitative research paper that is based on the
evaluation of the extent to which people appreciate co-creation communication as
well as their willingness to participate in the co-creation communication process.
Co-creation communication is the process of involving consumers in the external
communication process with the help of three steps. The first step is bringing the
message to them. The second step is letting the consumers respond followed by the
third step in which this input is used to design the final external communication
practice. Next to the quantitative research, a qualitative research will be presented
which contains the discussion of an unsuccessful and a successful campaign. In
addition, the opinion of marketing managers and senior managers on the topic of
co-creation communication will be presented in order to shed some more light on
some of the more notable results from the quantitative research.
Co-creation is still a hardly touched area. The concept has been scientifically
imbedded, but it is not clear if the consumer really wants to be reached with cocreation. This paper is intended as a first careful step in order to determine what
the consumer thinks about ‘co-creation communication’. The key question of this
research is therefore:
‘To what extend do people appreciate co-creation communication and are
they willing to participate?’
To determine if consumers want to take part in the co-creation communication
process, we first define what ‘co-creation communication’ is, starting by sketching
the history of social changes and the role of communication with reference to the
theories of Cornelis (1988) and Thijssen (2004). Then we explore the origin of the
word ‘experience economy’ with the help of Pine and Gillmore (1999). This is
followed by the definition of the concept and principles of co-creation itself and a
discussion of co-creation as a tool in external communication with reference to the
theory of Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004). Finally, we touch on the importance of
media choice within the context of the three steps of co-creation that were used in
the definition of co-creation communication.
The results from the online quantitative questionnaire are gathered from a
survey involving 305 participants that formed a representative sample of the Dutch
3
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
population. The result of the quantitative research shows that people appreciate cocreation with a majority being open to the concept. However, most of them are not
sure if they are willing to participate. This willingness to participate differs with
respect to the chosen media in every step, the product category and the age of the
consumer.
The qualitative research shows that besides the factors age, product category and
media there are also some other important factors, such as the level of control,
environment and bonding with a brand, which influence the success of the cocreation campaign. The remarkable results obtained in the quantitative part are
also explained with these factors.
4
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Table of contents
1. Introduction
9
2. Theoretical framework
11
2.1 Social changes and the role of communication
11
2.1.1 The three stability layers of Cornelis
12
2.1.2 Sociological perspective of the social context
14
2.2 Definition of ‘experience economy’
2.2.1 The experience economy from the perspective of
16
16
the social rule system.
2.2.2 The experience economy from the perspective
18
of the communicative self directing.
2.3 Co-creation
19
2.4 The principles of co-creation
21
2.5 Eight styles of firm-customer knowledge co-creation
24
2.6 Co-creation definition for this paper: Co-creation
26
communication
2.7 Designing a communication message
28
2.7.1 The three steps of co-creation
30
2.7.2 Media choice
30
2.8 Co-creation Case: Celebrate Football
35
3. Problem Statement
42
3.1 Quantitative Research: Main Question and Sub–
42
questions
3.1.1 Main Question
42
3.1.2 Sub-questions
43
3.2 Hypothesis
43
3.3 Qualitative research
47
3.4 Relevance
48
4 Methodology
48
4.1 Introduction to the Methodology
48
4.2 Target Group, Participants and Research Method
49
5
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
4.3 Justification of the questionnaire
5 Results
50
53
5.1 Appreciation
53
5.1.1 Overall appreciation
53
5.1.2 Overall appreciation and age
54
5.1.3 Overall appreciation: Sub-conclusion
54
5.2 Appreciation and Willingness of media in the three steps
55
of co-creation: step one
5.2.1 Appreciation of media used to approach people
55
5.2.2 Appreciation of media used to approach people per
57
age group
5.2.3 Appreciation of media used to approach people:
58
Sub-conclusion
5.3 Appreciation and Willingness of media in the three steps
59
of co-creation: step two
5.3.1 Willingness of people to respond through
59
different media
5.3.2 Willingness of people to respond through different
61
media per age group
5.3.3 Willingness of people to respond through
62
different media: Sub-conclusion
5.4 Appreciation and Willingness of media in the three steps
63
of co-creation: step three
5.4.1 Appreciation of media be used as external
63
communication message
5.4.2 Appreciation of media be used as external
65
communication message per age group
5.4.3 Appreciation of media be used as external
66
communication message: Sub-conclusion
5.5 Willingness to co-create with different product categories
5.5.1 Willingness to co-create with different product
6
67
70
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
categories per age group
5.5.2 Willingness to co-create with different product
71
categories: Sub-conclusion
5.6 Willingness and openness towards co-creation
72
5.6.1 Willingness
72
5.6.2 Openness towards co-creation and willingness to
73
participate
5.6.3 Openness towards co-creation per age group
74
5.6.4 Willingness to participate with co-creation per
75
age group
5.6.5 Willingness: Sub-conclusion
6 Qualitative research
75
76
6.1 Qualitative research: Part one
76
6.1.1 NIVEA Visage Young: A successful campaign
76
6.1.2 Chevy Tahoe: An unsuccessful campaign
87
6.2 Qualitative research: Part two
90
6.2.1 Enhances insight derived from in-depth interviews
90
6.2.2 First contact
91
6.2.3 Definition of co-creation
92
6.2.4 Opinion on co-creation
93
6.2.5 Conditions for co-creation
95
6.2.6 Factors that contribute towards the success or the 96
failure of a co-creation campaign
6.2.7 Ways of co-creation
98
6.2.8 Reasons for people to co-create
99
6.2.9 Co-creation and product category
100
6.2.10 Co-creation and age
101
6.2.11 Co-creation and media
102
6.2.12 The future of co-creation
103
7 Conclusion
104
7.1 Conclusion: Quantitative part
104
7
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
7.2 Conclusion: Qualitative part
107
8 Discussion
109
9 Bibliography
114
10 Appendixes
119
10.1 Appendix A
119
10.2 Appendix B
128
8
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§1 Introduction
‘Experience marketing’, ‘Experience economy’, ‘The next generation’,
‘Communicative self direction’, ‘Co-creation’ - these are just a few of the terms that
we nowadays hear in the world of business. Especially co-creation seems to be a
new hype. Most companies want to ‘co-create’ with their customer, the number of
external communication companies who recommend co-creation are abundant, and
executive marketing managers are positive about it:
Co-creation offers new possibilities for business and individuals. The question isn’t if
this new development continues, but how quickly it continues.
Joop Laan, www.XS4ALL.nl, 04-10-07
Some trends are worth tracking for years and years, especially if they represent a
radically new definition of what constitutes value to consumers. From a business
and innovation angle, we’d like to argue that co-creating with your customers is the
most important one to watch.
Reinier Everts, www.Trendwatching.com, 06-16-07
Co-creation is there, and it will not go away, it’s something of this time.
Lourens Kwakman, Head of Marketing Sport 1, Interview TBWA/Brand
Experience Company July 2007
Besides the business world, the scientific world is also interested in cocreation, and since co-creation cannot be univocally attributed to one specific field,
there have been publications from marketing, economics and communications
departments of universities from all around the world. Most of these publications
have tried to define the concept ‘co-creation’ and how it originated. Clear definitions
have been offered and imbedded in scientific theories. But why do consumers want
to co-create? Trendwatching.com (04-17-07) states the following five reasons:

Status: people love to be seen; they love to show off their creative skills
and thinking.
9
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars

Bespoke lifestyle: something consumers have been personally involved in,
should guarantee goods, services and experiences that are tailored to their
needs.

Cold hard cash: getting a well deserved reward or even a profit cut for
helping a company develop ‘The Next Big Thing’ is irresistible for some
people.

Employment: it helps companies recruit their next in-house designer,
guerrilla advertising agency or brilliant strategist.

Fun and involvement: there's pleasure and satisfaction to be derived from
making and creating for a company you like.
But what are these criteria based upon? Not only in the world of marketing, but also
in the scientific world there are assumptions (which have been) made with regard
to the willingness and appreciation of consumers to co-create, like for example:
“Consumers strive for co-creation”
Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004 in Boswijk et al. 2005, p. 7
“It is the job of the company to build a co-creation relation and bond of trust with
the consumer”1
Boswijk et al. 2005, p. 43
Although the opinion of professionals on co-creation is studied in Swenneker
(2006), a number of questions still remain. How do we know if consumers really
want to co-create with companies? Is this just a new business hype that has no
foundation with respect to what consumers really want? And even if consumers are
willing to invest their time in co-creation, how will they wish to be addressed? What
kind of communication medium will they appreciate? Co-creation therefore still
remains a hardly touched area. The concept has been scientifically imbedded, but it
is not clear if consumers appreciate co-creation and if they are willing to participate
in it. This thesis is intended as a first careful step in order to determine what the
consumer thinks about ‘co-creation communication’.
1
Boswijk et al. 2005 are assuming with this statement that people actually want this co-creation relation.
10
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
This thesis will begin with a theoretical framework that explains the origin of
co-creation and provides a clear definition of ‘co-creation communication’. After this
theoretical framework, we will explain the methodology of the quantitative research
and present the results obtained from this research. We will then report on the
qualitative research, followed by a general conclusion of both researches. Finally, a
discussion containing a critical reflection and some suggestions for further research
will be presented.
§2 Theoretical framework
To find out if consumers want to take part in the process of co-creation
communication, it is important to first define the terms ‘co-creation’ and ‘cocreation communication’. We begin by sketching the history of social changes and
the role of communication in section 2.1. In section 2.2, the origin of the term
‘experience economy’ and how it evolved throughout the years is presented
(concluding with an unambiguous definition of the term ‘experience economy’). In
section 2.3, the concept of co-creation is discussed, while the principles of cocreation are explained in section 2.4. In section 2.5, co-creation as a tool in
external communication is discussed, followed by the definition of co-creation
communication in the context of this paper in section 2.6. In section 2.7, the
practice of designing a communication message is discussed, along with the three
steps of co-creation and the importance of media choice. Finally, in section 2.8, this
co-creation communication definition is illustrated with the case ‘Celebrate
Football’.
§2.1 Social changes and the role of communication
To understand the recent developments in commercial external communication, it is
important to look at the socio-cultural developments that have been ongoing over
the past decades; after all, communication always reflects the wants and needs of
the respective environment, and these wants and needs react to changing socialcultural developments.
First, we look at the stability layers formed by Cornelis
11
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
(1988), followed by the observation of the break-even points in the human
existence as defined by Thijssen (2004). While discussing this last theory we will
connect these two theories with each other with respect to the wants and needs of
the people and the potential effects on communication.
§2.1.1 The three stability layers of Cornelis
Cornelis (1988) differentiates between three stability layers. In each layer we
search for order and stability in our lives. The transmission from one layer to the
other comes along with fundamental changes in the way we give meaning to life,
and thus in the way we look at, and act in, the world of external communication
(see Table 1). The last stability layer is of special interest for this thesis, but in
order to understand the developments it is important to also discuss the other two
layers.
Communicative self direction
Giving meaning and insight
The creative person
catharsis
Social rule system
Competence and social function
The silent person
To go astray
Natural systems
Sheltering and closing of the system
The hidden person
regression
Table 1: The three stability layers of Cornelis (1988)
The first layer, natural systems, represents the natural systems with the
biological environment; people are hidden from the outer world and find shelter in
their family and their own house. It’s a biologically determined environment, which
is synoptic and to a great extent controllable (Boswijk et al. 2005). External
12
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
communication does not play a big role here since this environment is very
sheltered; people live their own lives, controlled by their immediate environment.
This first layer triggers the discoverer, who wants to go out into the outer world and
who accomplishes this in the second layer.
The second layer, the so-called social rule system, is a physical environment
in which we are confronted with other people, and in which we have to find our own
place. This leads to confrontations that can be accompanied by fear, anger and
sorrow. It shows that it is necessary to establish rules and agreements, which leads
to the implementation of the social rule system. In this second layer we search for
stability through this social rule system. The layer develops its own dynamics,
turning into a system that is externally imposed on people. After a certain period of
time, it no longer represents the rules and agreements that the person initially
needed in order to gain control over the world around him. However, if a person
still sticks to this social rule system, he/she becomes a silent person, and the
learning process stops. From then on the communication is only top down and oneway directed.
In the third layer, the so-called layer of communicative self direction,
communication plays a crucial role. In order to survive within a society, people
have to reclaim their own learning process and look beyond the established rules.
This requires the person to let go of the control he/she had, and begin to discover
life again. By means of communication we discover what the options are and find a
new balance that should be seen in a personal context. Values are formed when we
have finished learning about a subject, and which form the basis of our actions.
These values show us how to interact with each other and therefore this layer
should also be seen in a socio-cultural context. Norms are developed from these
values, but are fundamentally different from the rules that are externally enforced
(as in layer two), given the fact that these rules are formed from within the person.
In this layer we thus try to gain stability in our existence through communicative
self direction, in which communication plays a crucial role (Boswijk et al 2005). The
relevance of this theory will be explained further in section 2.2, but before doing so,
we first have to discuss the sociological perspective of the social context in order to
13
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
understand the social developments and the connection between these and the
stability layers of Cornelis (1988).
§2.1.2 Sociological perspective of the social context
Thijssen (2004), from a sociological perspective and in supplementation of Beck
and Cowan (1996), presents a description of various social developments that
influenced the society drastically. He described six break-even points in the history
of mankind (Figure 1). In reference to this research, especially the last four of
these six points are of specific interest and are therefore treated elaborately with
the help of findings presented in Boswijk et al. (2005).
Overcoming of challenges, adapting and
building throughout the centuries
Engagement
revolution
Experience
revolution
Turning point
Full
Commitment
Values
Network
revolution
Co-creation
Values
Services-& new
media
revolution
Staging
Experiences
Industrial
revolution
Providing
Services
Agricultural
revolution
Making
Services
Value creation and Value distribution
Growing
Vegetation
Catch
Prey
Living environment
Nature
Farm
Cities
Factories
Office
Chains
Laboratories
Everywhere
Figure 1: The six break-even points in the history of mankind by Thijssen (2004)
14
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
After turning points one and two, where, respectively, the agricultural and
industrial revolution takes place, we find turning point three, the services and new
media revolution, where the increasing worldwide supply of goods and services
plays an important role. The rise of the new media and the information and
communication technology, and the imminent saturation of the markets, led to a
blossoming of the service industry, and as a result, most jobs were completed from
offices. These companies were, next to the family, a social network, that offered
work, contacts and security. News from around the world is offered to the people in
real-time and the influence of globalization is visible and tangible. The enhanced
access to knowledge and online networks offers new opportunities for selfdevelopment. This self-development provides us with the capability of comparing
suppliers of services and of informing ourselves in an appropriate manner. People
are becoming more critical and external communication is becoming more
important than it was before.
The fourth break-even point, the network revolution, is the period in which
we are still living now, and in which the shifting occurs from the social rule system
towards the era of communicative self direction (as discussed above, Cornelis,
1988). People and companies are focused on cooperation in chain connections and
networks in order to be able to respond quickly to the changing needs of customers
and (to) focus on their own abilities. The labour market is flexible and people work
with different companies during their lives. There has been a rapid increase of
worldwide competition and combined with an ongoing trend in which goods and
services are becoming more commodity-like (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). At the end of
the twentieth century the rise of the experience economy and the thinking in terms
of creating added value, distinctive capacity and innovation, started to emerge.
People are working more and more in the creative sector and are less dependent on
time and place due to the new technologies, like, for instance, wireless internet and
the growing potential of the mobile phone.
In the fifth break-even point, the experience revolution, the society is
developing within the last stability layer, the era of communicative self direction (as
discussed above, Cornelis, 1988). Individuals need to give the fulfilment of their
15
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
existence a direction of their own. The control from ‘the top’ is decreasing and
people are constantly in search of a fresh meaning to their lives. These
developments have consequences for companies and the way they have to
communicate with their consumers. According to Boswijk et al. (2005), companies
have to adapt to these changes. In modern organizations the managers and the
employees have to create experiences in cooperation with the consumers,
employees and partners (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). This will be discussed
in more detail in section 3.2.
The last break-even point is a prediction made by Boswijk et al. (2005) about
the expected developments within the next 50 years. The revolution of complete
engagement predicts that the production will be managed by the ‘low wages’
countries, and that the ‘high wages’ countries should focus on new added value and
innovation, and should no longer try to compete on the price level.
§2.2 Definition of ‘experience economy’
The ongoing transfer from the social rule system to the communicative self
direction (Cornelis 1988) also has influence on the world of the experience
economy. When the first scientific theories about the experience economy where
proposed, the world was viewed from the perspective of the social rule system,
whereas the most recent theories relating to this subject have been proposed from
the perspective of the communicative self direction. To give a clear definition of the
experience economy and to define what role co-creation can play, we need to look
at this term from the beginning, from the perspective of the social rule system, and
then shift our focus to the more recent theories proposed from the perspective of
the communicative self direction.
§2.2.1 The experience economy from the perspective of the social rule system.
The pioneers in the area of the experience economy are the authors of the book
‘The Experience Economy’: Pine and Gilmore (1999). They point out, from their
perspective in the social rule system, that as soon as a country reaches a certain
16
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
level of prosperity the attention shifts from goods and services to ‘experiences’.
Due to the abundance and the continuous growth in the supply of material goods
and services, a process is triggered in order to establish cost reduction and
commoditizing. Competition is more about price, which forces companies to find
new ways of bringing services and goods to the consumer and to redirect their
traditional external communication habits to a whole new level.
But how would you precisely classify the term experiences? Pine and Gilmore
refer to experiences as the new source of value creation. Experiences are events in
which people are addressed in a personal manner. An experience occurs when
consumers are involved to such an extent that they are left with a permanent
impression, meaning that the event is memorable and very personal (Calvelage &
van Dijk, 2003). Pine and Gilmore define this further:
‘When a person buys a service he purchases a set of intangible activities carried out
on his behalf. But when he buys an experience, he pays to spend time enjoying a
series of memorable events that a company stages – as in a theatrical play- to
engage him in a personal way.’
Pine and Gilmore, 1999, The progression of economic value in Boswijk et al. 2005,
p. 2
O‘Sullivan (1998) also thinks that an experience is something that leaves a
permanent impression, but only in combination with a high level of involvement. An
experience is very personal: every individual has his/her own involvement level,
and thus a different response. Schmitt (1999) defines experiences in a similar
manner. According to him:
‘Experiences are private events that occur in response to some stimulation.
Experiences involve the entire living being. They often result from direct
observation and/or participation in events- whether they are real, dreamlike, or
virtual.’ in Boswijk et al. 2005, p. 55
And:
17
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Experiences are usually not self-generated but induced (…) they have reference and
intentionality.’ in Boswijk et al. 2005, p. 58
Now that we know what experiences are we need to define the term
experience economy from the perspective of the social rule system. Experience
economy is, according to Pine and Gilmore (1999):
‘A collective term for all kinds of activities which aim towards the potential
customer, and it offers the appropriate product or service in a continuous ongoing
context.’ in Boswijk et al. 2005, p. 14
Schmitt (1999) even defines experience economy as:
‘Products, communications, and marketing campaigns that dazzle people’s
senses, touch their hearts, and stimulate their minds. They can relate to these and
incorporate them into their lifestyles.’ in Boswijk et al. 2005, p. 15
§2.2.2 The experience economy from the perspective of the communicative self
directing.
According to the definitions above, the focus lies on the company, the initiative lies
more with the supplier than with the consumer (Pine & Gilmore, 2002). The
consumer is still seen as a passive target for the company (Boswijk et al. 2005). As
mentioned above, this vision stems from the perspective of the social rule system:
people are externally controlled, and companies try to control their consumers. But
in the age of communicative self directing, people are continually learning to adapt
to the rapid changes in society. Hence, the focus no longer lies on the company,
but rather with the dialogue between the company and the consumer. People are
no longer externally controlled, and this has implications on the way people think
about the experience economy.
In the context of communicative self-control the dialogue between the
consumer and the company is possible because of communication. In this
18
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
communication process the consumer and the company are situated on an equal
level. In this new vision people communicate with companies with regard to what
they want to experience, while companies are listen and act according to these
wishes: thereby, the person and the company cooperate with each other. The focus
on the first generation of experiences, which are all about staging experience and
which focus on experiences that display themselves as group attractions, retail
concepts and events, is shifting towards the second generation: experience
Realization experience surroundings from the
supplier
marketing as co-creation communication (Boswijk et al. 2005, see Figure 2).
Level of Direction
100%
Staging
Cocreation
Individual
journey
0%
100%
0%
Realization experience surrounding from by individual
Figure 2: The two generations of experience marketing by Boswijk et al. 2005
Figure 2: Actors with the creation of experiences
§2.3 Co-creation
Co-creation, or ‘customer-made’ as it is sometimes called, is defined by
Trendwatching.com as:
‘The phenomenon of corporations creating goods, services and experiences in close
cooperation with experienced and creative consumers, tapping into their intellectual
capital, and in exchange giving them a direct say in (and rewarding them for) what
19
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
actually gets produced, manufactured, developed, designed, serviced, or
processed.’ www.trendwatching.com, 05-15-07
Since this definition was not founded by the scientific world, it is interesting to find
out what the relevant scientific literature has to say about this term. We will now
discuss the origin and definition of co-creation from the perspective of Boswijk et al.
(2005) and Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004).
According to Boswijk et al. (2005), the second generation of experience
marketing takes the individual as a starting point and focuses on personal and
socio-cultural values that are pursued by the individual. The focus shifts from the
first generation (offers, marketing, sales and the staging of experiences) to the
second generation where the focus lies on demands, easy access, relation
management and the co-creation of meaningful experiences. The individual is the
starting point: he/she aspires to have meaningful experiences and form his/her
existence with the help of these experiences. It is important that the companies
form these experiences in cooperation with the consumers. In this way, people,
social
connections
and
organizations
try
to
adjust
to
the
ever-changing
circumstances. Thus, it is all about the cooperation between consumers and
companies (Boswijk et al. 2005).
Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) vision is also derived from this second
generation: the generation of self directing. They state that the basis for cocreation is the dialogue between the organization and individual consumer which
serves to create personalized values and experiences. The consumer, according to
them, strives for co-creation: he/she feels the need to interact personally with the
company which, in turn, wants to create a value proposition which is meaningful
and specific for the individual consumer.
Furthermore,
co-creation
is
heavily
bonded
with
marketing
and
communication. Marketing, because the needs of the consumer are at the centre of
the value proposition, and communication, because it forms the basis of the cocreation concept: there is no contact without interaction, and no interaction without
contact (Swenneker 2006).
20
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), however, observed the following paradox:
consumers have more choices which provide less satisfaction, and managers have
more options which provide less value. The value lies in the interaction and
communication between the consumer and the company, and the communication
and interaction of the consumers with each other. The meaning for the consumer
lies in the combined value creation at a certain time and a certain place in the
context of a certain event. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), the real
co-creation experience is neither company, nor product-centred. There is no longer
such a thing as purely external and internal communication: the company is more
transparent than ever with regard to their communication with the consumer.
Having defined the general idea behind co-creating following Prahalad and
Ramaswamy (2004), it is time to become more precise and discuss the principles of
co-creation.
§2.4 The principles of co-creation
The leading role in all phases of the development and the realization of the
experience concept is occupied by the input of the consumers. Co-creation ideas
must not only be taking into consideration within the created meaning environment,
but also during the ‘considering’ and ‘developing’ of it. The development of an
innovation or an experience concept is the process of planning, doing and
reflecting. If consumers and companies work together in this process they record
greater successes than if they work individually. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004)
introduce a principle that is of great importance for this process: the so-called DART
principle. In the DART principle the following four building blocks are of importance:
Dialogue, Access, Risk assessment and Transparency (Boswijk et al. 2005).
The first building block of the DART principle, Dialogue, is a well-known
principle in the field of communication. It stands for interactivity, deep involvement
and the inclination to act, referring to both the consumer and the company.
Dialogue is more than just listening to consumers; it also implies empathy for what
consumers experience and the awareness of the emotional, social and cultural
21
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
context of experiences. The principle of learning by sharing is fitting in this context:
the company learns from the consumer via the dialogue and vice versa.
Access. The traditional focus of the company was placed on the transfer of a
property from the company to the consumer. The company created a valuable
product and the consumer purchased it by means of a transaction. But now
customers are more and more interested in the experience of the product and less
interested in the service or the property of it (Rifkin 2000). Prahalad and
Ramaswamy (2004) argue in favour of a clear-cut separation between the access to
a product and the ownership of the product, i.e. not only the owner has access to
the product. Access can be provided by offering easy accessible relevant
information.
Risk Assessment. ‘Risk’ means the risk that the consumer runs. The principle
of co-creation implies that the company clearly reveals its disadvantages. Risk
assessment is one of the main issues in co-creation.
Transparency is also a well-known term in the field of communication. In the
past, companies have profited from the inequality between the knowledge of the
company and the knowledge of the consumer. During the last couple of years this
inequality disappeared, since information is becoming more and more easily
accessible.
according
Socially
to
justified
Boswijk
et
undertakings,
al.
(2005),
openness
essential
and
transparency
requirements
for
are,
modern
management.
These four factors: Dialogue, Access, Risk assessment and Transparency,
have to been seen in combination with each other. Together they form the four
building blocks of co-creation. Value creation does not take place anymore inside
the company; value is created within the individual. But what does this
development mean for the future of communication? The powerful effects model is
an early mass communication model that compares media messages to a
hypodermic needle injecting a potent message directly into the audience (Griffin
1991). This is, however, totally different to how Boswijk et al. (2005) see the
development of the society and the communication messages. Boswijk et al. (2005)
see a dialogue between companies and customers which takes place not only in the
pre-testing phase, throughout the whole communication process. They also see
22
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
demanding customers, who not only want the final product, i.e. the last part of the
production process, but who want to have influence from the first drawing of a new
product onwards. They see customers who want to be involved in the whole
creation concept, by means of total transparency and access. According to Boswijk
et al. (2005), all these visions are united in one concept: Co-creation.
As stated in the introduction, business life (in general) and especially
professional communication bureaus are quickly picking up on the vision of cocreation. The first examples of co-creation seem to be successful and thus are
encouraging other companies to also co-create with their customers. But, like with
all new trends, you only hear the success stories. There has been no research yet
on the appreciation of co-creation on the part of the consumers. And, if people are
open to co-creation, is this possible for all kinds of product categories or only for a
few of them? Do people really want to co-create with, for instance, the waste
department of the government? These issues will be addressed in this thesis and a
clear definition of ‘co-creation communication’ given.
23
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§2.5 Eight styles of firm-customer knowledge co-creation
Chris Lawer (2006) defines eight styles of firm-customer knowledge co-creation. He
distinguishes between a number of levels and forms of co-creation from the
perspective of the customer (see Figure 3).
(Research and
Development)
Figure 3: Eight styles of firm-customer knowledge co-creation
The eight different styles of co-creation are:
1. Product “finishing” – The customer completes the product or service and is
hence the final co-creator of value or actor in the business system or value
chain.
2. New product design and development (lead user) - Here a limited number of
expert customers are invited into the firm to share their knowledge and
contribute to the development of new products and services.
24
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
3. Existing product adaptation (customer feedback). Here the company actively
requests and considers customer needs or feedback in order to improve its
products.
4. Mass Customization. The customer is offered a limited set of companydetermined choices or options with which he/she can personalize a standard
product or service template.
5. Open community ideation and product design and development. Lawer (2006)
differentiates the open-source movement because a) it is more distributed than
other means and b) firms yield more control to the community of users and
creators. Also, open source tends to bias in digital environments.
6. New service design. Lawer (2006) distinguishes new service designs from new
product design and development since the services tend to involve more
consumers in the innovation process and are also easier to test in markets
compared to products which are introduced through experimentation, probe and
learn approaches. Furthermore, service value is inherently more adaptable than
tangible product value, since it involves more knowledge-rich interaction.
7. Real-time Marketing & Service Adaptation. By shifting more to inside actual
market demands and value-in-use by increasing the adaptability of the service
or product, this style of co-creation is characterized by high levels of consumer
dialogue and interaction, enabled by digital technology. This allows individual
customers to influence the value presented by the firm in real-time.
8. Personalized Experience Value and Knowledge Co-Creation. Finally, the firm and
the customer interact within an experience environment to realize unique cocreated value. The unit of value is not the product or the service but rather the
individual experience and its interaction with a host or experience network
partners.
With the role of co-creation as a tool in external communication having been
clarified, it is time to determine the co-creation definition which is relevant for this
paper: Co-creation communication.
25
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§2.6 Co-creation definition for this paper: Co-creation communication
In external communication, especially numbers seven and eight of the eight styles
of firm-customer knowledge co-creation (Lawer 2006) are of great importance,
since these points deal specifically with external communication issues. The other
points should be seen more in the business-context and with reference to the way
these processes could develop, they are of no relevance for our research which is
based on external co-creation communication. Points seven and eight deal with the
dialogue between the consumer and the business, which is why these two points
should be seen in relation with the term ‘dialogue’ as illustrated in the DART
principle (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). Co-creation is often mentioned in terms
of consumer participation, personalization and mass customization. But as
Trendwatch.com states correctly:
Co-creation is NOT plain feedback without an answer, it's not Do-It-Yourself, it's not
customization, it's not even personalization, as all of these actions take place after
companies have decided what the basics are, which products and services and
experiences they're willing to hand over to consumers.
http://www.trendwatching.com/trends/CUSTOMER-MADE.htm, consulted on 06-162007
In the following subparagraphs, a short definition of these terms will be given and
the difference in comparison with the term co-creation will be discussed.
Consumer participation is defined as ‘…any activity done by consumers where
they have power or influence on the system and services that affect their lives’
(O’Hagen et al., 2000 in Bland & Giles 2006, p.15). Typically, participation refers to
the fact that they have power or influence on the system and services that affect
the whole range of service activities, from individual client services to service
management and education, training and research activities. Bowen, Nie, Kellogg
and Youngdahl (2002) define consumer participation as ‘a form of consumer
behaviour which includes preparation, relationship building, information exchange,
and intervention; in other words, consumer participation includes preparation for
the purchase, communication with the firm during the purchase, and the
interventions with or suggestions to the firm after the purchase.’ (Bowen, Nie,
26
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Kellogg and Youngdahl 2002, p.1). The concept of participation is thus focused on
purchases, in contrast to co-creation communication where the focus lies on
creating value propositions (see style eight of the eight styles of firm-customer
knowledge co-creation, Lawer 2006), which in turn are meaningful and specific for
the individual consumer. The concept of participation is not in line with the age of
communicative self direction, where the concept of co-creation originates from.
Personalization
and
mass
customization
are
two
interrelated
terms.
Personalization can be defined as the ability to proactively adapt products and
product purchasing experiences to the various likings of the individual consumers
based on their personal and preferred information. Therefore, personalization is
critically dependent on the following two factors: 1. the vendors’ ability to acquire
and process consumer information, and 2. the consumers’ willingness to share
information and make use of personalization services (Chellappa and Sin, 2005).
Mass customization can be seen as personalization taking place at mass-production
prices. In order to become a mass customizer you must make use of new
technologies that allow you to efficiently provide individually customized goods and
services, while at the same time you need to be a one-to-one marketer that obtains
information from each customer about his or her specific needs and preferences.
Customization binds producers and consumers in a learning relationship. This
ongoing connection becomes more efficient as the two interact with each other,
since the individual customers teach the company more and more about their
preferences and needs. In this way the company can produce exactly what the
customer needs. Mass customization is thus merely the adaptation of a product to
the customers’ needs, as, for instance, applied by DELL (Pine, Peppers and Rogers,
1995). Our definition of co-creation communication goes much further than the
mere adapting of a product, especially since we are looking at the communication
aspect of co-creation. In this context, the meaning does not lie in the adaptation of
a product, but rather in the experience of the combined value creation at a certain
time and a certain place in the context of a certain event. This co-creation
communication experience is neither company- nor product-centred; the most
important matter is the dialogue with the consumer.
27
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Taking
all
these
points
into
account,
our
definition
of
co-creation
communication consists of six interrelated points:
1. Interactivity, deep involvement and the inclination to act, of both the
consumer and the company.
2. Empathy with regard to what consumers experience and the awareness of
emotional, social and cultural context of experiences.
3. ‘Learning by sharing’: the company learns from the consumer through the
dialogue and vice versa.
4. High levels of consumer dialogue and interaction, enabled by digital
technology.
5. Consumers change the value presented by the firm in real-time.
6. Interaction within an experience environment (like, for instance, an
event) to realize a unique co-created value. The unit of value is not the
product or the service, but rather the individual experience and its
interaction with a host or experience network partners.
Now that we have defined what co-creation communication2 is, it is important to
look at how it exactly works and what factors have to be taken into account.
§2.7 Designing a communication message
As stated above, co-creation communication consists of six interrelated points.
However, these six points don’t say anything about the way in which a co-creation
communication process flows; they merely say how co-creation communication can
be defined. In this paragraph we will explain that the process of co-creation
communication must exist of at least three steps, and that media choice plays an
important role in these three steps.
Dialogue between a company and the consumers is essential in a co-creation
communication process. After all, the company needs to create, in collaboration
with the consumer, the external communication. Every communication message is
designed differently and passes through a different medium, while each medium
Throughout the remaining parts of this thesis we will refer to the practice of co-creation communication as ‘cocreation’ or ‘co-create’.
2
28
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
has its own characteristics. These characteristics influence the communication
message. According to Kostelnick (1998), we need to take three things into
consideration while designing a communicative massage: the receiver, the goal and
the context. Koeleman (2004) defines this further and suggests the following seven
categories:
1. Target group
In the context of co-creation the target group is variable. It depends on the
company and who it wants to address. In this research, the target group will be
defined by age, gender and educational level.
2. Objectives
The objective is generally the same in all situations: targeting people to cocreate with the company. However, there are, of course, differences in the cocreation acts that the target group needs to carry out. They could, for instance,
have to create a new television advertisement, invent a new name for a product
or make a picture of themselves for an advertisement.
3. Who is communicating
The company initially communicates with the target group and the target group
has to respond.
4. Subject
The subject depends on the situation, but needs to be able to prompt the target
group to participate in co-creation.
5. Style
The style depends on the context, i.e. the target group, the products, the
possibilities, the budget etc.
6. Moment
The moment of communicating also depends on the context.
7. Channels and means
The choice for the channels and means has is strongly linked to the media which
is used to co-create. When deciding which media to use, one needs to take all
the above mentioned steps into account. The choice of media is therefore a
critically important factor in the process of co-creating. In section 2.7.2 we will
discuss this aspect in more detail.
29
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
The seven categories listed above show the aspects that a company has to take
into
account
when
communicating
with
the
target
group.
However,
the
communication with this target group is, of course, not the only action that you
have to take into account if you wish to co-create. The full co-creation
communication process will be discussed in the following paragraph.
§2.7.1 The three steps of co-creation
After discussing the concept of co-creation and looking at the conditions required
for successful co-creation, we have come to the conclusion that co-creation
communication needs to involve at least three steps:
Step 1)
Attracting the attention of the consumer to communicate with respect
to what the company wants from the consumer: the request to cocreate.
Step 2)
Giving options on how the consumer can respond to the company
Step 3)
Transferring the input of the consumers to the external communication
message.
We assert that a communication practice must at least consist of these three steps,
and will illustrate this in more detail in section 2.8 by discussing a practical cocreation case. In the qualitative part of this research we will discuss two other
cases that will also turn out to consist of these three steps.
§2.7.2 Media choice
As already mentioned in section 2.7, the choice of media is an important factor that
has to be taken into account in the process of co-creation. In order to make
meaningful statements about media and co-creation communication it is important
to look at some leading theories on this topic.
The Media Richness Theory (MRT) is one of the most prominent theories
referring to media choice. According to this theory, companies can choose which
medium is best for each step of the communication process. MRT is concerned with
identifying the most appropriate medium in terms of “medium richness” for
30
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
communication
situations
characterized
by
equivocality
and
uncertainty
(Donabedian 1998). Rich media (face-to-face and telephone) are proposed to be
suitable for resolving equivocal situations, while lean media (written documents)
are said to be more suitable for reducing uncertainty (El-Shinnawy & Markus 1997).
These two terms, equivocality and uncertainty, should be seen from the perspective
of the receiver and will be explained in more detail in the following subparagraphs.
Media which effectively avoid equivocality and uncertainty are those types which
ensure that people have less uncertainty with regard to the content of the message
and feel less equivocal about it. Hence, ‘rich’ media ensure that people understand
the message completely.
Uncertainty has been defined as the difference between the amount of
information required to perform a task and the amount of information already
possessed
by
the
organization
(Galbraith
1973).
To
reduce
uncertainty,
communication media need to bridge the gap between the amount of information
already possessed and the information required to perform the task. The level of
uncertainty decreases with an increasing amount of processed information. (Daft &
Lengel, 1986).
Equivocality refers to ambiguity (Daft et al. 1987) and mutable, conflicting
interpretations (Daft & Macintosh 1981). In equivocal situations, it is not evident
what questions need to be asked and, when questions are asked, clear answers are
frequently unavailable (March & Olsen 1976). Equivocality arises in cases in which
individuals’ frames of reference differ and negotiation is necessary to reach a
shared understanding (Daft et al., 1987). Communication media which are
appropriate for the reduction of equivocality need to promote the ability to clarify or
explain, rather than simply provide large amounts of data (El-Shinnawy & Markus
1997).
Companies who wish to co-create have to take both equivocality and
uncertainty into account when choosing their medium. However, as El-Shinnawy &
Markus (1997) state, although media richness is an important determinant of
people’s media choice, the manner in which this concept has been created and
measured in connection with traditional media may be inapplicable or inappropriate
in the context of the new media. The Media Richness Theory does not take the new
31
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
media, like, for instance, e-mail and the internet, into consideration. Studies show
that the medium’s communication mode (preference to receive or to send) and
documentation capabilities (communication documentation and retrieval) as well as
the user’s role as either message sender or recipient, play a role just as important
as equivocality and uncertainty. The user’s role can also be all-important, since ElShinnawy & Markus (1997) found out in their study that when receiving messages
people preferred an e-mail, but when sending a message they preferred to use
voice mail. The study presented by Hill & Monk (2000) shows that recipients do not
rate messages or the senders of the messages differently depending on the
medium used (e-mail or printed text). It is concluded in this study that the e-mail
has taken on many of the characteristics previously associated with print (Hill &
Monk, 2000). They also concluded that there was no evidence suggesting that an email message has less weight in persuading people to reply positively to a
message. In this study, the pattern of reply frequencies is explained completely by
the relative effort which is required in order to reply. This effort to reply is thus also
something that companies who want to co-create have to take into account (Hill &
Monk, 2000). All these factors and their relation to different media are presented in
Table 2.
It is clear that the choice of media is a complex phenomenon. There are a
number of different factors that companies who wanting to co-create have to take
into account. There are no studies which have explored the wants and needs of the
public concerning the choice of media in the context of co-creation, but there are
some theories about media preferences in relation to age, which is one of the
factors that we will also focus on in this paper.
Van Rees and van Eijck (2003) describe the impact age has on the choice of
media. They observed that the factor age is an important variable in order to
understand media use. Traditional medium types, such as print media and public
television, appear to be the exclusive domain of the elderly, while new media, like
the internet, are preferably used by the younger population, and mostly by men.
Besides this, it seems that the relation between educational level and media usage
depends on age. Younger people with a lower education prefer the commercial
repertoire more than people with the same educational level but of older age.
32
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Although we will consider this article when forming meaningful hypotheses in
section 3.2 we need to keep in mind that this research is not focused directly on cocreation.
When looking at the broad spectrum of media research we can see that there
a numerous factors that have to be taken into account when choosing a medium.
The following factors will be considered in this research: equivocality and
uncertainty, the medium’s communication mode, documentation capabilities, the
user’s role as message sender or recipient and the effort required to reply. Age is
also a factor we will take into account when looking at media since media
preferences are known to differ with respect to age.
33
Radio
Television
E-mail
Written letter
A internet
page
High
A newspaper
A magazine
Average
Personal on a
event
High
Low
Average
YouTube /
make a movie
High
Uncertainty
avoidance
Low
Low
High
Equivocality
Average
Average
Average
Low
High
Average
Low
Low
Average
Medium
Communicati
on Mode
Speech
/Listening
Speech
/Listening
Writing
/Reading
Writing
/Reading
Speech
/Listening
Writing
/Reading
Writing
/Reading
Retrieval and
documentation
: Hard
Retrieval and
documentation
: Hard
Retrieval and
documentation
: Easy
Retrieval and
documentation
: Average
Retrieval and
documentation
: Hard
Writing
Reading
/Speech
/Listening
Retrieval and
documentation
: Easy
Retrieval and
documentation
: Average
Retrieval and
documentation
: Average
Writing
/Reading
/ Speech
/Listening
Retrieval and
documentation
: Easy
Document
Capabilities
Room for
editing: Low
Room for
editing: Low
Room for
editing: High
Room for
editing: High
Room for
editing: Low
Room for
editing: High
Room for
editing: High
Room for
editing: High
Room for
editing: High
Distribution to
others:
Hard
Distribution to
others:
Hard
Distribution to
others:
Easy
Distribution to
others:
Hard
Distribution to
others:
Hard
Distribution to
others:
Easy
Distribution to
others:
Hard
Distribution to
others:
Hard
Distribution to
others:
Easy
Message
access(access
to content):
Linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Non-linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Non-linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Non-linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Non-linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Non-linear
Message
access(access
to content):
Linear /Nonlinear
Table 2; Media and their criteria as derived from El-Shinnawy & Markus 1996
34
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§2.8 Co-creation Case: Celebrate Football
After having defined co-creation communication and having explained how it
works, it is time to look more closely at a co-creation campaign in order to
illustrate the three steps of co-creation. We will take a look at the co-creation
campaign that TBWA\Brand Experience Company Amsterdam carried out for
the beer brand Amstel.
In the context of a football game, after the goal itself, spectacular
player celebrations also score very high in terms of pure entertainment
value. TBWA\Brand Experience Company gave this insight a special twist for
the beer brand Amstel by means of an interactive campaign in which the
football fans themselves were invited to invent and perform their very own
post-goal celebrations.
A purpose-built miniature stadium was constructed in Istanbul on the
day of the UEFA Champions League Final in 2005. Fans took to the pitch,
and, in memory of infamous and classic post-goal celebrations such as
Fabrizio Ravanelli’s shirt-over-head celebration, presented really extravagant
and entertaining moves. The celebrations in the miniature stadium were
captured on film and posted on amstel.com as movie clips that they could
send via e-mail to their friends. The winning celebrator, chosen by Amstel on
the spot, received VIP tickets to the final that night as well as having his
celebration turned into a 30 second commercial for Amstel that would be
broadcasted that night in the stadium. The event attracted thousands of fans
and managed to catch the attention of the national and international media.
This was the perfect build-up to Europe’s biggest football event in 2005, the
UEFA Champions League Final between Liverpool FC and AC Milan. We are
now going to take a more detailed look at this campaign to see which parts
of this can be referred to as ‘co-creation communication’.
The campaign carried out by Amstel was first brought to the people’s
attention by the following advertisement in the Netherlands (Figure 3), and
by a worldwide commercial.
35
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 3; Amstel Ad
This advertisement made people aware of the ‘celebrate football’ campaign
and this ‘Name that celebration’ was followed up online by a real fan-quiz
format where the participants could win prizes. The goal was to make people
aware that Amstel was the official sponsor of UEFA Champions League Final.
Amstel gave the fans in Istanbul a chance to act out and invent their
own personal great goal celebrations. A mobile experience transformed into a
portable pitch with artificial grass gave fans the setting and space to live out
their schoolboy dreams of becoming a professional footballer and celebrating
goals in front on an adoring crowd. The experience consisted of:
- Artificial Grass Pitch
36
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
- Judges dugout including two famous Turkish football players and the
previous coach of the Turkish team. The judges had scoreboards numbered
from one to ten which were to be used to give instant scores on a particular
celebration.
- Big Screens which live broadcasted the invented celebrations.
- Amstel Football Celebrations scoreboard on the big screen TV which kept
record of the top five celebrations of the day with names and final scores.
- Amstel Boarding
- Supporters’ Tribune (see Figure 4)
- Entertainment: a presenter/master of ceremony (a DJ from the famous
Turkish radio station Radyo Spor), a cheerleader dance group, and a
freestyle Football Show (the winner of the Nike Just Play Cup 2002)
- Amstel’s internet consoles, allowing fans the opportunity to instantly send
photo and film messages from the event location (see Figure 5).
This Amstel ‘Celebrate Football’ celebrating experience is a typical example of
co-creation communication if we take into account the six interrelated points
of co-creation (see section 2.6):
1. Interactivity: deep involvement and the inclination to act, both on the
part of the consumer and the company. In the example, Amstel used the
UEFA Champions League Final as a stage and the people visiting the final
in Istanbul as the target group. People who come to the final are deeply
involved with this event and are thus more inclined to take part.
2. Empathy:
what consumers experience
and the
awareness
of
the
emotional, social and cultural context of the experiences. In the example,
TBWA\Brand Experience Company and Amstel had a good insight into
what the consumers experience in this environment. People who come to
these matches are real football fans, given the high travelling costs and
the limited seating availability. Nevertheless, people came to Istanbul to
experience this big event, and were thus in an excited and cheerful mood.
This campaign was meant to enable these people to show their emotions
in a relevant context, and to share these emotions with other people.
37
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
3. ‘Learning by sharing’: the company learns from the consumer through the
dialogue and vice versa. Although this point might be to a lesser extent
relevant to the campaign presented in the example, we think Amstel
learned to what extent people are involved with football, and how they
make use of this enthusiasm in the future. We think the consumers didn’t
learn
that
much,
but
that
they
nevertheless
enjoyed
expressing
themselves through this experience.
4. High levels of consumer dialogue and interaction, enabled by digital
technology: Amstel also used this criterion of co-creation. They used the
internet as a way of communicating with their target group, but also as a
way for the target group to be able to use the outcome of their
participation in the co-creation: the celebration movie.
5. Consumers change the value presented by the firm in real-time: This
wasn’t the case in this example.
6. Interaction within an experience environment (like for instance an event)
creates a unique co-created value. The unit of value is not the product or
the service itself but rather the individual experience and its interaction
with a host or experience network partners: Football supporters were able
to interact in this experience environment. By doing so they created an
experience for themselves, and provided an external communication
message for Amstel.
38
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 4: Overview of the experience
39
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 5: The internet consoles
This Amstel ‘Celebrate Football’ celebrating experience is not only a typical
example of co-creation communication with respect to the six interrelated
points of co-creation, but also because it consisted of the three steps of cocreation that will be briefly discussed here.
Step One: In order to motivate the fans to take part in the celebrating
experience, TBWA\Brand Experience Company let one of the biggest radio
stations of Turkey, Radyo Spor, broadcast an announcement a few days
before the event in order to create awareness and to generate traffic to the
upcoming Amstel experience. They also commissioned the radio station to
broadcast fragments of the experience throughout the day of the event and
to conduct some live interviews. Next to this, they engaged a presenter with
a broad knowledge of football to hype up the crowd and give a running
commentary on what was happening on the Amstel pitch and on the big
screen (Figure 6). He was also promoting the event to the passing crowd in
order to get more fans involved. The extra incentive for participating was the
chance to win 2 VIP tickets to the final and the showing of the movie in the
stadium during the brake. Looking at the table presented by El-Shinnawy &
Markus 1997 (Table 2) we see that the combination between radio and a live
show at an event is a smart choice. With radio the uncertainty avoidance is
low, but this is compensated by the event where the uncertainty avoidance is
comparatively high. Furthermore, the average equivocality level of the radio
broadcast is compensated by the high equivocality of the live show carried
40
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
out at the event. The low level of reach by the live show at the event on the
other hand is compensated by the high level of reach with the radio
broadcast.
Step Two: The fans could only react through one kind of media in this
co-creation situation: by letting themselves be filmed by the Amstel film
crew. By looking at Table 2 we can see that this is a very suitable media for
step two. The retrieval and documentation options are easy and the room for
editing is high, which means that it is easy to make the external
communication message from this input.
Step Three: Amstel used the best celebration for their external
communication. This movie would be used in a special Amstel commercial to
be broadcasted on the big screen before the final, and thus becomes external
communication. In the case of a movie, the level of uncertainty avoidance is
high and the equivocality is average, which means that it is likely that this
media will provide optimal understanding for the consumer.
Figure 6; the big screen and the winner (on the right and on the big screen)
41
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
This campaign clearly demonstrates that co-creation communication needs to
involve the three steps mentioned above. This means: 1) attracting the
attention of the consumer in order to communicate their question, 2) giving
options as to how the consumer can respond, and 3) the transferring of the
input into the external communication message.
§3 Problem Statement
In this section the main question and various sub-questions will be
introduced, derived from the theoretical framework. The first part of this
research will be a quantitative research amongst consumers. Beside this
quantitative research there will also be a qualitative research, consisting of
two parts: the first part will be the discussion of a successful and an
unsuccessful case of co-creation, while the second part will consist of
interviews with executive marketing managers of important firms and senior
managers of top advertising firms. With the help of these interviews we will
try to shed some light on the results from the quantitative research and
provide a better insight into co-creation from a business point of view.
§3.1 Quantitative Research: Main Question and Sub–questions
§3.1.1 Main Question
After having defined the topic, the main question can be formulated as:
‘To what extent do people appreciate co-creation communication and are
they willing to participate?’
Co-creation should be seen in the light of communication as defined above.
This research deals with a knowledge problem meaning that it will be a
42
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
fundamental study. To be able to give a proper answer to the main question
it is necessary to separate it into several sub-questions.
§3.1.2 Sub-questions
The following sub-questions are subtracted from the previous paragraphs:
1. To what extent do consumers appreciate co-creation communication?
2. To what extent are consumers willing to co-create?
3. To what extent is the appreciation of the consumers for co-creation
communication dependent on the medium chosen to address them?
4. To what extent is the willingness of the consumers to co-create
dependent on the medium chosen for them to respond?
5. To what extent is the appreciation of the consumers for co-creation
communication dependent on the medium chosen for the output of the
co-creation message?
6. To what extent is the willingness of the consumers to co-create
dependent on the product categories3?
7. To what extent does age influence the willingness of consumers to cocreate?
8. To what extent does age influence the appreciation of consumers for
co-creation communication?
§3.2 Hypothesis
We also formed some relevant hypotheses referring to the possible outcomes
of this research. Since co-creation is a relatively new concept in the scientific
world, not all hypotheses could be completely supported by literature and are
thus formed partly by intuition.
Hypothesis 1: Appreciation of co-creation communication.
3
The question about the product categories is added to this research in order to get some more relevant
marketing insight, this is particular important for TBWA\Brand experience but has lesser relevance toward
the University of Utrecht.
43
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
We expect that consumers appreciate co-creation communication because it
is more adapted to their individual needs. This kind of communication is
formed by other consumers, or even by themselves, and thus gives a
realistic reflection of what the consumers expect and want. Besides this, cocreation is a new and creative concept which could also be appealing to the
consumers. It also fits in with the ongoing changes that are happening in
society: the shifting towards communicative self direction (Cornelis 1988)
and the shift towards the second generation experiences, i.e. experiences as
co-creation communication (Boswijk et al. 2005) as mentioned in the
theoretical framework. Since we are currently shifting towards this second
generation it seems logical that people appreciate the corresponding external
communication method that we have defined as co-creation communication.
Hypothesis 2: Willingness to co-create.
We expect that consumers are sometimes willing to co-create, since they
have a direct say in what they actually communicate about, while, at the
same time, they are given the chance to say what they really think of a
product. Besides this, co-creation is a new and creative concept which could
be appealing to them and it also fits in with the ongoing changes that are
happening in society: the shifting towards communicative self direction and
experiences as co-creation communication, as already explained above. We
say that consumers are only sometimes willing to co-create, since we think
that the willingness to carry out co-creation communication is dependent on
the product category (see hypothesis 6), i.e. people are not always willing to
co-create to carry out co-creation communication with everyone.
Hypothesis 3: Media choice step one.
According to the research carried out by El-Shinnawy & Markus (1997),
people prefer the communication medium mode of ‘reading’ instead of, for
instance, listening, and also prefer their message access to be non-linear,
which means that they can access the information in their own time. It is
important that all the information is given, i.e. that the uncertainty avoidance
44
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
is as high as possible. It is also important that people understand what a
company is asking from them, which means that the equivocality is also high.
According to this, the two most appropriate media would be the internet and
the e-mail. Furthermore, personal interaction during an event scores high,
due to the fact that both uncertainty avoidance and equivocality score high
when this medium is used (Daft et al. 1987). The hypothesis is thus that the
consumers’ appreciation for co-creation depends on the medium chosen to
address them, and that they mostly appreciate the internet, e-mail and
personal interactions during an event. This hypothesis is based on the whole
group of participants. We, however, expect that the appreciation level differ
by age (van Rees and van Eijck 2003), and that print media such as letters,
newspapers and magazines, will be more appreciated by the older age
categories. In contrast, we expect the internet to be appreciated more by
people belonging to the younger age categories. We also expect that younger
people prefer media that is mostly used for commercial purposes, like
television, radio and billboards (see also hypothesis seven).
Hypothesis 4: Media choice step two.
According to the research carried out by El-Shinnawy & Markus (1997),
people generally prefer to respond with speech, but in the context of cocreation, this might not be the best medium. With speech the room for
editing is low, which is an important factor if you are wanting to create
something good. For the company speech is also inconvenient because it
makes it hard to store the information. The best media from my point of view
would be e-mail and the internet, due to the fact that these media are easily
editable and storable (El-Shinnawy & Markus, 1996). These two types of
media have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance, the distribution of the
information towards others is simple (also very important if you want people
to respond) and the message access is non-linear, which means that the
people working in the organization and the consumers can co-create within
their own time-schedule (El-Shinnawy & Markus 1997). This hypothesis is
also based on the whole group of participants. We, however, expect that also
45
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
in this context the willingness to co-create will differ with respect to age (van
Rees and van Eijck 2003). Since van Rees and van Eijck do not distinguish
between step one: receiving from, and step two: responding with, our
expectations are the same as in hypothesis 3. We therefore expect that print
media such as letters, newspapers and magazines will be more appreciated
by the older age categories and that the internet will be more appreciated by
those belonging to the younger age categories. We would also expect
younger people to prefer media mostly used for commercial purposes, like
television, radio and billboards.
Hypothesis 5: Media choice step three.
The theories discussed above are not really relevant when making a
hypothesis referring to sub-question five. Intuitively, we would say that a
television campaign would have the highest profile and hence would be most
appreciated by the consumer. In supplementation to this, we would expect a
billboard advertisement to score higher than an advertisement in a
newspaper or a high profile magazine. Just like the previous two hypotheses
we would also expect print media such as letters, newspapers and magazines
to be more appreciated by the older age categories and the internet to be
more appreciated by people belonging to the younger age categories. We
would also expect younger people to prefer media that is mostly used for
commercial purposes, like television, radio and billboards.
Hypothesis 6: Product categories and willingness to co-create.
We expect that the willingness of consumers to co-create is dependent on the
product category. We have presume that a consumer is more willing to cocreate with a product that has something to do with a product that directly
reflects the personality of the respective consumer, than with a category that
is less image-bound. We could imagine, for instance, that a consumer would
prefer to co-create with Nike, instead of with Heinz if Nike directly reflects his
image, and Heinz, in contrast, does not reflect his image directly.
46
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Hypothesis 7: Co-creation and age.
We expect age to play an important role in the willingness to co-create.
Younger people are more technology -savvy (Keller 2002) and thus more
likely to be able to use the means that are sometimes necessary in order to
co-create (i.e. making your own commercial on the computer, uploading
pictures etc.). Furthermore, due to the fact that they are able to co-create,
they might appreciate co-creation communication more because they don’t
feel left out. In addition, the younger age groups have been brought up in
the years of communicative self direction (Cornelis 1988) and might
therefore be more open to the concept. We thus expect that a younger age
group is more willing to participate in, and better appreciative of, co-creation.
Besides this, as already mentioned in hypotheses three, four and five, we
expect the appreciation and willingness to co-create with different media to
differ by age (van Rees and van Eijck 2003), and that the print media such
as letters, newspapers and magazines will be more appreciated by the older
age categories, whereas we expect the internet to be appreciated mainly by
people belonging to the younger age categories. We also expect younger
people to prefer media that is mostly used for commercial purposes, like
television, radio and billboards (van Rees and van Eijck 2003).
§3.3 Qualitative research
The qualitative research consists of two parts: the first part contains a
discussion of a successful and an unsuccessful case of co-creation, whereas
the second part contains of interviews with executive marketing managers of
Philips, Sport 1 and Heineken and senior managers of TBWA\PR Company,
TBWA\Brand Experience Company and TBWA\Neboko. With the help of these
interviews we will try to shed some light on the results of the quantitative
research, provide a better insight into co-creation from the business point of
view, and give some explanations about the remarkable results obtained in
the quantitative part of this thesis. The interviews consist of some basic
questions as a guideline, but will be of open character.
47
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§3.4 Relevance
This research is relevant in several contexts. First of all, it has theoretical
relevance. The field of co-creation is relatively new in the scientific area and
therefore not much scientific research has been carried out in this area so
far. Most of the research referring to this topic is carried out in the area of
marketing; but this research focuses solely on the communication part of cocreation. It is aimed at determining what co-creation exactly means in the
communicative area, and, maybe even more critical, at finding out if, and to
what extent, consumers actually are willing to co-create. Therefore, it tries to
determine if co-creation is in fact an empty shell (created by marketeer
gurus and communication agencies) or rather a meaningful concept, fulfilling
a need existing in consumers.
Besides the scientific relevance there is also a social relevance to this
research. Co-creation is a practice used increasingly by companies. However,
there has been no previous research which shows that this form of
communication is actually wanted or appreciated by consumers. The results
of my research will attempt to clarify whether consumers want participate in
co-creation communication, and if the willingness to participate differs with
respect to the product category, the age group of the consumer and the
media that is used in each step of the process.
§4 Methodology
§4.1 Introduction to the Methodology
In this section several aspects of the research are outlined in detail. First of
all, the research design is discussed, which includes the description of the
target group and the participants. In addition, the choice of the research
method and the description of the applied procedures are given.
48
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§4.2 Target Group, Participants and Research Method
The choice was made to carry out the research in the quantitative part of this
thesis with the help of a questionnaire. Given the fact that co-creation is a
relatively new area, we do not believe that a focus group or an in-depth
interview would help to establish a view on the subject as most people have
probably never encountered co-creation before and therefore haven’t been
able to form an opinion on the topic. By testing a large number of people we
hope to gain a better insight into the general opinion about this subject. The
questionnaire was conducted in cooperation with Directresearch.nl, a
company specialized in online research. The questionnaire had to be
completed online by the participants since the concept of co-creation
communication is explained with examples that involve a video commercial
and due to the fact that Directresearch.nl is specialized in online research.
The target group consists of 305 participants between 15 and 65 years of
age. The participants can be seen as a sample of the Dutch population
coming from a consumer’s panel that consists of over 18.000 members
(www.Polland.nl, 06-16-2007). All the participants stated that they were
willing to participate and were rewarded after their participation. Due to this
reward,
www.polland.nl
claims
that
the
results
are
more
reliable
(www.polland.nl, 06-16-2007).
We will now look at the frequencies of gender, educational level and
age in order to see if they are more or less evenly divided and thus can be
seen as a representative sample. Looking at the frequencies of gender (Table
3), we can see that there are far more female than male participants: which
means that we are not allowed to compare these groups with each other. The
same applies to the frequencies of the educational level (Table 4). When
looking at the different age categories we can see that the frequencies of
these are more or less the same, which means that we are allowed to
compare these groups with each other (see Table 5). This is important with
regard to the fact that we want to make meaningful claims about the
influence of age on participation and willingness to co-create.
49
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Gender
200
150
100
50
0
Male
Female
Table 3: Frequencies of gender
Educational level
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Lower
middle
High educational
educational level educational level
level
Table 4: Frequencies of educational level
Age groups
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
Table 5: Frequencies of age groups
§4.3 Justification of the questionnaire
In this section the questionnaire will be justified and the reliability of the
construct ‘appreciation’ will be given. The questionnaire ’begins with a brief
explanation of the structure behind the questionnaire. After this, the concept
50
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
of co-creation communication is explained in consumer-friendly language in
order to generate the
highest
possible
level
of understanding
(this
explanation will be illustrated by three examples). The three examples (see
appendix A) are all three taken from different product categories (dog food,
an insurance company and chips) and are all conducted with the help of
different media (a photo in a magazine, a TV commercial and the name of a
new product). Finally, a brief explanation of the questionnaire is given,
before the questionnaire ends with a few personal questions relating to age,
gender en educational level.
In this research we have chosen to use a closed-ended questionnaire
with a Likert scale. In ‘The Psychology of Survey Response’ from Tourangeau,
Rips & Rasinski (2000) different answer options are discussed. For this
research we have chosen closed-ended questions, due to the fact that these
questions ask for a certain opinion on a subject and offers the respondents
options of answering that he or she otherwise might not have thought of
(Molenaar 1982). Tourangeau et al. (2000) points out some of the difficulties
relating to the numbering of the Likert scale: a few of those difficulties are
that negative numbers are perceived as more extreme than positive
numbers, and that extreme answers are given to a lesser extent. To avoid
these difficulties, the Likert scale isn’t numbered. As a result of the pre-test it
turned out that people preferred to have the positive items at the right side
and the negative ones at the left. All the questions in the questionnaire are
now designed like this. Touranguea et al. (2000) and Molenaar (1982) also
recommend the use of a five point scale so that people can see the difference
between the different scales but also avoids primacy and recency effects. In
the questionnaire we have incorporated a neutral category. Without this
category you could force an answer that the person doesn’t really stand by
(England 1948; Kalton et al. 1978). Since the concept of co-creation is
explained before the questions on the subject are asked, the questionnaire
does not have a ‘no opinion’ option. According to the pre-test, the
explanation of co-creation was clear and people thus had to form some kind
of opinion about the subject. Within the pre-test no problems occurred with
51
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
regard to the explanation of the concept of co-creation, but the question
referring to openness was changed into a two point scale because people said
a five point scale for this question was confusing. They stated that there is no
such thing as ‘a little bit open for something’: their opinion was that you are
either open towards something or not.
The different product categories that are tested are derived from Keller
(2003). Products can be defined broadly to include physical goods, services,
retail stores, online businesses, people, organizations, places, or ideas. For
this research the two most used categories were included, namely physical
goods and services. Physical goods were further sub-divided into the
categories
eating,
drinking,
home,
health/beauty,
footwear,
information/entertainment, sports, car brands, innovative products, internet
services, banking, government, fast-food and clothing (Keller 2003). After
the pre-test, this list was adjusted to be more suitable for the concept of cocreation and then consisted of banking, government, beverages, fast-food,
house supplies, health/beauty, shoes, information/entertainment, sports,
innovative products, internet services and clothing. Examples of these
categories are given in the brands listed in the Interbrand 100 list
(www.interbrand.nl, 06-19-2007). The reason for using brands on this list is
to provide brands which are most likely familiar to everyone.
Different
questions
were
aimed
at
measuring
the
construct
‘appreciation’. These questions had to be reliable so that meaningful answers
could be given. The questions about appreciation came partly from Maes,
Ummelen & Hoeken (1996), but were changed somewhat after the pre-test
since some terms were not relevant for co-creation, and others were missing
according to the test subjects. After the research was conducted it turned out
that the items measuring ‘appreciation’ were reliable (alpha=.940), which
means that 94 % of the observed variance is systematic and only 6 % is
caused by coincidence. This is a high reliability score which meant that the
various appreciation questions could now be combined in one overall
appreciation construct.
52
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5 Results
In the following sections we will discuss the results of the quantitative
research. The results on the overall appreciation will be given first, followed
by overall appreciation and age, the appreciation/willingness of the three
steps of co-creation as discussed in section 2.7.1., these three steps in
relation to age, the willingness to co-create, and finally the willingness to cocreate in relation to age.
§5.1 Appreciation
§5.1.1 Overall appreciation
Appreciation of co-creation
'I appreciate co-creation'
120
115
101
100
80
Number of people
66
60
40
14
20
9
0
agree
partly agree
nutrual
partly
disagree
disagree
Table 6: Appreciation of co-creation
As Table 6 shows, most people appreciate co-creation, in total 216 out of 305
people gave a positive answer to this statement.
53
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5.1.2 Overall appreciation and age
Appreciation of co-creation and age
2.5
2
1.5
Appreciation
1
0.5
0
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
Agecathegories
Table 7: Appreciation of co-creation and age
The descriptive statics show that the age category 36-45 appreciates cocreation the lowest of all ages (1.86), and that the age category 56-65
appreciates co-creation the highest (2.41) (Table 7). The results of the Test
of homogeneity of variance is not significant because the p-value (.062) is
bigger than p <0.05. We did an ANOVA to see if there were differences in the
means that are significant. The results from ANOVA show that the effect in
which age plays a role is significant F(4, 300) = 2.79; p= .02. We now know
that there is a difference between the age groups but we also want to know
where this difference lies. By looking at the Post Hoc test (Scheffe) we can
see that the age group 36-45 significantly appreciate co-creation lower that
the age group 56-65 (.048).
§5.1.3 Overall appreciation: Sub-conclusion
When looking at the overall appreciation of co-creation we can conclude that
most people are really or at least fairly positive about co-creation. Only the
minority state that they are not really positive about co-creation. We can also
conclude that age plays a role in this evaluation, but only with respect to the
age groups 36-45 and 56-65. People in the age group 56-65 appreciate cocreation significantly higher than people in the age group 36-45.
54
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5.2 Appreciation and Willingness of media in the three steps of co-creation
§5.2.1 Appreciation of media to approach people (step 1)
Media to approach people
billboards
magazine
paper
telephone
Media
sms
weblog
internetsite
event
letter
email
television
radio
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Appreciation
Table 8: Appreciation of media to approach people
As Table 8 shows, the best media to approach people if you want them to cocreate are through a letter (3.17), closely followed by an event (3.14) and an
e-mail (3.10). The results also show that people do not appreciate it when a
company tries to approach them for co-creation through SMS (1.88) or by
telephone (1.99).
Before we look at the significant differences between the media we
first look at the level of correlation between these different media (Table 9).
We can differentiate three correlation groups: media that correlate weak,
media that correlate intermediately and media that correlate strongly. Media
that correlate weak have a score between (r=0.01 and r=0.30) media that
correlate intermediately have a score between (r=0.31 and r=0.70) and
media that correlate high have a score between (r=0.71 and r=0.99). There
55
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
are eighteen media pairs that correlate weak, forty-three media pairs that
correlate average and five media pairs that correlate strongly. The majority
of the media pairs thus correlate average (see Table 9).
email
Radio
TV
TV
.858
1
e-mail
.274
.292
1
letter
.237
.270
.709
1
event
.325
.383
.483
.628
1
.360
.406
.486
.389
.396
1
Internetsite
weblog
letter
event
Internet-site
weblog
SMS
Telephone
paper
Magazine
.392
.368
.349
.276
.293
.568
1
SMS
.216
.271
.512
.467
.439
.397
.447
1
telephone
.136
.234
.495
.501
.438
.279
.270
.694
1
paper
.640
.670
.311
.336
.362
.430
.474
.239
.196
1
magazine
.606
.636
.319
.348
.379
.445
.438
.173
.179
.925
1
billboards
.624
.192
.132
.800
.795
.659
.250
.340 .440 .421
.441
Table 9: Pearson correlation between media in step one
As seen in the previous section, there are a lot of correlations between
the different media, but we now want to know if the differences in means
between media are significant. To establish this we look at the ANOVA for
repeated measures. First we look at Mauchly’s test of Sphericity to see if
there is are significant differences in the differential scores between the
media pairs. It turns out that in the approach of people with different media
the variances are not equal because there is a significant difference between
the variances (p<0.001). We thus have to look at Greenhouse-Geisser
correction, the degrees of freedom and the significance level. We can say
that there are significant differences between the appreciation of the different
media F(5.56, 1692.06) = 66.4; p= .00.
Now we know that there is a significant difference we also want to
know between which media this difference lays with the Bonfferoni Post Hoc
test. The appreciation of a approach with a e-mail, a letter, a event, and a
magazine are significantly higher than the appreciation of a approach with
the radio, a internet site, a weblog, a SMS and the telephone, all with a
corresponding change result of p=0.00 except for the radio with a e-mail
(p=0.02) and a magazine with a internet site (p=0.02). A letter, an event
and a magazine are also appreciated significantly higher than a billboard
56
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
(p=.02, p=.04, p=.03). A billboard, the radio, the television, an internet site,
and a paper are appreciated significantly higher than a SMS, the telephone
and a weblog. A weblog is also appreciated significantly higher that a SMS
and the telephone.
§5.2.2 Appreciation of media to approach people per age group (step 1)
Now we know that there are differences between the appreciation of the
different media, we also want to know if these differences are related to the
age groups that people belong to. In order to determine this we did a one
way ANOVA analyses per media with the Post Hoc test from Scheffe.
The appreciation of media to approach people per media and
age category
4
3,5
Appreciation
3
16-25
2,5
26-35
2
36-45
46-55
1,5
55-65
1
0,5
pa
pe
r
ag
az
in
e
bi
llb
oa
rd
s
m
sm
s
te
le
ph
on
e
ev
en
in
t
te
rn
et
si
te
w
eb
lo
g
r
le
tte
ai
l
em
tv
ra
di
o
0
Media
Figure 7: The appreciation of media to approach people per media and age category
The
descriptive
statistics
show
that
the
age
category
56-65
appreciates the company approaching them with any medium the lowest of
all ages (see Figure 7). The results from ANOVA shows that that the age
group 56-65 significantly appreciates the usage of radio F(4, 300) = 2.70;
57
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
p= .03 and an event F(4, 300) = 2.79; p= .02 the lowest of all ages but
although there is an overall effect the Post Hoc test displays no significant
differences. The ANOVA and the Post Hoc test also show that the age
category 56-65 significantly appreciates a approach with television F(4, 300)
= 3.31; p= .01 lower than the age group 26-35. Besides this, the ANOVA
and the Post Hoc test show that the age category 56-65 significantly
appreciates a approach by the paper F(4, 300) = 3.84; p= .00 and by a
magazine F(4, 300) = 4.16; p= .00 lower than the age group 16-25. Finally
the ANOVA and the Post Hoc test also show that the age category 56-65
significantly appreciates a approach by radio F(4, 300) = 3.31; p= .01 lower
than the age groups 16-25 and 26-35. After conducting a repeated measures
ANOVA we can say that there is no interaction effect but two main effects:
age and medium.
§5.2.3 Appreciation of media used to approach people: Sub-conclusion
The participants most appreciate an approach by means of a letter, an event
and an e-mail, whereas they appreciate an approach by means of an SMS or
the telephone the least. Most media correlate low and intermediate and only
a few correlate high. This means that people can distinguish between most of
the different media, and that no media groups are formed in the minds of
people which means that it is not necessary to conduct a factor analysis in
further research. Looking at the media used to approach people with, we see
that personal media (a letter and an event) and written media (a letter, an email and a magazine) score high. SMS’s and the approach via telephone are
appreciated the lowest of all media.
Media appreciation of the first step of co-creation in relation to age
shows that the age group 56-65 is relatively negative. The appreciation of an
approach by television, by the paper, by a magazine and by radio is
significantly lower than in some other age groups. The results also show that
the age groups 16-25 and 26-35 are the most positive with regard to these
kinds of media.
58
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5.3 Appreciation and Willingness of media in the three steps of co-creation:
step two
§5.3.1 Willingness of people to respond through different media
Willingness to respond through different media
magazine
paper
telephone
Media
sms
weblog
internetsite
Reeks1
event
letter
email
television
radio
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Willingness
Table 10: willingness to respond through different media
As Table 10 shows, the best media to choose for people to respond is
through the e-mail (3.12), a magazine (3.03) or the paper (2.97): people are
most willing to use these media. The results also show that people are not
very positive about responding through a SMS (2.03) and the telephone
(2.19).
Before we are going to look at the significant differences between the
media we are first going to look at the level of correlations between these
different media. We can differentiate three different groups of correlations;
media that correlate weak, media that correlate intermediately and media
that correlate strongly (Table 11). There are no media with a weak
correlation; there are seventy-five media pairs that correlate average and
four media pairs that correlate high.
Table 11: Pearson Correlation of media for step 2
59
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
TV
E-mail
,379
,388
1
Letter
,390
,388
,738
1
Event
,433
,454
,564
,664
1
Site
,408
,440
,627
,564
,522
1
Weblog
,440
,424
,525
,427
,423
,621
1
SMS
,377
,397
,523
,475
,474
,478
,575
1
,394
,404
,507
,545
,535
,384
,402
,752
1
,598
,632
,533
,576
,525
,525
,445
,397
,453
1
,586
,661
,567
,596
,547
,547
,452
,398
,438
,961
TV
Telephone
Paper
Magazine
e-mail
letter
event
site
weblog
SMS
Telephone
radio
,850
paper
Maga
zine
1
We now want to test the significant differences so we will compare the
different media with each other with an ANOVA for repeated measures.
Looking at Mauchly’s test of Sphericity we see that with the willingness of
people with different media the variances are not equal because there is a
significant difference between the variances (p<0.001). We thus have to look
at Greenhouse-Geisser correction. Looking at this test we can say that there
are significant differences between the willingness to respond with the
different media F(6.25, 1900.60) = 55,6; p= .00.
When looking at the PostHoc test (Scheffe) we see that people are
significantly more willing to respond through an e-mail, a letter, a event, a
paper and a magazine than through an internet site, a weblog, a SMS, the
telephone, the radio, the television, all with a corresponding chance result of
p=.00, except a event with an internet site (p=.02) and a weblog(p=.02).
People are also significantly more willing to respond through an e-mail than
through a letter and an event. People are again significantly more willing to
respond through an internet site than through a weblog, a SMS and the
telephone. People are also significantly more willing to respond through the
television than through a SMS, the telephone and the radio, all with a
corresponding chance result of p=.00. People are again significantly more
willing to respond through a weblog and a telephone(p=.03) than through a
SMS. Finally, people are significantly more willing to respond through a radio
than through a SMS.
60
1
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5.3.2 Willingness of people to respond through different media per age
group
Now we know that there are differences between the different media, we also
want to know if these differences are dependent of the age groups that
people belong to. In order to determine this we did a one way ANOVA
analyses per media with the Post Hoc test (Scheffe).
Willingness of people to respond through different media per
age category
4
3,5
Willingness
3
16-25
2,5
26-35
2
36-45
46-55
1,5
55-65
1
0,5
pa
pe
r
m
ag
az
in
e
sm
s
te
le
ph
on
e
we
bl
og
ev
en
in
t
te
rn
et
si
te
r
le
tte
ai
l
em
tv
ra
di
o
0
Media
Figure 12: Willingness of people to respond through different media per age category
The descriptive statistics show that the age category 56-65 is least
willing to respond through any medium the lowest of all ages (Figure 12).
The results from ANOVA and the Post Hoc test show that the age group 5665 is significantly less willing to respond through the radio F(4, 300) = 6.97;
p= .00,
television F(4, 300) = 7.748; p= .00 and the paper F(4, 300) =
61
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
5.05; p= .00 than the age groups 16-25, 26-35 and 36-45. The results from
ANOVA and the Post Hoc test also show that the age group 56-65 is
significantly less willing to respond through e-mail F(4, 300) = 3.85; p= .00
than the age groups 26-35 and 36-45. Besides this the results from ANOVA
and the Post Hoc test show that the age group 56-65 is significantly less
willing to respond through a site F(4, 300) = 2.02; p= .01 than the age
group 36-45. The results from ANOVA show that the age group 56-65 is
significantly less willing to respond through a weblog F(4, 300) = 2.67; p=
.03 in comparison with the other age categories but although there is an
overall effect the Post Hoc test displays no significant differences. Finally the
results from ANOVA and the Post Hoc test show that the age group 56-65 is
significantly less willing to respond through a magazine F(4, 300) = 4.36; p=
.00 than the age groups 16-25 and 36-45.
After
conducting
a
repeated
measures ANOVA we can say that there is no interaction effect but two main
effects: age and medium.
§5.3.3 Willingness of people to respond through different media: Subconclusion
The participants are most willing to respond via e-mail, a magazine or a
newspaper. The results also show that people are, like in step one, not very
positive about responding via SMS and the telephone. There are no media
that
correlate
weak
with
each
other.
Most
of
the
media
correlate
intermediately and a few correlate high with each other. This means that
people can distinguish between most of the different media, and no media
groups are formed in the minds of people.
Looking at the results, we see that people are more willing to respond
via written media than via the other media. Furthermore, the level of
interactivity plays a role: the more a media is interactive, the less willing
people are to respond. SMS is the least popular media to respond with.
The results also show that just like the appreciation for the approach,
the age group 56-65 is again the most negative with respect to the different
62
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
media. They are significantly more negative than the other age groups about
the option of responding via radio, television, e-mail, an internet site, papers
and a magazine. The age groups 16-25, 26-35 and 36-45 are more willing to
respond via these media.
§5.4. Appreciation and Willingness of media in the three steps of co-creation:
step three
§5.4.1 Appreciation of media to use as external communication message
Media to use with co-creation
billboards
magazine
paper
telephone
Media
sms
weblog
internetsite
event
letter
email
tv
radio
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Appreciation
Table 13: Media to use with co-creation
The television (3.61) is the best appreciated media to use when broadcasting
the output of a co-creation message. Beside the television, a radio (3.48)
and a magazine (3.46) are also highly appreciated (Table 13). Just like the
63
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
two previous steps a SMS (2.38) and the telephone (2.48) are not highly
appreciated.
Before we are going to look at the differences between these media we
first going to look at the level of correlations between them (Table 14). We
are again differentiating three different groups of correlations; media that
correlate weak, media that correlate intermediately and media that correlate
strongly. There are no media that correlate weak with each other. There are
fifty media pairs who correlate intermediately with each other, and nine
media pairs that correlate high.
TV
radio
,917
email
TV
letter
event
Internet
-site
SMS
Telephone
paper
Maga
-zine
,546
,544
1
Letter
,590
,581
,831
1
Event
,622
,613
,686
,801
1
,629
,641
,720
,699
,690
1
,564
,542
,585
,557
,601
,751
1
SMS
,452
,447
,666
,642
,592
,616
,704
1
telephone
,449
,438
,655
,665
,643
,555
,554
,814
1
Paper
,795
,815
,609
,626
,680
,691
,597
,533
,540
1
magazine
,790
,820
,619
,630
,678
,700
,587
,514
,536
,982
1
billboards
,762
,817
,545
,593
,645
,668
,599
,521
Table 14: Pearson correlation of media for step 3
,482
,869
,887
Just like the two previous steps we are going to look at an ANOVA for
dependent measures. Looking at Mauchly’s test of Sphericity we see that for
the media to broadcast the final communication message the variances are
not equal because there is a significant difference between the variances
(p<0.001). We thus have to look at Greenhouse-Geisser correction. Looking
at this test we can say that there are significant differences between the
appreciation of the different media F(5.36, 1631.66) = 78,09; p= .00. Now
we know that there is a significant difference we also want to know between
which media this difference lays.
With
billboards
1
E-mail
internet
site
Weblog
weblog
the
appreciation
of
the
final
communication
message
in
comparison with the other media we can see that people are significantly
more willing to respond through a radio, a television, a paper, a magazine
64
1
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
and a billboard than through the e-mail, a letter, a event, a internet site, a email, a SMS, the telephone, and a weblog. People are also significantly more
willing to respond through an e-mail, a letter, an event and an internet site
than through the weblog, a SMS and the telephone. People are also
significantly more willing to respond through a weblog than through a SMS
and the telephone. Finally, people are significantly more willing to respond
through the television than through a paper, a magazine, a billboard and the
radio all with a corresponding chance result of p=.00.
§5.4.2 Appreciation of media to use as external communication message per
age group
Now we know that there are differences between the different media, we also
want to know if these differences are dependent of the age groups that
people belong to. In order to determine this we did a one way ANOVA
analyses per media with the Post Hoc test (Scheffe).
Appreciation of media to use for co creation per media with
different age categories
4,5
4
3,5
16-25
26-35
2,5
36-45
2
46-55
55-65
1,5
1
0,5
Media
65
pa
pe
r
m
ag
az
in
e
bi
llb
oa
rd
s
sm
s
te
le
ph
on
e
ev
en
in
t
te
rn
et
si
te
w
eb
lo
g
r
le
tte
ai
l
em
tv
0
ra
di
o
Appreciation
3
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 15: Appreciation of media to use for co-creation per media with different age categories
The
descriptive
statistics
show
that
the
age
category
56-65
appreciates the company using their message through any medium the
lowest of all ages (Figure 15). The results from ANOVA and the Post Hoc test
show that the age group 56-65 appreciates the usage of television F(4, 300)
= 4.09; p= .00 and radio F(4, 300) = 3.44; p= .00 significantly lower than
the age group 26-35. The ANOVA also shows that the age category 56-65
appreciates the company using their message through an internet site F(4,
300) = 2.62; p= .03 and the paper F(4, 300) = 2.67; p= .03 the lowest of all
ages but although there is an overall effect the Post Hoc test displays no
significant differences. Finally, the ANOVA and the Post Hoc show that the
age category 56-65 appreciates the company using their message through a
magazine F(4, 300) = 3.04; p= .01 and a billboard F(4, 300) = 2.95; p= .02
significantly lower that the age group 36-45. After conducting a repeated
measures ANOVA we can say that there is no interaction effect but two main
effects: age and medium.
§5.4.3 Appreciation of media be used as external communication message:
Sub-conclusion
The participants appreciate television, radio and magazines best as media be
used in the final external communication message. Like in the previous two
steps, the media SMS and telephone are also least appreciated and there
are, as in step two, no media that have a weak correlation with each other.
Most media correlate intermediately and a few correlate strong. This means
that people can distinguish between most of the different media, that no
media groups are formed in the minds of the people, and that no small
groups of two correlating variables are formed. Hence, it is not really
necessary to conduct a factor analysis in further research. Given the
appreciation of the final communication message in comparison with the
66
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
other media, we can see that people appreciate media to be used as the
external communication message the most if the media generate a lot of
attention and are mass-media like the radio, the television, papers,
magazines and billboards. SMS and the telephone have the lowest level of
appreciation.
Just as with the previous two steps, it is the people in the age-group
56-65 who are the most negative in their response. They appreciate the
company conveying their message via radio, television, magazines and
billboards significantly lower than some of the other age groups. The age
groups 26-35 and 36-45 are more positive about the approach via these
types of media.
§5.5 Willingness to co-create with different product categories
Willingness to co-create with different productcategories
fo o d
car-brands
Product cathegories
clo thing
internet-services
inno vative-pro ducts
spo rts
info rmatio n-entertainment
clo thing-sho es
Series1
health-beauty
ho use-supplies
fasfo o d
spirits
go vernment
bank
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Willingness
Table 16: Willingness to co-create with different product categories
The product category shoes (3.12) is the product category where people are
most willing to co-create with. Besides shoes, also beverages (3.02) and
67
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
innovative products (3.02) score high on the willingness scale. House
supplies (2.57) and fast-food (2.43) are the least popular categories to cocreate with (Table 16).
Before we are going to look at the differences between the product
categories we are first going to look at the level of correlations between
these different product categories (Table 17). We can again differentiate the
three different groups of correlations. There are no product categories that
correlate weak with each other, there are forty-two Product categories that
correlate intermediately with each other and there are forty-eight product
categories that correlate strong.
We now want to know if there are significant differences between the
willingness to co-create with different product categories. In order to test this
we are going to look at an ANOVA for repeated measures. Looking at
Mauchly’s test of Sphericity we see that with the approach of people with
different media the variances are not equal because there is a significant
difference between the variances (p<0.001). We thus have to look at
Greenhouse-Geisser correction. Looking at this test we can say that there are
significant differences between the appreciation of the different media
F(8.24, 2505.26) = 19.83; p= .00. Now we know that there is a significant
difference we also want to know between which product categories this
difference lays.
People are significantly more willing to co-create with the government,
beverages, shoes, information/entertainment, innovative products and
clothing than with a bank, fast-food, house supplies and sports. People are
also significantly more willing to co-create with health/beauty, internet
services, car brands and food than with fast-food and house supplies. People
are also more willing to co-create with shoes than with heath/beauty,
internet services, car brands and food. People are also more willing to cocreate with a bank and sports than with fast-food , all with a corresponding
change result of p=.00, except for information/entertainment with sports and
sports with fast-food (p=.02).
68
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
bevera
ges
Health/
beauty
Internet
services
beverages
,715
,670
1
fast-food
,608
,461
,715
1
,667
,553
,716
,716
1
,618
,596
,748
,657
,772
1
,663
,644
,781
,587
,634
,804
1
,728
,754
,815
,624
,676
,727
,772
1
,720
,654
,649
,523
,490
,518
,670
,728
1
,784
,727
,721
,552
,558
,598
,715
,745
,758
1
,747
,680
,739
,615
,649
,646
,709
,749
,661
,814
1
Innovative
products
Internet
services
clothing
sports
Innovative
products
government
Information/
entertainment
sports
Shoes
Information/
entertainment
government
1
Housesupplies
Heath/
beauty
Shoes
fast-food
Housesupplies
bank
,714
clothing
car
brands
,686
,611
,775
,612
,616
,779
,891
,758
,657
,729
,759
1
Car brands
,727
,599
,716
,613
,560
,637
,755
,717
,707
,793
,727
,778
1
food
,651
,635
,789
,733
,777
,805
,755
,758
,597
Table 17: Pearson Correlation of the product categories
,650
,696
,769
,684
69
§5.5.1 Willingness to co-create with different product categories per age
group
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
ba
go
ver nk
nm
en
t
sp
irits
ho
f
use asfoo
d
-su
pp
he
l
i
a
e
lth
inf
-be s
orm
c lo
a
th in
uty
ati
on
- en g-s h
o
ter
tai es
nm
en
inn
t
ov
sp
ati
ort
ve
s
int
ern pr od
u
etse c ts
rvic
es
c lo
th in
ca
g
r-b
ran
ds
foo
d
Willingness
Willingness to co-create with different
productcategories per age group
Productcategories
Figure 18: Willingness to co-create with different product categories per age group
The descriptive statistics show that the age category 56-65 appreciated cocreation with a product always more negative than the other age categories
(Figure 18). The results from ANOVA and the Post Hoc test show that the age
category
56-65
appreciates
co-creating
with
the
product
category
government F(4, 300) = 3.81; p= .00 significantly lower than the age group
46-55. The ANOVA and the Post Hoc test also show that the age category 5665 appreciates co-creating with the product category beverages F(4, 300) =
4.454; p= .00, fast-food F(4, 300) = 4.82; p= .00 and clothing F(4, 300) =
5.24; p= .00 significantly lower than the age groups 26-35 and 36-45. The
ANOVA and the Post Hoc test show that the age category 56-65 appreciates
co-creating with the product category fast-food
F(4, 300) = 5.34; p= .00
significantly lower than the age groups 26-35, 36-45 and 46-55. The ANOVA
70
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
also shows that the age category 56-65 appreciates co-creating with the
product category housing supplies significantly lower than the other age
categories F(4, 300) = 2.97; p= .02. Although there is an overall effect the
Post Hoc test displays no significant differences. Besides this the ANOVA and
the Post Hoc test show that the age category 56-65 appreciates co-creating
with
the
product
category
heath/beauty
F(4,
300)
=2.73;
p=
.02,
information and entertainment F(4, 300) = 3.24; p= .01 and food F(4, 300)
= 3.29; p= .01 significantly lower than the age group 26-35. Finally the
ANOVA and the Post Hoc test show that the age category 56-65 appreciates
co-creating with the product category innovative products F(4, 300) = 3.07;
p= .01, internet services F(4, 300) = 3.56; p= .00 and car F(4, 300) = 3.09;
p= .01
significantly lower than the age groups 36-45. After conducting a
repeated measures ANOVA we can say that there is no interaction effect but
two main effects: age and product category.
§5.5.2 Willingness to co-create with different product categories: Subconclusion
People are most willing to take part in the co-creation process with regard to
shoes, beverages and innovative products, whereas they are least willing to
co-create with regard to house supplies and fast-food. There are only product
categories that correlate intermediately or strongly with each other. This
means that people might not be able to distinguish between most of the
different media, and media groups are formed in the minds of people. An
example of one of those groups could be the high correlation of fast-food
with house supplies, i.e. house supplies with food and food with fast-food,
these product categories are connected by a high degree of correlation with
each other. It is thus recommended to conduct a factor analysis in future
research. People are significantly more willing to co-create with the product
categories
government,
beverages,
shoes,
information/entertainment,
innovative products and clothing than with a bank, fast-food, house supplies
and sports. People are also significantly more willing to co-create with
71
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
health/beauty, internet services, car brands and food than with fast-food and
house supplies. People are also more willing to co-create with shoes than
with heath/beauty, internet services, car brands and food. And finally, people
are also more willing to co-create with a bank and sports than with fast-food.
We might conclude from these results that people prefer to co-create with
product categories that reflect their image directly since shoes, beverages
and innovative products say something about the image of the person.
Like in the context of the different media, the age group 56-65 is the
most
negative
categories
group.
food,
car,
They
appreciate
clothing,
internet
co-creating
services,
with
the
innovative
product
products,
information/entertainment, shoes and heath/beauty significantly lower than
some of the other age groups. The age groups 26-35 and 36-45 are more
positive about co-creating with these product categories.
§5.6 Willingness and openness towards co-creation
§5.6.1 Willingness
The construct ‘willingness’ is measured by two different questions. The first
question is whether or not people are open towards co-creation. The second
question asks directly about the willingness of consumers to co-create.
72
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5.6.2 Openness towards co-creation and willingness to participate
Openness towards co-creation
80
60
Precentage 40
20
0
open
not open
Table 19: Openness towards co-creation
Most people are open towards co-creation, in total 74.4 percent of all
participants (Table 19).
Willingness to participate with co-creation
50
40
30
precentage
20
10
0
not at all
no
maybe
yes
totally
Table 20: Willingness to participate with co-creation
Although most people are open towards co-creation, most of them (48.9%)
are not sure if they are willing to participate (Table 20).
73
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5.6.3 Openness towards co-creation per age group.
openness
Openess towards co-creation
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
age groups
Table 21: Openness towards co-creation per age group
age
openness
16_25
26_35
N
36_45
N
%
46_55
56_65
N
%
%
N
%
N
%
46
79,3
48
82,8
56
81,2
50
72,5
27
52,9
12
20,7
10
17,2
13
18,8
19
27,5
24
47,1
Open
Closed
Total
58
58
69
69
51
Table 22: Summary of the differences in openness between different age groups.
There is a significant difference between people and their openness towards
co-creation when looking at their age (see Table 21 and 22). But there is a
small connection (Cramérs V = 0.23) between age and openness towards cocreation. People in the age category 26-35 are most open towards cocreation while people in the age category 56-65 are least open towards cocreation (Chi² = 16.9; dƒ=4; p= <.002).
74
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§5.6.4 Willingness to participate with co-creation per age.
Willingness
Willingness to co-create
3,4
3,3
3,2
3,1
3
2,9
2,8
2,7
2,6
2,5
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
Age groups
Figure 22: Willingness to co-create per age group
The descriptive statistics show that the age category 56-65 is least willing to
co-create (3,35), and that the age category 26-35 is most willing to cocreate (2,84) (Figure 22). The results from ANOVA show that the effect in
which age plays a role is not significant. The p-value (.08) is bigger than
alpha (.05) so the H0 hypothesis cannot be rejected F(4, 300) = 2,08; p=
.08. All means for all age categories are the same.
§5.6.5 Willingness: Sub-conclusion
Although most people are open towards co-creation, in total 74.4 percent of
all participants, most of the people (48.9%) are not sure if they would be
willing to participate. There is a significant difference between the openness
towards
co-creation
when
taking
the
age
of
the
participants
into
consideration: people in the age category 26-35 are most open towards cocreation, whereas people in the age category 56-65 are least open towards
co-creation. However, age doesn’t play a role in the willingness to co-create.
Before giving the general conclusion of the quantitative part of this
thesis we are first going to look at the qualitative part.
75
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§6 Qualitative research
In this qualitative research we will analyze two cases of co-creation, a
successful and an unsuccessful one. We are going to discuss the media
usage, and try to evaluate if the choice of media made in these examples
might provide a valid explanation for the success or failure of the campaign.
In addition, alternative explanations will be given.
In the second part of the qualitative research we are going to present
the views on co-creation of three marketing managers working for large
companies
and the
various
views
of
senior managers
from several
advertising firms. We will analyze if their opinions correlate with each other
and with the results derived from the quantitative research. Finally, we will
conclude this section by presenting the valuable insights we have gained
from the cases and interviews.
§6.1 Qualitative research: Part one
§6.1.1 NIVEA Young: A successful campaign
The first case we are going to discuss is the case of NIVEA Young: a
successful example of co-creation communication. The success of a cocreation campaign can be measured by numerous things, and in this analysis
we are going to determine which factors are the most important in this case.
We think that success can be measured by four different factors:
1. Level of participation: This refers to the amount of responses that the
company received in step two.
2. Sales: This is the increase in sale of the product.
3. Quality of the response: This refers to the quality of the response
received in step two
4. Level of control: This is the level of control that the company has over
the broadcasting of the send-ins from step two.
76
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
To introduce a new line of products for girls between 16 and 19 years of
age (NIVEA Visage Young), the company wanted to reach out to this group in
a surprising and appropriate way. This campaign is a typical example of a
successful co-creation campaign and, like in most campaigns, TBWA\Brand
Experience Company divided it into two areas: above-the-line promotion and
below-the-line
promotion.
communication
and
Above-the-line
below-the-line
promotion
promotion
refers
is
theme-based
to
action-based
communication. For the whole campaign NIVEA Visage Young used both
above-the-line as well as below-the-line promotions, but only the below-theline action based communication is considered as part of the co-creation
process.
The theme for the above-the-line promotion was ‘come closer’ (Figure
7). Based on this theme, TBWA\Brand Experience Company started the
below-the-line ‘Get Ready For Your Close-up’ campaign (Figure 8). This
campaign prompted the target group to take part in a contest and to have a
close-up photo taken by a professional photographer. From all participants,
eight girls were selected to become the faces of NIVEA Visage Young for a
poster-campaign in the schools in their region.
77
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Structure BTL-campaign
Print insert
Schoolcards
Banners
Display + POS
492.000 sachets in
girl-magazines, incl.
Editorials in Fancy
200.000 double freecards in schools with
Tell a Friend-part
Banners on
Girls-sites
72.000 product/
campaign flyers in
POS-bags + mini’s
Website/pop-up
www.nivea.nl
Tell a
friend
Fotoshoot-events
+ sampling
Banners
www.nivea.nl
Your Close-Up photo
on the website
All Close-Up photo’s
on action-site,
downloadable
Ice Cards
Schoolboards
Your own business8 Winners at 600
cards with Close-Up photo Schoolboards at schools
10.000 ex.
in own region
Figure 7: The structure of the below-the-line campaign carried out by NIVEA
Figure 8: Above-the-line print advertisement: ‘Come Closer’.
As discussed in the theoretical framework of the quantitative part of
this thesis, a co-creation campaign usually consists of three steps and this
campaign was no exception: Step 1 consisted of attracting the attention of
78
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
the consumer in order to put across what they want from the consumer, Step
2 offered the consumer a number of options to respond and Step 3
transferred
the
input
into
the
external
communication
message.
We will now evaluate these steps and the choice of media usage in more
detail and compare these with the results from the quantitative part.
Step one: In order to reach the target group, TBWA\Brand Experience
Company, next to the above-the-Line promotion like, for instance, a
television commercial, posters and advertisements in magazines, also used
below-the-line means. They placed inserts in the magazines Celebrity,
Cosmogirl, Elle girl, Fancy and Girlz!. These inserts consisted of little books
with product information, the announcement of the upcoming photo shoot
and samples of the product (Figure 9).
(Front)
(Back)
Figure 9: Insert in magazines
So-called school cards were distributed in high schools throughout the
Netherlands (Figure 10), and banners were placed on the websites Adlink,
Ellegirl, Lycos, MNS and Web-ads (Figure 11).
79
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 10: School card
Figure 11: Banners
Besides the inserts, the banners and the school cards, displays were placed
in stores which sold the product. The displays consisted of a stand on which
the product was displayed in nice gift bags, while in these gift bags there was
a flyer announcing the photo shoot (Figure 12). In addition to this, the girl
magazine ‘Fancy’ placed an editorial in their magazine explaining the photo
shoot campaign. All these media directed the attention of the target group
towards the NIVEA website where they could register, inform a friend, find
information on the product, information on where and when the photo shoot
was, where they could place tips for other girls and where they could listen to
music. People who wanted to participate in the photo shoot had to come up
with a slogan and feed it into the website (Figure 13). From the 8.465 people
who registered for the photo shoot a total of 280 participants were chosen by
NIVEA on the basis of their slogan and were invited by e-mail to come to the
event.
80
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 12: Store display
Figure 13: Website
Step two: Step two consists of two actions that had to be carried out
by the consumers. They first had to register and enter their personal slogan
on the internet site, and secondly they had to come to the experience itself in
order to have their photo taken. The experience itself took place on three
following weekends at Magna Plaza in Amsterdam (Figure 14) and 173
participants with an average age of 15-16 years attended. At the event there
were also samples of the product, a ‘Fancy’ magazine and other samples of
NIVEA products in bags that were given to the participants. Passers-by also
received small samples of the product.
81
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 14: The experience at Magna Plaza in Amsterdam
Step three: The final communication message consisted of another
editorial in the ‘Fancy’ and banners on Adlink, Ellegirl, Lycos, MSN and Webads which directed people to the NIVEA website. On the website (Figure 15)
people could find a photo-album with photo’s of all the contestants, so-called
ice cards (Figure 16), information on the product and music. The ice cards
were like a form of business cards for the participant which incorporated the
picture taken at the experience. The eight winners, who were chosen by the
photographer because they had the most natural look, were displayed on 600
posters on school boards inside schools throughout the country (Figure 17).
82
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 15: The website in step three
Figure 16: Ice cards
Figure 17: School board of one of the winners
83
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Which factors contribute to the fact that we refer to this case as a
success? As mentioned above, we think that there are four factors which can
be used to measure success. We will now discuss these factors in order to
see if they can be applied to this co-creation campaign.
1. Level of participation
Looking at the level of participation we can see that it was high for this case.
There were more than 70.000 views of the website with more than 20.000
page views of the registration form, almost 8.500 people registered, around
4.000 people used the ‘tell a friend’ function and 10.000 ice cards (max.350
cards per day) were downloaded.
2. Sales
In terms of co-creation it is hard to measure the success of the campaign by
sale-percentages because the real pay-off of a co-creation is the awareness
and the bond with a brand or product. It is also difficult to make meaningful
statements on the effect of the school boards displaying the eight winners.
We can, however, say that the multi-media approach has resulted in
obtaining more than twice as many registrations as targeted (4.118 versus
8.465 registrations) and also in a significant reach (as mentioned above). We
can also mention again the number of ice cards that were downloaded. We
can conclude that this criterion for a successful campaign was also met.
3. Quality of the response
The quality of the response was very high. The girls who were photographed
took the contest very seriously and did their best to present themselves as
‘natural’ as possible, which was one of the criteria required to win the
contest.
4. Level of control
NIVEA Visage Young and TBWA\Brand Experience Company kept the level of
control in this competition fairly strict. They chose the contestants, and they
decided who won the contest. They also let the girls be photographed by a
professional photographer instead of letting the girls send in their own
picture. In this way they also made sure that the pictures on the website
were of good and equal quality.
84
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
When we look at the factors that determine the success (level) of a cocreation campaign, we see that all the four factors are reflected in this case.
Thus, we can conclude that this case is an example of a successful campaign.
Since we have already defined which media were used in the three steps of
co-creation, we can see if the success of this campaign can be explained by
the choices made in media usage. To do so we will compare the chosen
media in each step with the results from the quantitative part of this thesis.
When we look at the most appropriate media to approach people in the
age category 16-25 presented in the results of the quantitative part of this
thesis, we can see they are best reached by magazines, papers and events.
When looking at the NIVEA Visage Young campaign, we see that they used
the medium magazine in two ways: they placed advertisements in various
magazines and the magazine ‘Fancy’ additionally published an editorial. The
campaign did, however, not use the media paper or event, but school cards
were used, which also are printed media like magazines and papers. Displays
are also promotions in a physical surrounding which could be compared with
a stand at an event. The adopted school cards and displays, therefore, have
some of the same functionalities as a paper or an event which might explain
the success of the campaign at least within the first step of co-creation. We
cannot, however, make any reliable scientific statement about this because
school cards and instore displays were not analyzed in this thesis. When we
look at other factors that make this choice of media successful, we can see
that the target group was addressed in a very direct manner. The magazines
and the websites where the advertisements were placed, were chosen
specifically in order to attract the attention of the target group that NIVEA
wanted to reach. In this way the media budget was used as in a very efficient
manner as there were no unnecessary expenses caused by accidentally
reaching the wrong target group. Due to the more than 20.000 page views of
the registration form we can conclude that the right mixture of media made
this first step a success.
According to the research presented above people prefer to respond
via magazines, papers or e-mail. The possibilities to respond offered by
85
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
TBWA\Brand Experience Company and NIVEA were through the website and
by participating in the event. Both of these possibilities were not positioned
in the top three of the most appropriate media for step two. Nevertheless, it
was a successful approach since almost 8500 people registered and around
4000 people used the ‘tell a friend’ function. From the 280 people who were
invited 173 actually showed up and 12.000 free samples of the product were
given away. With respect to the media chosen in this specific case,
responding through an event scored relatively high in the research but
responding via an internet site is not highly appreciated. Hence, it is
surprising that so many people actually visited the website and filled out the
registration form. Intuitively, we suggest that this might be due to the fact
that young girls have a certain desire to become famous and want to be
‘discovered’, as can be seen in the success of American Idol and other talent
searching shows. Maybe this incentive was therefore so powerful that it did
not really matter that not the most appropriate medium was used, and the
campaign itself was strong enough to compensate for this sub-optimal media
choice.
According to the quantitative research, the best media to broadcast the
final communication message for people aged between 16 and 25 are
television, radio and magazines. The success of the final communication
message as discussed by the magazine ‘Fancy’ is therefore not really a
surprise. The success of the school boards is explainable, since billboards
score relatively high in comparison with the rest of the media, even though
they are not ranked in the top three, and also because these school boards
can be referred to as high-profile media. The success of the internet site may
be explainable due to the fact that the participants were able to find their
own picture back on the site in addition to the fact that the magazine and
billboard directing back to it in the ads and editorials. According to the
research presented above an internet site scores average, but in this case
there were more than 70.000 views of the website, which is, when looking
purely at the results of the quantitative research, again a further unexpected
success. The real incentive for visiting the website could have also been the
86
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
high functionality, the chance to see your own picture and the possibility to
get free business cards.
When comparing the results from our quantitative research with a
successful co-creation communication case we see that there are many
things in common. Especially in step one and step three there are many
resemblances. Nevertheless, we are confronted with some unexpected
successes of media when we look exclusively at the media that were used. In
order to determine the criteria required for a successful co-creation campaign
we will now look at an unsuccessful campaign, followed by the presentation
of some meaningful in-depth interviews in section 6.2.
§6.1.2 Chevy Tahoe: An unsuccessful campaign
After having discussed a successful case of co-creation, it is wise to also look
at a campaign that went wrong. A typical example of this is the co-creation
campaign carried out by Chevrolet (‘Chevy’). In March, Chevy invited people
to create advertisements for the 2007 Tahoe, a new car model (see Figure
18). As part of the advertisement campaign for the new Tahoe, General
Motors teamed up with Donald Trump's 'The Apprentice' franchise in order to
create a website that allowed consumers to create and present their own
commercials online. The website where consumers are invited to make their
own commercial, chevyapprentice.com, was introduced as a promotional tie
to an episode of "The Apprentice" on NBC that featured the Tahoe in a
contestant challenge. This website allowed readers to select backgrounds,
video shots, input text and also offered so-called "Director's Tips". The
winners of the contest could win prizes ranging from a Jackson Hole Getaway
to a trip to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game.
87
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Figure 18: Chevy Tahoe
This co-creation case also consisted of three steps: Step one was
approaching people via television with an announcement in the show “The
Apprentice”. The goal was to get people to visit the website where they could
create their own advertisements. In Step two people could create their own
advertisement on the website chevyapprentice.com. The website itself
featured three parts that needed to be completed in order to finalize a
commercial. In the first part people had to pick their assets, in the second
they had to plan their commercial and in the third they had to pick their
soundtrack. In Step three the winner was chosen and the advertisement was
broadcasted on national television.
There were only two kinds of media used in this co-creation campaign:
television and an internet website. Step one and three were carried out via
television and step three via a movie which had to be created on the website.
These kinds of media are averagely appreciated according to the quantitative
research presented above. Although the level of response was fairly high (the
contest ran for four weeks and drew more than 30.000 entries) and some
touted the vehicle's numerous selling points, the campaign did not succeed in
achieving its goal. Chevy invited anyone to create an advertisement, in an
open forum, without censoring the advertisements based on their viewpoint.
They adopted a position of openness and transparency, and consumers took
the pitch. Because the entries were not censored, some people seized this
opportunity to mock SUVs as a cause of global warming, as a danger on the
88
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
highway, and as a source of social injustice. There are now some 4 dozen
Tahoe advertisements featured on the website YouTube which are mostly
anti-Tahoe. Chevy originally said it would keep the negative advertisements
online, but eventually took them off.
If we look again at the four factors that measure the success of a
campaign we see that, in contrast to the NIVEA campaign, this case can only
claim to be successful with regard to one of these four factors. We will now
discuss these factors one by one:
1. Level of participation
This first criterion to measure success is actually the only one that is met.
The contest ran for four weeks and managed to draw more than 30.000
entries on the official website and also some 4 dozen entries on YouTube, a
response rate that is relatively high.
2. Sales
Unfortunately there is no way to measure if the sale of the Chevy Tahoe
increased, since this campaign was intended to launch the new Tahoe and
there were thus no figures available referring to sales prior to the co-creation
campaign. Besides this, as also already mentioned in the NIVEA case, it is
hard to measure the success of the campaign by sale-percentages because
the real pay-off of a co-creation is the awareness and the bond with a brand
or product.
3. Quality of the response
As already mentioned above, the whole idea was that the people submitting
a commercial would emphasize the vehicle’s main selling points, and
although some did, most consumers decided to do something totally different
with this opportunity. These unwanted entries subverted the Tahoe message
with references to global warming, social irresponsibility, as a danger on the
highway, war in Iraq, a source of social injustice, and the psychosexual
connotations of extremely large cars. We can thus conclude that the quality
of the response was very low, and that this is one of the two reasons why
this campaign has to be referred to as being unsuccessful.
4. Level of control
89
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
The level of control is the second factor of success responsible for the failure
of the Chevy campaign. Because Chevy wanted to adopt a position of
openness and transparency they invited anyone to create an advertisement,
in an open forum, without censoring the advertisements based on their
viewpoint. Therefore, Chevy had no control over the entries on their own
website. Due to the fact that people could send their movie to others, the
road was wide open to save them on a computer and upload them on
YouTube. Even when Chevy took the negative advertisements off the
website, they still flourished on YouTube. The campaign was carried out in
March 2007, and now, in September 2007, the unwanted advertisements can
still be found on YouTube, even though six months have passed in the
meantime.
So what went wrong with this campaign? Why was the quality of the
response so low? And why did the applied level of control not work in this
specific case? The media that were chosen in the different steps were all
appreciated averagely, something unlikely to be the root cause of the
problems. In order to get the actual answer while, at the same time, gaining
more insight into which issues (besides media choice and product category)
could influence the success of co-creation communication, we will present the
opinion of three marketing managers of big companies and three senior
managers of major advertising firms who give their opinion from a business
point of view.
§6.2 Qualitative research: Part two
§6.2.1 Enhanced insight derived from the in-depth interviews
In this part of the qualitative research we will try to shed some light on the
concept of co-creation from the business point of view and, at the same time,
try to explain some of the results from the quantitative part of this thesis.
The following paragraphs are derived from in-depth interviews with brand
and marketing managers from Philips, Sport 1 and Heineken4, and senior
4
Heineken is a big Dutch beer brand that also markets Amstel
90
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
managers from different companies within the TBWA group; TBWA\NEBOKO
(specialized in above-the-line advertising), TBWA\PR Company (specialized in
PR advertising) and TBWA\Brand Experience Company (specialized in
experience communication). We have spoken with: Lukas Kreutzer, Senior
Manager Global Advertising and Global Marketing Management Philips
International B.V., Lourens Kwakman, Head of Marketing Sport1 , Tanja
Manders, Sponsor Manager Marketing Heineken Nederland, Joost Vianen,
manager NEBOKO, Willem-Albert Bol, Management team senior consultant
PR company and Antonie van Schendel, managing partner Brand Experience
Company.
The managers from the TBWA group had already been involved in cocreation concepts, whereas of the brand and marketing managers only Tanja
Manders from Heineken had already gained some co-creation experience in
connection with the ‘Celebrate Football’ campaign carried out by Amstel (as
discussed in section 2.6 of this thesis). The interviews themselves consisted
of several basic questions which were used as a guideline (see appendix B).
In the following section the conclusion of the insights gained from the
interviews will be given, ordered by theme.
§6.2.2 First contact
When looking at the in-depth interviews we see that co-creation is a term
that both the marketing managers and the senior advertising managers are
all familiar with, either through advertising firms or through the media. Tanja
Manders of Heineken mentions it as one of the many marketing options, like,
for instance, viral marketing, creating an event etc., which can be chosen
when creating new customer experiences. Co-creation is in her view a
phenomenon that has been going around for some time, although it has only
recently been coined as ‘co-creation’. What therefore is new is that we are
now trying to define it as a ‘regular’ marketing tool. According to Antonie van
Schendel, this development has been a gradual process in which a number of
activities have been practiced in the past that have now acquired a single
mutual name: co-creation. This is mainly due to the new technologies and
91
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
new ways of communication. Companies are in search of their consumers, at
events, sponsoring opportunities and via new media. However, van Schendel
warns that there is a certain danger of overhyping co-creation and that
managers shouldn’t assume that consumers have fundamentally changed
and suddenly have a different view of the world: co-creation is just a way of
interacting with consumers. Joost Vianen also states that co-creation is
sometimes used purely as a way to generate publicity instead of a way to
establish meaningful external communication messages.
§6.2.3 Definition of co-creation
With respect to the definition of co-creation it is apparent that the marketing
managers of the companies had more difficulties in defining the concept than
the senior managers of TBWA. This might be explained by the fact that the
people who work at TBWA deal with advertising all the time and hence with
the different services and products within this field. Therefore, they are more
up-to-date with the latest trends due to the fact that they are constantly in
search of new ways and new means to design effective messages for their
clients. The senior manager of TBWA, Antonie van Schendel, defines cocreation as an interactive way of generating external communication for a
brand in cooperation with the consumer which is partly based on how
consumers think and what they feel. All the senior managers agree that
consumers increasingly define the image of a brand, which makes it
necessary for a company to focus on how consumers see the brand instead
of how they or the employees see the brand. Since consumers have to
approach the company, companies have to do something that attracts the
attention of the consumer. Consumers, on the other hand, feel the need for a
strong brand which they can identify themselves with. This contradiction
means that the companies have to search which way to go, while being
directed by the consumer, but, on the other hand, that they have to define
when they do this and with whom. Companies are looking for means to offers
things that attract attention of the consumer and, at the same time, are
92
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
trying to adapt to things that people enjoy. According to the marketing
managers, co-creation is all about creating a bond between the consumer
and the brand.
§6.2.4 Opinion on co-creation
When asking for an opinion on co-creation the answer given by the
marketing managers and the senior managers of TBWA differ significantly.
The marketing managers of the companies are in general positive about cocreation but mention explicitly some of the limitation, while the senior
managers of TBWA mention mostly why companies would want to co-create.
When looking at the opinion of the marketing managers we see that
Tanja Manders thinks that, although co-creation communication is an
interesting form of external communication, it is not suitable for every
situation and can also be a costly and time-consuming undertaking.
According to her, situations in which co-creation could be unsuitable are, for
instance, when there is a lot of negative publicity about the brand or when
the brand has a weak bond with the consumers. Lukas Kreutzer believes that
the decision to adopt co-creation communication also depends on the kind of
brand you’ve built and the kind of products you have. From the senior
managers Antonie van Schendel agrees with him by saying that when a
company is constantly introduces new products they have something
meaningful to communicate to their consumers, whereas the need for
innovative communication with their consumers decreases if they are not
planning to introduce any new products. These companies without product
innovations still want to communicate with the consumer: co-creation is a
new way but also a new reason to communicate with consumers. For
example, Lukas Kreutzer compares a beer brand with Philips and concludes
that ‘beer’ as a product often only differs marginally which makes it
necessary for brewing companies to be more innovative in the way they
communicate. In comparison, Philips produces very innovative products,
which means that they can afford to be less innovative in their way of
93
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
communicating due to the fact that they actually have something new to tell
about their products. In reference to the quantitative part of this thesis we
can see that this intuition does not coincide with the findings, whereby
innovative products are highly appreciated to co-create with. It could,
however, be the case that, although consumers appreciate co-creation with
innovative products, it is not really necessary for these products since they
might be also appreciated higher when introduced in traditional external
communication campaigns.
The answers of the senior managers of TBWA are totally different from
the answers listed above by the marketing managers of Philips, Sport 1 and
Heineken. As already mentioned, the answers from the senior managers of
TBWA rather embrace the reasons for co-creation from the point of view of a
company. According to Antonie van Schendel and Joost Vianen, companies
want to co-create in order to attain a better bond with the consumer, and to
involve consumers actively with the brand. Joost Vianen and Willem-Albert
Bol both suggest that companies also want to co-create because it is a hype
at this moment in time and it therefore generates a lot of publicity. WillemAlbert Bol explains this by stating that consumers are ready for co-creation:
they don’t merely want to consume anymore, but also want to have an
opinion on things which they are willing to share. Also, brands are looking for
a certain level of interactivity with their consumers. These opinions are in line
with the theoretical framework of this thesis. We are now situated in breakeven point five of Thijssen (2004), the experience revolution, and the society
is developing towards the last stability layer, the era of communicative self
direction (as discussed above, Cornelis, 1988). Hence, we are now ready to
give our own direction to the fulfillment of our existence, and are thus open
to co-creation. According to Boswijk et al. (2005), the managers and
employees have to create experiences in cooperation with the consumers,
employees and partners, and, like Willem-Albert Bol mentioned, companies
are looking for interaction.
94
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§6.2.5 Conditions for co-creation
When asking about the conditions which are of importance for co-creation,
we again can see a huge difference between the answers given by the
marketing managers of companies, and those given by the senior managers
of TBWA. The marketing managers all give answers which refer to the
consumers, whereas the senior managers from TBWA answer this question
with the company in mind. I think that in the process of co-creation both
aspects have to be kept in mind and the combination of these answers
provides a complete picture of the conditions required for co-creation.
The marketing mangers suggest that a certain need has to exist in the
mind of the consumer. Next to this need, there has to be a certain desire to
co-create, the opportunity to co-create and an appropriate environment. The
success factors for co-creation would be a certain need, a passion, and
various other conditions, like believing that the final message will be
displayed, the way the people appreciate a brand and the time the
consumers have to spend on the co-creation process, since some aspect has
to be very tempting for people to spend their time on it. The quality of the
creative briefing is, according to Lukas Kreutzer, also very important, since it
is crucial to inspire people because they have to be enthusiastic with regard
to the planned co-creation. Creating a good briefing for a single creative
team is already difficult since it has to be made both inspiring and clear, but
creating a briefing for a large diversified consumer population is an even
greater challenge. Companies have to be very critical when designing a cocreation message, and they have to choose their target group very carefully.
In contrast to the answers listed above which all have the consumer in
mind, the senior managers of TBWA answer, as already mentioned above,
this question with the company in mind. According to all three senior
managers of TBWA a company really has to want to know what the target
group thinks and does. The co-creation process has to be target group
specific, original and fit in with the rest of the external communication. With
co-creation, companies have the advantage of being the first mover: if they
95
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
are the first to carry out a certain kind of action they are seen as original and
innovative and people appreciate that. Companies have to make the cocreation original and special: it has to trigger the consumers in order to make
them react. These managers of TBWA agree on the fact that companies have
to give a good direction to their co-creation message, i.e. that they should be
careful not to make it too open but at the same time to maintain a certain
degree of freedom in the process.
§6.2.6 Factors that contribute towards the success or the failure of a cocreation campaign
As discussed in part one of this qualitative framework, co-creation can either
succeed or fail. The theoretical framework and the quantitative part of this
thesis offer no full explanation with regard to why some co-creation
campaigns go wrong and others go right. Every co-creation has, according to
all interviewees, a certain risk. In the context of co-creation you ask people
what they think of your brand. Their answer could be negative, but, on the
other hand, a certain degree of transparency is also appreciated nowadays,
as already became apparent in the principle of Transparency derived from
the DART principle introduced in the theoretical framework (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 2004).
One of the most important things is the tone of voice which a company
uses to communicate. If they communicate positively and people sense the
positive character, they are tempted to react in a positive manner.
Companies also have to see how they are presented in the media: if, for
instance, there is a scandal regarding their brand or product category, it is
likely that this will be at the top of the minds of the consumers and if this is
the case, it would not be smart to co-create. This could be an explanation for
why the Chevy co-creation campaign was a failure (see paragraph 6.1.2).
Chevy wanted to co-create in a time where the discussion of global warming
and pollution was at the top of the minds of the consumers.
When you have a strong brand identity you know more or less what
co-creation is going to do. If, however, companies are planning to use co-
96
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
creation to reinforce their brand it is difficult to predict how the consumers
will react to the brand. This might turn out alright, but could also go wrong.
There are two ways to co-create according to Lukas Kreutzer: either the
company controls the strategic side (like, for instance, the brand positioning)
of the co-creation process strictly and they let the consumer only develop the
creative side (like with the ‘Celebrate Football’ campaign, see paragraph 2.8)
or they let the strategic side a little bit more loose so people can take part in
the development of, for instance, the brand positioning (as exercised by
Converse in the making of their new commercial: there are virtually no limits
to what is possible, and what the statement is5 (www.converse.com,
consulted on 08-16-2007)). This last option is obviously more risky than the
first option and is more likely to go wrong. Antonie van Schendel's opinion is
that this last option is not very recommendable, since companies have to
realize who they are as a brand: this is not a aspect where co-creation should
be performed. They first need to establish their brand identity before they
can co-create. Co-creation is something totally different to the qualitative
research which companies conduct when they are not sure about their brand
identity and they want to ask their consumers. Converse is able to do this
due to the fact that their brand identity is strong and their consumers are
aware of the type of movies expected by Converse, while at the same time
Converse maintains a high level of control on the actual broadcasting of the
movies. They decide which movie is broadcasted and which is not. This level
of control will we discussed in the following section.
A risk that can be controlled, and that is mentioned by both the
marketing mangers and the senior managers of TBWA, is the level of control
that you have over the co-creation campaign. However, the level of
interference on behalf of the company and the level of freedom from the
customer’s side, in sum, have to favour the customer for a real co-creation
communication process to develop. When consumers have a lot of freedom,
As the website states: Create an original 24-second film based on one of the Film Topics.
Show the shoe, don’t show the shoe-it’s up to you. We only ask that you keep it apolitical,
positive, original and inspiring. Think of it as a short film that celebrates the spirit of Converse
and the Chuck Taylor All Star shoe.
5
97
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
the company has little control and there is more risk that the co-creation
campaign might go wrong. With respect to co-creation, companies always
have a certain risk, but nowadays, according to the interviewed managers,
they have to take that risk in order to be inventive. Companies always have
to consider to which extent they are willing to give up their control. Control
can be gained, for example, by rules or a by making a selection when
publishing the input. As an example, the co-creation experience of Amstel’s
‘Celebrate Football’ (paragraph 2.8) did both. First of all, they gave some
examples on the website on how they wanted their advertisement to look, so
that the public had a general idea about what Amstel wanted. During the
event there was a jury present which established some boundaries that,
when crossed, would have stopped the co-creation process (boundaries like,
for instance, streaking). They also selected the movies which were to be
shown on the website and they chose the final message to be broadcasted.
This control is for some companies necessary in order to reduce the danger,
and therewith the fear that the co-creation communication might turn against
them as seen in the Chevy Tahoe campaign. Not only is Chevy a good
example for what bad timing can do to your campaign, but it is also an
example for how the level of control can reduce or enhance the success of a
campaign. In the Chevy campaign the company on one hand kept too much
control by precisely providing the content, while on the other hand they had
too little control by allowing every movie to be presented on the website.
Although a co-creation campaign which goes wrong is of course not pleasant,
all the managers agree that the results which can be derived from cocreation are worth the risk.
§6.2.7 Ways of co-creation
There are multiple ways of carrying out co-creation as all three senior
managers of TBWA agree suggest, but what was not mentioned at all by any
of the marketing mangers of the companies. In the first case of co-creation,
the brand is directly in touch with the consumer, like, for instance, in the
case of Caesar with their ‘I look like my dog contest’ (see appendix A). The
98
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
second way is to co-create through a theme, like, for instance, Amstel did by
using the theme ‘football’ in the ‘Celebrate Football’ campaign. The third way
of co-creation is through a medium, a good example of this is what Chevy did
in their cooperation with the television show 'The Apprentice'. The last way of
co-creation is the cooperation between two brands like, for instance, the
KNVB and Ajax could do since they are in the same field of ‘products’.
§6.2.8 Reasons for people to co-create
The opinions on the reasons for people wanting to co-create differ with
respect to the answers given by the different managers, and there is no real
difference between the marketing managers from the companies and the
senior managers from TBWA. The one thing that the three managers of
TBWA and Tanja Manders agree on is that co-creation satisfies the exposure
need of the consumers. It is a way of expressing their creativity, being given
the chance to be seen and heard, and being different to the rest: it is a weak
form of a kind of exhibitionism. Antonie van Schendel and Willem-Albert Bol
agree in their opinion that people want to co-create partly because of the
prize they can win as a reward for their contribution. According to WillemAlbert Bol, people make a change calculation. According to Lourens
Kwakman, people probably co-create because they think it is an interesting
new concept. In this context, he sees so-called ‘innovators’, i.e. people who
are the fastest to adapt to new media and gadgets, as the most likely group
of people to participate. According to Lukas Kreutzer, co-creation is for many
people a platform to express their personal thoughts and feelings about
certain things and share these with the world. All managers agree that the
willingness to participate in co-creation has something to do with the bond
that people have with a brand. They have to have a high feeling of
connective involvement with the brand, it has to touch their minds and their
hearts. The more emotion there is in a category, the bigger the chance that
people will respond in positive manner. It also has to do with a certain
theme, a certain moment, like, for instance, the emotion that people were in
99
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
at the ‘Celebrate Football’ campaign (a celebrating kind of state). This means
that the product isn’t the most important factor; it is far more the experience
that the product is attached to. This is in line with the opinion of Pine and
Gilmore (1999) who suggest that as soon as a country reaches a certain level
of prosperity the attention shifts from goods and services to ‘experiences’.
Experiences are, as already mentioned in the theoretical framework,
products, modes of communication, and marketing campaigns that dazzle
people’s senses, touch their hearts, and stimulate their minds. They can
relate to these and incorporate them into their lifestyles (Schmitt 1999).
Personally, I think that the reason why people are willing to co-create has to
do with all the reasons named above. I think that it differs with regard to
which reason is more important than the other, because this relies on the
character of the consumer.
§6.2.9 Co-creation and product category
When a company wants to co-create it has to take several things into
account. Antonie van Schendel mentions some basic questions that a
company has to ask when wanting to co-create. Who am I? How can I cocreate? Why do I want to co-create? With what product category do I want to
co-create? Who is my target group?
With respect to the product category, the managers are not surprised
about most of the results from the quantitative research. They say that
people want to co-create with personal brands and branches. The results
from the quantitative part of this thesis are thus explainable because
clothing, shoes and innovative products are found to be products of high
interest. The categories that score low are fast-food and house supplies,
which have nothing to do with image and besides this, fast-food has a lot of
negative connotations that people don’t want to be associated with. With
regard to house supplies the involvement in co-creation is also very low,
which basically means that people don’t feel the need to co-create with
something they do not really care about or see as a necessity. The
100
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
interviewed managers are, however, surprised that sport scores so low
because this is a product of a fairly high interest and has proven to be
suitable for co-creation in the past. The problem could be that the term
‘sport’ is just too broad. If you make it more specific, for instance co-create
with Young Orange6, people can picture something with it and will maybe
more willing to co-create. The fact that the government scored so high, didn’t
come as a surprise to the managers. Their opinion was that the government
is something that most people form an opinion about which they want to
share with other people.
§6.2.10 Co-creation and age
Intuitively, the marketing managers thought that age did not really matter
with respect to co-creation, with their opinion being that it is dependent on
specific cases. However, if we look in general at the age of the target group,
the three managers explain the result of the quantitative research by means
of the contradiction between old and young. The willingness of the age group
of 26-45 year olds to co-create might originate from their urge to state their
opinion. They might also have a bigger brand loyalty in comparison to the
younger age group which still shifts between brands. People 26 to 45 years
of age are also more technological-savvy and might still have the drive to
change things. Older people might be more hesitant to co-create due to the
fact that they are more reluctant in giving out information. This can be
overcome by formulating the right level of action in order to ensure that all
conditions of the co-creation experience are clear. Furthermore, the older age
category stems from a different generation where ‘displaying’ themselves
and their opinion wasn’t as common as it is nowadays with phenomena like
MySpace, Facebook and Hyves. In the case of a very personal bound cocreation concept, the managers expect that this would rather be something
for the younger age groups because they have a higher need to show
themselves, whereas the older age category sees this as being too personal.
6
Young Orange is the Dutch national football team for players under 24 years of age.
101
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
They also suggest that for most co-creations it is important to have at least
some technological skills, something that the older age category could be
lacking.
§6.2.11 Co-creation and media
With regard to the choice of media the managers also think that it depends
on the situation, in which companies can be limited in their possibilities, due
to their media budget and the reach of the target group. In general, it is not
much different from ordinary media strategies: it is crucial to take into
account who you are dealing with and why you are dealing with them.
According to Lukas Kreutzer, a co-creation communication media strategy is,
in essence, similar to a strategy developed for a promotional campaign. In
both cases you want people to respond positively. It is important that the
media to respond is easily accessible. The managers weren’t surprised that emails, letters and events scored so high when approaching people, due to the
fact that these are all personal communication means. Although they are
personal they are by no means intrusive and people can decide by
themselves if they want to take notice of the information. The fact that email scores lower with the young age category is, according to Willem-Albert
Bol, explainable due to the fact that this medium is, in a way, similar to the
traditional letter: you write something, to somebody, about something. The
younger age category tends to favor more open means of communication
like, for instance, MSN or Hyves. The fact that mass media is so popular in
step three is also explainable according to the managers, because mass
media offer the biggest stage. Hence, it is appropriate for their urge to
expose themselves. The managers were not surprised that telephone and
SMS scored so low; their opinion is that those media are too intrusive and
that people want to co-create according to their own personal schedule, i.e.
they want to have the option to inform themselves about it and they want to
have the time to think about it.
102
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§6.2.12 The future of co-creation
The last thing that we will discuss in this qualitative part of the research is
the added value of co-creation communication and the expected future of
this concept. Tanja Manders places the co-creation communication practice in
the light of the mass communication theories referring to a certain flow. Cocreation communication fits in with the whole theoretical background about
the sender of the message who is supposed to be in control, followed by the
receiver who has the control, the medium that controls the message and vice
versa. Co-creation communication is the next step in this flow; an equilibrium
between the control of the sender and the receiver. The control lies in the
middle and all parties have equal power. According to all the interviewed
managers, co-creation communication leaves a bigger imprint in the minds of
the consumers than some other ordinary external communication means.
There is a strong belief that when a brand has a bigger imprint in the minds
of the consumers the effect that the brand has is also stronger. All managers
say that co-creation is something from this age, and that it is an innovative
way of communicating. They refer to co-creation as a new tool in the toolbox
of the field of external communication, which is used now and will continue to
be used in the future. Although co-creation has all the characteristics of a
hype, it is nevertheless likely that it will be here to stay.
103
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§7 Conclusion
§7.1 Conclusion: Quantitative part
Before we can answer the main question of this research we first have to
recapitulate on the expectations of our hypotheses and compare these
expectations with the actual results of the research. In accordance with our
expectations stated in the hypotheses one and two, most people appreciate
co-creation. However, although the majority is open towards co-creation,
most of them are not sure if they would actually be willing to participate in it.
Our third hypothesis became partly true. We expected that ‘written’
media and personal interaction during an event would be appreciated the
highest. However, it turned out that people most appreciated an approach
through a letter, an e-mail and an event. Although we expected the internet
to be appreciated highly this turned out not to be the case. An internet site
scored significantly lower than an approach via an e-mail, a letter, an event,
and a magazine. All the different media correlate with each other, but
because there are not many high correlations it is safe to say that the
consumers are aware of the differences between the various media. Due to
the fact that there are a large number of significant differences between the
different media it is safe to say that co-creation communication depends a
great deal on the media chosen to approach the consumer.
Hypothesis four also became partly true, since we expected that
people would be most willing to respond via e-mail and which turned out to
be the case. However, we did not expect that people would also be highly
willing to respond through a magazine or a paper, because they belong to the
more ‘traditional’ media. We also expected that people would be willing to
respond through an internet site, but it turned out that people were in fact
more willing to respond through an e-mail, a letter, an event, a paper and a
magazine. We can again state that people are aware of the difference
between these media since not many types of media correlate highly with
each other. Due to the fact that there are again such a large number of
significant differences between the different media it is also safe to say in
104
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
this context that co-creation communication depends a great deal on the
media chosen for the consumers to respond.
With regard to the fifth hypothesis the expectations also came partly
true. We expected intuitively that high-profile media would be appreciated
highly, especially the television and magazines. Again, there are not many
high correlations which means that people are able to differentiate between
the different media. The results showed that the television, the radio and
magazines are mostly appreciated in comparison to the other media. And
although a billboard is also highly appreciated, it was not predicted that
people would prefer an approach via radio over an approach via a billboard.
Because there are a large number of significant differences between the
different media, it is again safe to say that co-creation communication
depends a great deal on the media chosen for the consumers to respond.
The results on the product categories partly corresponded to the sixth
hypothesis. The product categories that scored the highest were shoes,
beverages and innovative products. Shoes, beverages7 and innovative
products all reflect the image of the consumer. There are a large number of
significant differences between the different product categories but, on the
other hand, there are also a number of high correlations. We can predict that
co-creation communication depends a great deal on the product group that
the product category belongs to and to a lesser extent on the product
category that the company belongs to.
Despite our expectations that a younger age group would be more
willing to participate in, and, at the same time, more appreciative of cocreation, it turned out that the age group 56-65 appreciates co-creation
significantly higher than the age group 36-45. But in accordance with this
hypothesis the results show that people in the age category 26-35 are the
most open to co-creation, whereas people in the age category 56-65 are the
least open to co-creation. It is remarkable that people in the age category
56-65 appreciate co-creation highly, but are least open to it. Age doesn’t play
7
Beverages are a reflection of image because, for instance, buying Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola says
something about your image. Buying Heineken instead of wine says something about your personality as
well.
105
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
a role in the willingness to co-create, since there were no significant
differences between age groups.
We also expected that print media such as letters, papers and
magazines would be more appreciated by the older age categories, and that
the internet, the television, the radio and billboards would be more
appreciated by the younger age categories. The results show that the
appreciation
of
media
depends
on
each
step
of
the
co-creation
communication process. Nevertheless, they have one point in common: the
age group 56-65 is significantly more negative about the different media
than the age groups 16-25, 26-35 and 36-45. For the age group 56-65 the
appreciation of an approach via television, newspapers, magazines and by
radio is significantly lower than most of the other age groups. They are also
significantly more negative about the option of responding via the radio, the
television, an e-mail, an internet site, newspapers and magazines, while they
appreciate the company transmitting their message via the radio, the
television, magazines and billboards significantly lower than most of the
other age groups.
With respect to the willingness to respond in relation to different
product categories we can see again that the age group 56-65 is most
negative about this, since they significantly show less appreciation for cocreating with the product categories food, car, clothing, internet services,
innovative products, information/entertainment, shoes and health/beauty
than most of the other age groups. The age groups 26-35 and 36-45 are
more positive about co-creating with these product categories.
The results show that age does play a role in the appreciation and the
willingness of consumers for co-creation. Although the age group 56-65
appreciates co-creations the highest they are the most negative group with
regard to their openness, their appreciation and willingness of different media
and there willingness to participate with different product categories.
With the answers of these) sub-questions in mind, we have already answered
the main question of this research: ‘To what extent do people appreciate co-
106
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
creation communication and are they willing to participate in it?’ Most of the
people appreciate co-creation but are not sure if they actually want to take
part in it. This willingness/appreciation does, however, differ with respect to
the media chosen in every step, the product category and the age of the
consumer.
§7.2 Conclusion: Qualitative part
The success and the failure of co-creation in the two given cases can be
partly explained by the factors discussed in the quantitative part of this
research. The discussion of the cases, however, left certain questions on
what determines the success or the failure of a co-creation campaign, and
how companies can control this success or failure, unanswered. Looking at
the in-depth interviews we can see that there are numerous factors that
influence the co-creation concept. These in-depth interviews also delivered
numerous valuable insights into co-creation communication.
Co-creation is a term used for a practice that has already been carried
out for a longer period of time, but that just recently has been called cocreation and is defined as a marketing tool. It is an interactive way to
generate an external communication message for a brand in cooperation with
the consumer. Moreover, the consumers define the brand, which means that
companies have to focus on how consumers see the brand rather than how
they see their own brand. Co-creation is not suitable in every situation and
can also be a costly and time-consuming practice. Co-creation is a new way,
but also a new reason, for companies to communicate with their consumers.
Companies want to co-create to attain a better bond with the consumer, and
to involve the consumer actively with the brand.
Consumers are willing to co-create because they do not merely want
to consume anymore. They now have an opinion about things and are willing
to express that opinion. In their minds the consumers sense a certain need to
express themselves. Next to this need there has to be a certain desire to cocreate, the opportunity to co-create, an appropriate environment to co-create
107
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
and a prize that they can win by participating. The willingness to co-create is
also connected to the bond that people have with a brand. Consumers also
have to have a high feeling of connective involvement with the brand.
The success of co-creation is dependent of the quality of the creative
briefing of the company, the sincerity, if a company really wants to know
what the target group thinks and does, the tone of voice in which the
company communicates with the consumer, and the co-creation message has
to be target group specific, original and fit in with the rest of the external
communication. Factors that companies have to take into account when cocreating are how they are displayed in the media, if they have a strong brand
identity, and the level of control that they have over the co-creation
campaign. However, the level of interference on behalf of the companies and
the level of freedom from the customer’s side have to favour the customer
for a real and successful co-creation communication process to take place.
There are multiple ways of co-creation: the brand in direct contact
with the consumer, co-creation through a theme, co-creation through a
medium and co-creation through the cooperation between two brands.
Looking at the influence of various factors on co-creation we can see that the
product category has influence on the appreciation and willingness, since
people want to co-create with personal brands and branches. The
appreciation and the willingness to co-create with brands and product
categories are related to image. The influence of age is only relevant with
respect to the contradiction between old and young. Finally, when looking at
the choice of media we see that personal communication means are
appreciated highly in step one. In step three the mass media are appreciated
highly due to the fact that mass media offer the biggest stage, which is
appropriate for the consumers' urge to expose themselves. Telephone and
SMS scored low because they are seen as being too intrusive whereas people
prefer to co-create according to their own schedule, they want to have the
option to gather information about it and want the time to digest it.
Co-creation communication leaves a bigger imprint in the minds of the
consumers than ordinary communication means. It is strongly believed that
108
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
when a brand has a bigger imprint in the minds of the consumers the effect
that the brand has is also stronger. Co-creation is a new tool in the toolbox of
the field of external communication and will continue to be used in the
future. Hence, it is a hype that is here to stay.
§8 Discussion
Although this research offers some interesting results there are of course
also several shortcomings. The first is that this research has cultural
boundaries. It can only be generalized with regard to the Dutch population,
which means that it could have produced different results in other countries.
The frequencies of male and female participants and the different levels of
educational weren’t evenly divided, which meant we could not make
meaningful statements about these factors.
Because it is a first exploratory research the results are quite broad
and additional research is required to gain more meaningful insights into the
specific product categories which people would be most interested in
participating in the co-creation communication process.
For supplementary research referring to the quantitative part of this
thesis, we suggest that, due to the high correlation between the product
categories, more global product categories should be created, which could be
achieved by conducting a factor analysis. It could also be interesting to see if
there are relations between the appreciation/willingness of the media and the
three steps, if, for example, the combination of radio in step one, e-mail in
step two and television in step three is more appreciated than other
combinations. In addition, it would be interesting, if it turned out that there
are certain media combinations that prove to be successful, to see if these
media combinations can be linked with certain product categories. Concluding
the discussion of quantitative part of the research, it would be interesting to
see if there are certain patterns referring to the choice of media and if these
patterns can be linked with the product categories or product groups.
109
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
For supplementary research referring to the qualitative part of this
thesis, it would be interesting to ask the consumers open questions about
their media preference, their product category preference and their overall
opinion on this new external communication tool. It would also be interesting
to conduct in-depth interviews with consumers who have taken part in cocreation
and
ask
about
their
experience
and
the
motives
of
their
participation. Besides this, further research could also conduct more in-depth
interviews with marketing managers who have already had more experience
with co-creation, and with marketing managers who have already had
negative experiences with co-creation. One could also carry out a corpus
analysis of co-creation cases in order to gain a more detailed insight into this
phenomenon.
In addition to the previous points for further research, we would also
like to pay some attention to a factor that could also influence the
appreciation and willingness to co-create and which already arose in the
qualitative part of this thesis, namely the role a brand plays in the
appreciation and the willingness of the consumers to take part in co-creation
communication. This matter should be taken into account in supplementary
research. We will now use this discussion in order to introduce different
aspects of ‘brand awareness’ and their possible importance influence on cocreation.
A brand is something that resides in the minds of consumers. To brand
a product or a service it is necessary to give consumers a label for the
product and to provide the consumers with a certain meaning for the brand.
Branding involves creating mental structures and helping consumers to
organize their knowledge about products and services in a way that clarifies
their decision-making and, in the process, is of value to the firm. The key to
branding is that consumers perceive differences between brands within a
product category (Keller 2003). Branding could be important for co-creation
communication due to the fact that brands have are created by image or
other non-product-related factors, meaning that, besides product categories,
brands might also play an important role. Some brands remain stronger in
110
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
the minds of consumers than others. But does this have any effect on the
willingness of the consumers to co-create? According to Antonie van
Schendel, there is ‘no co-creation without a strong brand’, but is this really
the case?
To determine this, a so-called ‘strong’ brand needs to be defined. To
define this term, it is necessary to view the manner in which a strong brand
is created. According to the Customer-Based Brand Equity model, the socalled CBBE model (Keller 2002), a strong brand can be thought of in terms
of a sequence of steps. These steps are shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid, Keller 2002
Brand Salience is related to the brand awareness, the ability of the customer
to recall and recognize the brand. Brand Performance relates to the ways in
which the product or the service is attempted to meet the customers’ more
functional needs. Brand Imagery deals with the extrinsic properties of the
product or the service, including the ways in which the brand is attempted to
meet the customers’ psychological or social needs. Brand Judgments focus on
the customers’ personal opinions and evaluations with regards to the brand.
Brand Feelings are the customers’ emotional responses and reactions with
respect to the brand. Brand Resonance has to do with the ultimate
111
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
relationship and level of identification that the customer has with the brand.
It refers to the nature of this relationship and to the extent to which
customers feel that they are “in sync” with the brand. Figure 20 displays the
sub-dimensions of these steps.
Figure 20: Sub-dimensions of Brand Building Blocks, Keller 2002
In the context of co-creation communication especially the steps of
judgments and feelings are of great importance, they focus on customers’
personal opinions, evaluations, emotional responses and reactions with
respect to the brand. These two steps will be described in more detail here.
Brand
Judgments
focus
on
customers’
personal
opinions
and
evaluations with regards to the brand. Customers make all types of
judgments with respect to a brand, but the following four types of brand
judgments are particularly important: quality, credibility, considerations, and
superiority. Brand Feelings are the customers’ emotional responses and
reactions with respect to the brand. There are six important types of brandbuilding feelings: warmth, fun, excitement, security, social approval and selfrespect.
112
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
It would be interesting to see if the appreciation and the willingness to
co-create is related to brand judgments and brand feelings. Keller (2002)
developed a questionnaire that measures these two factors. Supplementary
research could be carried out in order to determine whether or not brand
judgments and feelings play an important role in co-creation
In the field of co-creation there are still a number of factors that can
be analyzed, and many questions that remain unanswered. This research is,
however, a first careful step in laying the first bricks in the unpaved road of
co-creation.
113
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
§9 Bibliography
Beck, D.E. & CC. Cowan (1996). Spiral Dynamics: Mastering values,
leadership, and change. Malden (MA): Blackwell Publishing.
Boswijk, A. & T. Thijssen, E. Peelen (2005). Een nieuwe kijk op de Experience
Economy. Betekenisvolle belevenissen. Amsterdam: Pearson Education
Benelux.
Bowen, D.E., W. Nie, D.L. Kellogg, & W.E. Youngdahl (2002). Revisiting
customer participation in service encounters: does culture matter?
Amsterdam: Elsevier science.
Brus, M. (2005). Wat weegt een schaal? Utrecht: Scriptie
Communicatiestudies.
Calvelage, S. & M. van Dijk (2003). XPM…De ontdekkingsreis in de wereld
van Experience Marketing. Amsterdam: Scriptie Vrije Universiteit.
Chellappa, R. & R. Sin (2005). Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical
Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma. Information Technolgy and
Management 6, 1818-202.
Cornelis, A. (1988). Logica van het gevoel. Stabiliteitsslagen in de cultuur als
nesteling der emoties. Diemen: Stichting Essence.
Daft, R. L. & R. J. Lengel (1986). Organizational information requirements,
media richness and structural design. Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5,
Organization Design (May, 1986), pp. 554-571.
Daft, R. L., R. H. Lengel & L. K. Trevino (1987). Message equivocality, media
selection, and manager performance: implications for information support
systems. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 355-366.
114
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Daft, R. L. & N. B. Macintosh (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount
and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units.
Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 207-224.
El-Shinnawy, M. & M.L. Markus (1997). The poverty of media richness
theory: explaining people's choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail.
International journal of human computer studies. Vol. 46, No. 4, pp: 443467.
Donabedian B., S. M. McKinnon & W. J. Bruns (1998). Task characteristics,
managerial socialization, and media selection. Management Communication
Quarterly. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 301 - 340.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973b). Designing Complex Organizations. Reading MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Griffin, E. (1991). A First Look at Communication Theory. A First Look at
th
Communication Theory . McGraw&Hill, 6 Edition.
Hill, K. & A. F. Monk (2000). Electronic mail versus printed text: the effects
on recipients. Interacting with computers. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 235-263.
Kalton, G., M. Collins & L. Brook (1978). Experiments in Wording Opinion
Questions. Applied Statistics, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 149-161.
Koeleman, H. (2003). Interne communicatie als managementinstrument,
Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom.
Kostelnick, C. & D. D. Roberts (1997). Designing Visual Language: Strategies
for Professional Communicators. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
115
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
March, J. G. & J. P. Olsen (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organization.
Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
Maes, F., N. Ummelen & H. Hoeken (1996). Instructieve teksten. Analyse,
ontwerp en evaluatie. Bussum: Coutinho.
Molenaar, N. J. (1982). Response-effects of "Formal" Characteristics of
Questions. Response behaviour in the Survey-Interview. Red: W. Dijkstra &
J. van der Zouwen. Academic Press. p. 49-84.
O‘Sullivan, E.L. & K.J. Spangler (1998). Experience Marketing, Strategies for
the Nem Millenium. Cato Avenue: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Pine II, B.J. & J.H. Gilmore (1999). The experience Economy, Work is theatre
and every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Pine II, B.J. & J.H. Gilmore (2002). E-Doc. The Experience IS the Marketing.
Louisville: BrownHerron Publishing.
Pine II, B.J., D. Peppers & M. Rogers (1995). Do You Want to Keep Your
Customers Forever? Markets of one; Creating Customer-Unique Value
through Mass Customization. Journal of Market-Focused Management. Vol. 5,
No. 4, pp. 309-330.
Prahalad, C.K. & V. Ramaswamy (2004). The future of competition. Cocreating unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Rees, van K. & K. van Eijck (2003). Media repertoires of selective audiences;
the impact of status, gender, and age on media use. Poetics, Vol. 31, No. 5,
pp. 465-490.
116
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access. The new culture of hyper capitalism
where all of life is a paid-for experience. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiental Marketing; How to get customers to sense,
feel, think, act, relate to your company and brands. New York: The free
Press.
Swenneker, W. (2006). Co-creatie; (g)een inhoudsloze hype? Amsterdam:
Afstudeeronderzoek Hogeschool voor Economische Studies,
Communicatiemanagement.
Thijssen, T.J.P. (2004). Gids voor persoonlijk ondernemen en innovatie.
Schiedam: Scriptum.
Tourangeau, R., J. Rips & K. Rasinski (2000). Selecting a Response: Mapping
Jugments to Survey Answers (H. 8). In: The psychology of Survey Response.
Cambridge: University Press.
Kalton, G., M. Collins & L. Brook (1978). Experiments in Wording Opinion
Questions. Applied Statistics, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 149-161.
Keller, L. K. (2002). Strategic brand management; Building, measuring and
managing brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Internet sources:
Lawer, C. (2006). Eight styles of firm-Customer Knowledge Co-Creation. OMC
groups insight. Internet publication:
http://www.theomcgroup.com/omcpapers/Eight%20Styles%20of%20FirmCustomer%20Knowledge%20Co-Creation.pdf, consulted on 04-12-07
117
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
http://www.trendwatching.com/trends/CUSTOMER-MADE.htm, consulted on
06-16-2007
http://www.xs4all.nl/opinie/2006/12/08/co-creatie-is-een-maatschappelijkthema/, consulted 04-10-2007
http://www.converse.com/index.asp?bhcp=1#madebyyou, consulted on 0816-2007
www.interbrand.nl, consulted on 06-19-2007
118
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Appendixes
Appendix A
https://www.directresearch.nl/v/s.php?dummy=zondertemptabel&id=3570
Dit onderzoek gaat over 'co-creatie'. Er volgt straks een korte introductie over 'co-creatie'.
Vervolgens worden er drie voorbeelden weergegeven van 'co-creatie'. Lees deze aandachtig
door.
Wat is co-creatie?
Bij Co-creatie vragen bedrijven aan mensen of zij de reclame voor het bedrijf willen maken.
Zo vragen bedrijven bijvoorbeeld soms aan hun klanten om zelf een reclamespotje te
maken, de naam van een nieuw product te bedenken of om een foto te maken die later in
een advertentie wordt gebruikt. Deze trend is sinds 2004 al in opkomst en vindt steeds vaker
plaats. De reden waarom bedrijven willen dat hun klanten meedoen aan co-creatie is omdat
mensen dan actief met het merk bezig zijn en de reclame echt laat zien hoe mensen over
een merk denken.
Co-creatie bestaat uit drie stappen;
Stap 1: Bedrijven benaderen mensen om te vragen of ze willen co-creëren.
Stap 2: Mensen gaan hierop in en maken of bedenken iets. Dit geven ze vervolgens terug
aan het bedrijf.
Stap 3: Het bedrijf gebruikt wat de mensen hebben gemaakt in hun reclame.
Om het nog iets verder uit te leggen volgen nu drie voorbeelden van co-creatie.
Voorbeeld 1:
Centraal Beheer Achmea; ‘Win je eigen Gouden Loeki!’
119
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Bij de actie ‘Win je eigen Gouden Loeki’ konden mensen hun eigen reclame
opsturen die daarna gebruikt werd op televisie als reclame voor Centraal Beheer
Achmea. De reclame moest wel grappig zijn en dezelfde slogan hebben als de rest
van de reclames;
‘Even Apeldoorn bellen’.
Uit ruim achthonderd inzendingen werd het idee van de Amsterdammer Frans van
Gerwen uitgekozen en werd samen met Van Gerwen het filmpje gemaakt.
(FILMPJE)
Voorbeeld 2:
Doritos; ‘You name the flavour’
Doritos gaf mensen de mogelijkheid de naam voor hun nieuwste smaak te bepalen. Mensen
konden suggesties insturen, en de suggestie waar het meest op werd gestemd werd
vervolgens de nieuwste naam van Doritos. Uiteindelijk werd het de naam ‘GeenStijl’.
Voorbeeld 3:
Cesar; ‘I look like my dog’
Bij de wedstrijd ‘I look like my dog’ konden mensen foto’s insturen van henzelf en hun hond.
De bedoeling was dat de mensen een foto opstuurden waarop zij erg op hun hond leken. De
beste inzendingen werden daarna gebruikt in de reclamecampagne.
120
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Hieronder volgt de vragenlijst over co-creatie. Het belangrijkste onderscheid in deze
vragenlijst is waardering en bereidheid. Waardering staat voor in hoeverre u iets gunstig
beoordeelt. Bereidheid betekent dat u bereid bent om ergens aan mee te werken.
Wanneer u dus wel iets waardeert, bent u niet altijd bereid er aan mee te werken. Zo kunt u
bijvoorbeeld de Cesar reclame waarderen omdat u hem misschien leuk of origineel vindt,
maar zou u bijvoorbeeld nooit zelf een foto opsturen omdat u geen 'honden-mens' bent, u
Cesar geen leuk merk vindt of omdat u niet zo graag met uw eigen gezicht in een advertentie
wilt komen.
121
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Heeft u al eens aan co-creatie gedaan met een bedrijf of organisatie?
Ja
Nee
In hoeverre staat u open voor co-creatie met een bedrijf of organisatie?
Open
Niet open
Co-creatie lijkt mij:
Eens
Deels eens
Neutraal
Leuk
Interessant
Leerzaam
Spannend
Grappig
Aantrekkelijk
Saai
Geef uw mening over de volgende stelling:
Ik zou best willen meewerken aan co-creatie
Helemaal niet
Niet
Misschien
Wel
Helemaal wel
De volgende vragen gaan over de drie stappen van co-creatie.
Deze vraag gaat over stap 1:
122
Deels
oneens
Oneens
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Een bedrijf benadert u om te vragen of u mee wilt werken aan co-creatie.
In hoeverre waardeert u het als een bedrijf u voor co-creatie zou benaderen via één van de
volgende kanalen?
1 = Niet
waarderen
2
3
5 = Zeer
waarderen
4
De radio
De televisie
De e-mail
Een geschreven brief
Een persoonlijke toenadering op een
evenement
Een internet site (in de vorm van een
banner, advertentie)
In hoeverre waardeert u het als een bedrijf u voor co-creatie zou benaderen via één
van de volgende kanalen?
1 = Niet
waarderen
2
3
5 = Zeer
waarderen
4
Een internet weblog
De SMS
De telefoon
De krant
Een tijdschrift
Billboards
De volgende vraag gaat over stap 2:
Stel u vindt het leuk om mee te werken aan co-creatie, en u gaat reageren.
In hoeverre bent u tot co-creatie bereid, als u via één van de onderstaande media kunt
reageren?
1 = Niet
bereid
123
2
3
4
5 = Zeer
bereid
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
De radio (bijv. het maken en insturen van een
eigen radio-spotje)
De televisie (bijv. het maken en insturen van
een eigen tv-spotje)
De e-mail
Een geschreven brief
Een persoonlijk gesprek op een evenement
Een internet site (in de vorm van een banner,
advertentie)
Nogmaals, in hoeverre bent u tot co-creatie bereid, als u via één van de onderstaande media
kunt reageren?
1= Niet
bereid
2
3
4
5 = Zeer
bereid
Een internet weblog
De SMS
De Telefoon
De krant (bijv. een eigen advertentie
maken)
Een tijdschrift (bijv. een eigen advertentie
maken)
De volgende vraag gaat over stap 3:
Het bedrijf gebruikt wat u heeft gemaakt/verzonnen in hun reclame.
In hoeverre waardeert u het als het bedrijf uw bijdrage gebruikt voor één van de volgende
zaken?
1 = Niet
waarderen
Een radiocommercial
Een televisiecommercial
Een e-mail
Een geschreven brief
Een persoonlijk gesprek of uitnodiging op
een evenement
124
2
3
4
5 = Zeer
waarderen
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Een internet site (in de vorm van een
banner, advertentie)
Nogmaals, in hoeverre waardeert u het als het bedrijf uw bijdrage gebruikt voor één
van de volgende zaken?
1 = Niet
waarderen
2
3
5 = Zeer
waarderen
4
Een internet weblog
Een SMS
Een Telefonisch gesprek
Een krantenadvertentie
Een tijdschriftadvertentie
Billboards
Bent u bij de volgende producten of diensten bereid tot medewerking aan co-creatie?
1 = Niet
bereid
2
3
5 = Zeer
bereid
4
Bank (bv. ING, ABN AMRO, SNS)
Overheid (bv. Postbus 51,
Belastingdienst, NS)
Dranken (bv. Coca Cola, Heineken,
Nescafe)
Fastfood (bv. Mac Donalds, Burger King,
KFC)
Huis benodigdheden (bv. Omo, Page,
Colgate)
Gezondheid en schoonheid (bv. Nivea,
Axe, Andrelon)
Kleding en schoeisel (bv. Nike, Ralph
Lauren)
Nogmaals, bent u bij de volgende producten of diensten bereid tot medewerking aan cocreatie?
1 = Niet
bereid
Informatie en Vermaak (bv. RTL5, De
Volkskrant, Radio 538)
125
2
3
4
5 = Zeer
bereid
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Sporten (bv. KNVB, Formule 1, Hockey)
Innovatieve producten (bv. Apple, Motorola,
Philips)
Internet diensten (bv. Google, YouTube, Yahoo
)
Kleding (bv. Levis, Louis Vuitton, H
Automerken (bv. Toyota, Mercedes, BMW)
Eten (bv. Kellogg's, Danone, Heinz)
Tenslotte volgen er nog drie achtergrondvragen.
Wat is uw geslacht?
Man
Vrouw
Wat is uw leeftijd?
Jonger 15
16 - 25 jaar
26 - 35 jaar
36 - 45 jaar
46 - 55 jaar
56 - 65 jaar
65+
Wat is uw hoogstgenoten opleiding?
Lager opgeleid (lo/lbo/vmbo/mavo)
Middelbaar opgeleid (MBO/HAVO/VWO)
126
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Hoger opgeleid (hbo/universiteit)
127
Master thesis-Co-creation communication
Dominique de Thouars
Appendix B
Kwalitatief onderzoek
-
Heeft u wel eens van co-creatie gehoord?
(uitleg co-creatie, incl. de drie stappen)
-
Wie zijn volgens u het meest geschikt om mee te co-creëren?
-
Is dit leeftijdsafhankelijk?
-
Is dit afhankelijk van het geslacht?
-
Is het afhankelijk van de productcategorie?
-
Is het afhankelijk van het merk?
-
Heeft u wel eens gekozen om met de consumenten te cocreëren?Waarom wel/niet?
Zo ja;
-
Wat heeft u precies gedaan? (Media etc.)
-
Waarom heeft u hiervoor gekozen?
-
Wat waren de verwachtingen?
-
Hoe beviel deze ervaring?
-
Hoe waren de resultaten?
-
Zou u het in de toekomst nog een keer doen?
Zo nee;
-
Zou u in de toekomst dit wel willen doen? Waarom wel/niet?
-
Met welke media zou u voorkeur uitgaan om dit te doen? Verschilt dit
per stap?
-
Zo ja; Welk medium voor stap 1. 2 en 3?
-
Wie zou u hiermee willen bereiken?
-
Wat zou u hiermee willen bereiken?
128