Co creation - a look around the corner of branding

Tine Grarup Master Thesis Corporate Communication June 2014

1/183

Acknowledgements

This thesis is an invitation to think differently about brand value creation and a ‘call to

action’ for other academics to take up the discussion and carry on the journey of

research on unfamiliar areas of the co-creation of value. Inspired by the relevance of the

concept of co-creation and its appearing future significance, this master thesis was

initiated. The field of study caught my attention especially with the work of the co-

creation pioneers Prahalad and Ramaswamy, and encouraged my motivation to take a

closer look and learn more. A thesis about co-creation naturally has many co-creators.

Thanks to everyone that has tapped in this co-creative process – my supervisor Anne,

the focus group and interview respondents, friends and family. You have truly

participated in co-creating this thesis.

/Tine

Enjoy the reading!


2/183

Abstract

This thesis is based on an interest in the concept of co-creation and its relation to the

field of branding. Inspired by the increasing relevance of co-creation and its appearing

future significance, the thesis attends identified research gaps and limited knowledge

on how the concept influences and is established within the branding paradigm. As a

consequence of postmodern consumer tendencies, with increasingly active and social

consumers, the ordinary notion of the ‘market’ is being challenged, and new modes of

value creation and interaction are needed. In this manner, the co-creation of value gains

relevance and attention. The purpose of this thesis is to unfold the complex concept of

co-creation from a consumer perspective and in the context of the branding paradigm,

and further contribute with new knowledge and a broader perspective to the field. In

this effort the thesis theoretically examines existing co-creation and further clarifies the

development of co-creation and its relation to and influence on the developing branding

paradigm. To uncover consumers’ understanding of the concept and brand value hereof,

qualitative research approaches of a focus group and supporting interviews are used to

explore meanings and discourses. The findings emphasize that a mutual ongoing brand

interaction, being the essence of co-creation, will positively affect consumers attitudes

towards co-creation and the likelihood of brand identification. Findings moreover

uncover that co-creation is not as straightforward among consumers as depicted in

theory; co-creation is a social construct with the understanding and value hereof being

individual and context-dependent. Based on the overall theoretical and empirical

findings a conceptual framework is generated providing a new setup for co-creation in

relation to brand value and identification, thus the thesis provides new insights and is

theory building with contributions to the field and study of co-creation. In the light of

the findings provided, the research further lends insight into the practice of managing

co-creation. With a social constructionist viewpoint the aim is not to arrive at certain

generalizable knowledge and provide closure, rather the study wishes build further

suspense and directions for future research.

Keywords: Co-creation, brand value, brand identification, mutual interaction, brand

relationship, social connections, postmodern consumer.

Total number of characters: 2.090


3/183

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 1 Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. 2 List of figures .................................................................................................................................... 5 List of tables ...................................................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Research background .................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Identification of research gaps .................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Research aim, questions and milestones ............................................................................... 8 1.4 Research scope and delimitations ........................................................................................... 9 1.5 Theoretical frame ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.6 Conceptual clarification ............................................................................................................ 11 1.7 Thesis structure – readers guide ............................................................................................ 12

2 Scientific methodology ............................................................................................................ 13

2.1 Scientific standpoint ................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Social constructionism ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Philosophical hermeneutics and the hermeneutic circle ........................................................ 15 2.1.3 Social constructionism and hermeneutics in this study .......................................................... 16

2.2 Introductions to the research methodology ...................................................................... 17

3 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................... 19

3.1 A postmodern context ................................................................................................................ 19 3.1.1 Postmodern consumer culture ........................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Consumer empowerment through social technologies ........................................................... 22

3.2 The transforming fields of branding ..................................................................................... 23 3.2.1 From a product to value perspective ............................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Towards a relational brand perspective ........................................................................................ 25

3.3 Co-creation – a new corner of branding .............................................................................. 27 3.3.1 The Co-creation design .......................................................................................................................... 31 3.3.2 Routes of co-creation .............................................................................................................................. 33 3.3.3 Motivation and value of co-creation ................................................................................................ 35

3.3.3.1 Consumer motivation for co-creation .................................................................................... 36 3.3.3.2 Brand motivation for co-creation ............................................................................................. 37

3.4 Brand identification through co-creation ........................................................................... 38 3.4.1 Interaction human-to-human ............................................................................................................. 39 3.4.2 Interaction as a social construction ................................................................................................. 40

3.5 Theoretical subset and conceptual framework ................................................................ 42

4 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................ 45

4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 45 4.1.1 Selection of respondents ....................................................................................................................... 46 4.1.2 Semi structured interviews ................................................................................................................. 47

4.2 Analytical strategy ....................................................................................................................... 48 4.3 Method reflections ...................................................................................................................... 51


4/183

4.3.1 Research evaluation and value ........................................................................................................... 52

5 Data analysis and discussion ................................................................................................. 54

5.1 The discourse of co-creation.................................................................................................... 54 5.1.1 Negotiating brands .................................................................................................................................. 57 5.1.2 Routes of co-creation .............................................................................................................................. 58 5.1.3 Customization as co-creation? ............................................................................................................ 61

5.2 Brand identification through co-creation ........................................................................... 62 5.2.1 Prior brand knowledge and relationship ....................................................................................... 66 5.2.2 Spoken discourse and social identity .............................................................................................. 69

5.3 Value assets of co-creation ....................................................................................................... 71 5.3.1 Brand relationship ................................................................................................................................... 73 5.3.2 Social peer connections ......................................................................................................................... 75 5.3.3 Utilization of the co-creation experience ....................................................................................... 77 5.3.4 Self-expression .......................................................................................................................................... 79

5.4 Co-creation requires trust and honesty ............................................................................... 81 5.4.1 Brand skepticism ..................................................................................................................................... 83 5.4.2 The question of brand Loyalty ............................................................................................................ 85

6 Analytical impact and perspective ...................................................................................... 87

6.1 Evaluation and further development of conceptual framework ................................ 87 6.2 Analytical perspective ................................................................................................................ 90

7 Conclusion & future research ................................................................................................ 91

7.1 Contribution to knowledge ...................................................................................................... 94 7.1.1. Theoretical Implications ...................................................................................................................... 94 7.1.2. Practical Implications ............................................................................................................................ 94

7.2 Limitations and future research ............................................................................................. 96

8 References .................................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix 1: Lawell’s Communication model ................................................................... 105 Appendix 2: Kotler’s Marketing Management ................................................................. 106 Appendix 4: Kapferer’s Brand Identity Prism.................................................................. 110 Appendix 5: Brand Personality ............................................................................................. 112 Appendix 6: Fournier’s relationship perspective ........................................................... 114 Appendix 7: Case examples for the focus group .............................................................. 116 Appendix 8: Nike+ case example .......................................................................................... 120 Appendix 9: Focus group guide ............................................................................................. 122 Appendix 10: Interview guide ............................................................................................... 127 Appendix 11: Transcription details and data coding .................................................... 130 Appendix 12: Focus group transcription ........................................................................... 132 Appendix 13: Transcription of interview with K ............................................................ 159 Appendix 14: Transcription of interview with R ............................................................ 166 Appendix 15: Transcription of interview with D ............................................................ 178


5/183

List of figures

Figure 1: The Hermeneutic Circle .......................................................................................................... 16

Figure 2: The developing perspective on branding ....................................................................... 27

Figure 3: The emerging concept of the market inspired by ........................................................ 29

Figure 4: Building blocks of co-creation of value ............................................................................ 32

Figure 5: Co-creation examples .............................................................................................................. 35

Figure 6: The developed relations perspective ................................................................................ 41

Figure 7: Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................... 43

Figure 8: Overview of empirical data ................................................................................................... 46

Figure 9: Analytical process .................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 10: Modification of co-creation examples ............................................................................ 60

Figure 11: Modified conceptual framework ...................................................................................... 87

Figure 12: Laswell’s communication model .................................................................................. 105

Figure 13: Elements in the communications process ................................................................. 106

Figure 14: Kotler’s marketing mix ...................................................................................................... 107

Figure 15: Aaker’s brand identity system ....................................................................................... 109

Figure 16: Kapferer’s Brand Identity Prism ................................................................................... 110

Figure 17: A brand personality framework .................................................................................... 112

Figure 18: Relationship strength ........................................................................................................ 114

Figure 19: The LEGO CUUSOO Process ............................................................................................. 116

Figure 20: Jury statements – Core77 2012 Design Awards ...................................................... 117

Figure 21: Illustrations of the BMW Co-creation Lab ................................................................. 118

Figure 22: Illustrations of the DANONE Activia Advisory Board ........................................... 119

Figure 23: The Nike+ brand and community ................................................................................. 120

List of tables

Table 1: Research milestones .................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2: Ontology, epistemology, and methodology ...................................................................... 13

Table 3: The shift in corporate and marketing thinking ............................................................... 31

Table 4: Suggested value assets of co-creation ................................................................................ 44

Table 5: List of interviewed respondents for the focus group ................................................... 47

Table 6: List of interviewed respondents for the individual interviews ................................ 47

Table 7: Overview of themes and subthemes used for analysis ......................................... 49-50

Table 8: Conversation fragment from focus group ......................................................................... 69

Table 9: Conversation fragment 2 from focus group ..................................................................... 80

Table 10: Kapferer’s six identity facets ........................................................................................... 111

Table 11: Included symbols in transcriptions ............................................................................... 130


6/183

1 Introduction

1.1 Research background

As a consequence of increasingly fragmented markets with postmodern consumers

being more connected, empowered and active, the ordinary notion of the ‘market’ is

being challenged (Roser et al., 2009: 4; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramaswamy &

Gouillart, 2010b: 3). Times have changed and focus within the market is shifting from

tangibles and towards intangibles, the previous focus on exchange of products and

services is being replaced by a focus on shared knowledge, interaction, and ongoing

relationships (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Recent research

has moreover addressed a shift in value creation and implied that consumers are

inherently creative and increasingly seek to co-create value through their consumption

patterns and social interaction (Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011; Ramaswamy &

Gouillart, 2010a; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b: 3; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004;

Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Arvidsson, 2011). Consumers are thus more than ever actively

seeking influence of the business system (ibid.). Together with new technologies, these

market changes further transform the nature of the relationship between brand and

consumers, as they are now creating “new modes of production and innovation that

enable and encourage greater degrees of participation and collaboration” (Roser et al.,

2009: 4). Consumers’ expectations of engagement, increased connectivity and

competiveness are therefore exerting pressure on brands to adopt more innovative

mindsets. These increasingly complex and dynamic market realities require brands in

today’s economy to continuously reinvent themselves and make better use of their

competences to sustain market positions and competitive strength (Rowley et al., 2007:

136; Christensen et al., 2005: 158).

“Consumers today have more choices than ever before, but they seem dissatisfied”

(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 5), they have, in line with the increasing supply and

availability, developed new requirements and emerging needs for involvement.

Moreover consumers get infuriated by irrelevant messages, and thus tend to block most

communication, giving the brands the deaf ear and blind eye (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2004). While brands are less able to differentiate themselves amongst the many

competitors and options, value-creation has become a dominant factor in establishing


7/183

growth (ibid.). More and more brands have approached proposed market changes and

taken up the creative potential that lies in jointly creating value with consumers, a

concept of growing interest and often referred to as ‘co-creation’ (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004; Gouillart, 2010; Hoyeret al., 2010). Co-creation flips the traditional

innovation model on its head, turning a sequential process into a parallel one (Yanning,

2011). By redefining the meaning and process of value creation, co-creation is told to

change the basis of value and the fundamental interaction between consumers and

brands (Roser et al., 2009; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Grarup, 2012). Thus brands

should recognize that the consumers are becoming a vital partner in creating value, and

need to make use of their competences to succeed in today’s postmodern marketplace

(Christensen et al., 2005: 164). Co-creation influences the way we see brands and

branding, connecting a subject merely associated with logos, packaging and advertising

with the focus and framework for innovation and interaction (Ind et al., 2012; Fisher &

Smith, 2011). This development of value creation has therefore not only changed the

notion of the market but is also argued to be challenging the branding paradigm and the

traditional and much used theoretical viewpoints herein.

1.2 Identification of research gaps

While the concept of co-creation has received increased recognition and academic

attention, there are still various aspects to be addressed in order to attain a full

understanding of the concept and for the field to progress (Hoyer etal., 2010; Arvidsson,

2011). This section will present some overall research gaps in need of further attention.

Co-creation has gained ground in recent years (Gouillart, 2010; Ramaswamy &

Gouillart, 2010b), and researchers anticipate that the emergent interactive market

perspective and the interest in co-creation will play a significant role in altering the way

the marketing sphere is perceived (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Degnegaard, 2014). However,

there is little literature on and considerations of how the concept influences and is

established within the more traditional branding paradigm (Fisher & Smith, 2011). A

reason hereto could be grounded in the fact that most innovators see branding as

proscribed, creating limits for the literature developments in relation to the branding

paradigm (Ind et al., 2012: 2). However if the ‘brand’ is understood as a set of ideas

defining why the brand, product, or service exists and behaves the way it does, one will


8/183

be able to realize that brands too creates a focus and framework for innovation (ibid.).

Thus creating an uncharted link between the innovative co-creation and the branding

paradigm.

With headlines and topics such as “Build with them to boost growth, productivity, and

profits” (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b), “Building the Co-Creative Enterprise”

(Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010a), and “The role of the firm in value creation”

(Grönroos, 2011), existing research very much highlights the business perspective of

co-creation. While many have hailed co-creation, as a highly promising development for

brands, there is little research and empirical insights available that tap into the deeper

consumer understanding and social value processes of co-creation (Edvardsson et al.,

2011: 337). Much research depicts the consumer motivation and talks of the engaged

and active consumer, who is dissatisfied with present choices and want to interact with

brands and thus co-create (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). However no one seems to

be asking what consumers actually understand by co-creation, and how it affects their

long-term opinion on and identification with the brand beyond their immediate

motivation. As argued by Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder (2011: 320) there is a need

to draw a richer picture of how consumers understand and interact with value creation.

Moreover, many co-creation studies are conducted through quantitative measures or

qualitative measures not adequately documented for the reader (Pongsakornrungsilp &

Schroeder, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This implies that existing research

has been constructed mainly on the basis of consumer behavior, rather than consumer

attitudes and feelings, which may have inhibited the advancement of co-creation

guidelines. While such research provides foundational insight, this study maintains that

co-creation research falls short without the in-depth understanding of consumers’

attitudes and feelings, which only qualitative research can provide. Consequently, it is

these unanswered matters that make up the point of departure for this study’s

explorations.

1.3 Research aim, questions and milestones

Motivated by the identified research gaps above, the aim of this study is to unfold the

concept of co-creation in relation to the branding paradigm in which the concept sits

and further create new knowledge in the area and understanding of co-creation from a


9/183

consumer perspective. The study will explore the antecedents of the current

interpretation of co-creation and demonstrate how a broader perspective that draws on

different branding disciplines can help deliver a more sustainable approach. The aim is

reached in the process of answering the following research questions: (1) How is the

concept of co-creation influencing the more traditional branding paradigm? (2) How do

consumers understand co-creation and how does co-creation affect their creation of brand

value as means to brand identification? To support this research aim and help guide the

clarification of the research questions, five milestones for examination have been

identified, as illustrated in table 1. These milestones contain elements seen as relevant

and necessary to access and investigate in order to answer the two research questions.

Milestone Description and action

1 To explore and account for the context of a postmodern consumer culture and the developments within the branding paradigm.

2 To explore and recognize the area of current co-creation theory, and its connection to the traditional branding literature, in order to develop a conceptual framework based on existing theory and the evaluation hereof.

3 To explore, analyze and discuss research participants’ understanding of the concept of co-creation and the brand discourses that surround it.

4 To evaluate the analytical impact and further develop the conceptual framework.

5 To provide contributions of knowledge to the area of co-creation. Table 1: Research milestones (compiled by the author)

In order to attend these above milestones, the study will apply a qualitative research

approach with a mix of methodological and theoretical inclusion whereby findings are

discussed and evaluated in relation to literature and context.

1.4 Research scope and delimitations

The overall research scope of this study configures around an overview of the

development of co-creation within the branding paradigm and the understanding of the

concept in the eyes of consumers, with emphasis on interaction and brand value

creation. This is achieved though a theoretical review and evaluation together with a

qualitative research with a focus group and three interviews. As the subject area of this

thesis covers more aspects than the scope allows one to elaborate on, an exhaustive

description of all aspects is outside the remit. Thus, a few delimitations have been

necessary. Given the research aim and questions highlighted above the study has


10/183

limited itself to an examination of co-creation in relation to consumers, thus excluding

other relevant stakeholder groups. Multiple stakeholders can be engaged in different

types of value co-creation (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010a; Ramaswamy, 2011),

however the focus here is on consumers. Moreover, in limiting the scope of the study to

intangible and intrinsic values of co-creation, the discussion of the more economic and

profit related values are excluded. In this respect, the concept of value is neither

examined in depth from a social sciences perspective, rather it is understood as the

principles that guide actions, and only briefly clarified on in section 1.6. The study

illustrates how the development and understanding of co-creation suggest a need for

further focus on the elements within interaction - both the one between brands and

consumers and the social networks surrounding it, and how these elements create

brand value (chapter 5). Thus, the study, aside from answering the research questions,

further aims to highlight new co-creation-related issues and challenges. It is recognized

that the concept and context of co-creation further invites diversified views and other

concepts to be discussed, such as communities, experience marketing, innovation etc.,

however due to time and scope limits this will not be focus for discussion in this study.

1.5 Theoretical frame

The literature chosen for analysis and expansion of the concept of co-creation within

this thesis is of different nature in order to embrace the many elements and the broad

context. The theoretical framework is threefold, and firstly involves literature and

theory of the postmodern market developments and consumer culture, with the

following dominating scholars: Firat and Venkatesh (1993), Firat and Schultz (1997),

Cova (1996), Christensen et al. (2005) and Fisher and Smith (2011). These theories

contribute with a clarification of the context and conditions wherein the branding

paradigm has transformed, as well as an imperative understanding of the consumer

culture in which research participants live and interact. Secondly, leading literature

within the transforming field of branding is included to understand the development

and to construct a theoretical foundation for the forthcoming elaboration and analysis

on co-creation. Here research by scholars such as Aaker (1996), Kapferer (1997),

Fournier (1998), and Hanby (1999) is drawn upon to paint the more traditional picture

of branding, from which co-creation stems. Subsequent hereto literature on co-creation


11/183

is examined with main reference to the following scholars: Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2000; 2004; 2005) Gouillart (2010) Arvidsson (2011), Ramaswamy and Gouillart

(2010a; 2010b), Ind et al. (2012), and Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder (2011). While

it is recognizes that Vargo and Lush (2004) with their well-cited service-dominant logic

of marketing also contribute to the literature of co-creation and value, Prahalad and

Ramaswamy (2004)1 are more dominant within the co-creation and branding field of

research (Degnegaard, 2014) and situated in a branding discourse similar to the one of

this study. Hence, this thesis will predominantly draw on co-creation research by

Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). Further, in line with the focus of this study, Prahalad

and Ramaswamy’s research demonstrates that the co-creation of value goes beyond the

product and service, and involves aspects of experience and social interactions

(Degnegaard, 2014). Lastly the branding literature, mentioned above, is again included

and reconfigured in relation to the concept of co-creation, to develop a conceptual

framework and a foundation for analysis. This thesis thereby touches upon many

different theoretical aspects that together they form a constellation that contributes

with relevance and significance to the study. More scholars are of course used than the

ones mentioned here, however they are merely of supporting nature for which reason

they have not been accentuated here.

1.6 Conceptual clarification

The ambivalent concept of value is used throughout the study, however as the

theoretical framework does not go into depth with the definition hereof, it is found

relevant to include here. The understanding of value used in this study is not as

traditionally seen within the discipline of economics and monetary forms (Cova & Dalli,

2009: 333; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), rather it is argued that the present market situations

have caused the concept of value to be intensified within new approaches. The more

emotional and intangible factors are now in focus when talking about value, and within

this study it is merely understood as the principles that guide actions and the individual

judgment of importance (Arvidsson, 2011). In terms of value co-creation the study

refers to the form of value that is generated through interaction (chapter 3).

1 Later Ramaswamy and Gouillart, as Prahalad sadly passes away in 2010.


12/183

Additionally the study does not make any clear distinction between the two terms

brand and business. In the interest of simplicity and relevance to the study within

branding, the study will merely, in a generic way, refer to the term brand.

1.7 Thesis structure – readers guide

This section will briefly outline the structure of the thesis in order to guide readers and

provide an insight into how the research questions are answered. The thesis is divided

into seven chapters. This section completes chapter one and hereby the introductory

sections. Chapter two clarifies the thesis’ scientific standpoint and method, being social

constructionism and hermeneutics, thus the chapter serves as a prerequisite for

understanding the foundation of the study. Chapter three is the theoretical framework

introducing the context of postmodernism, and the transforming field of branding and

co-creation as a concept. This is done though a theoretical clarification and evaluation of

relevant literature, as discussed in section 1.5. The chapter concludes with a conceptual

framework, connecting co-creation with brand value and identification, hence setting

the required ground for the data collection, analysis, and discussion, thereby attending

milestone one and two (section 1.3). Within chapter four the research methodology

and strategy for analysis is introduced. Chapter five then congregates the research

findings into analysis and discussion of observations and discourses, attending

milestone three. Chapter six attends milestone four in further linking the analysis and

discussion with the theoretical review in order to modify and further develop the

conceptual framework and put the findings into perspective. Finally chapter seven

concludes the study and answers the research questions by summarizing the research

findings and results. Moreover the final chapter provides the study’s contribution to

knowledge attending milestone five, and acknowledges its limitations and

recommendations for future research.


13/183

2 Scientific methodology

This section will present the thesis’ methodological framework, specifying the

assumptions about the reality of the study’s quest for knowledge in answering the

research questions. The framework operates as a foundation and overall paradigm of

the thesis, and by extension, it outlines the ontological, epistemological and

methodological considerations and choices.

2.1 Scientific standpoint

Scientific studies are influenced by different observations of reality. These observations

can be placed in paradigms, staging the views of reality and the world that is applicable

to the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1985: 17). Guba and Lincoln (1985) speak of four general

paradigms: the positivist, the neo-positivist, critical, and the social constructivist

paradigm. These paradigms are distinguished and designed by each their relation to

ontology, epistemology, and methodology, described in table 2 below. The philosophical

terms and related questions should be answered in a chronological order, since the

ontology leads to an epistemological assumption, which determines a certain

methodology.

Philosophical Term Explanation

Ontology Philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality.

Epistemology General set of assumptions about the best ways of

recognizing reality.

Methodology Combination of practices used to examine reality.

Table 2: Ontology, epistemology, and methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1985)

Scientifically this thesis is founded in the social constructionist paradigm, assuming that

reality and knowledge is socially constructed and therefore relative, hence as society

changes so do ideas, ideologies and values (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Andrews, 2012).

However, social constructionism is de-ontological, with ontology as a domain seeking to

define what is real, this is, from a social-constructive approach, thus irrelevant. Rather

the interest is in the way one recognizes and examines reality. In the following sections

social constructionism is explained and linked to the epistemology and methodology of

this study.


14/183

2.1.1 Social constructionism

Social constructionism is the philosophical and epistemological basic premise that all

human knowledge is socially constructed (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003; Bryman, 2012:

33). Designating that all forms of knowledge occurs via a framework of understanding

that is not innate, but the result of the cultural and historical past in which the

individual is part of (Burr, 2003). Social constructionism cautions us to be critical of our

assumptions and ways of understanding the world (ibid.). Advocates of this paradigm

reject the possibility of objective knowledge and stress in turn the cognition of social

elements, which means that knowledge is sustained by social processes (Andrews,

2012; Burr, 2003: 4). When constructionist researchers do not believe in one truth, they

refer to the subjective experience of every day life and thus the individual notion of

reality and current ways of understanding the world (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003;

Berger & Luckmann, 1966). As stated by Deacon et al. (2002: 6) the social

constructionist worldview addresses and explores “the way people make sense of their

social worlds and how they express these understandings through language, sound,

imagery, personal style and social rituals”. Thus we as human beings enduringly

reproduce knowledge and interpretation of the world of experience, and further our

view on reality through cognitive processes in our daily interactions with each other

and society. Social constructionism argues against the traditional conception of

personality and moves away from the belief that personality is stable, and argues that it

changes according to context (Burr, 2003). Hence, there are a number of real selves and

not only one coherent personality, we are as human being constructed by our

surroundings and are in constant development (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003). This

corresponds well with the postmodern tradition, where the issue of representation is

crucial (section 3.1; Holt, 2002; Bryman, 2012: 33). Moreover language is not seen in

the traditional sense as means of a representation, rather language is a form of social

action and what constructs the social world including the way this world is experienced

(Burr, 2003: 7-8; Andrews, 2012). The world is thus not the things that surround us, but

rather our understanding of them, and here the understanding will always be

influenced by the connections and relationships in which we enter, for which reason,

objectivity is not an option. It is from these thoughts that the study recognizes its

philosophical branch of hermeneutics, described in the following section.


15/183

One must however note that social constructivism is also criticized in denying any

objective knowledge, and hence its own basis (Andrews, 2012; Burr, 2003: 20). This

makes it somewhat impossible to declare as an absolute and general philosophy.

However, as social constructionism further is unconcerned with ontological questions,

it can be argued that the criticism only exists beyond the social understanding of the

world. Hence, social constructionism nonetheless remains the scientific standpoint of

this study.

2.1.2 Philosophical hermeneutics and the hermeneutic circle

Methodologically this study operates with a hermeneutic approach. Hermeneutics is the

philosophy of meaning and how experience can be understood and interpreted (Lock &

Strong, 2010: 53-54). This study more specifically takes the approach of Gadamer’s

(1986) philosophical hermeneutics, being the nature of understanding. Gardamer

(1986) argues that understanding involves participation and that the shared reality

occurs in the languages of our conversations with others. Thus the focus of

hermeneutics lies in the embedded research interactions and the possibilities of

exceeding that embeddedness through conversations and generate new languages and

reality (Lock & Strong, 2010: 72-73). According to Gadamar (1986) one must be open

and flexible in ones interaction with others in order to generate meaning and find ways

to co-exist (Lock & Strong, 2010: 73). Within this discipline exists also the hermeneutic

circle, a model to understand and interpret the relation between the receiver and the

‘text’ – the text being the social phenomena (Gadamer, 1986). It operates based on the

principle that one must understand the whole in order to understand its parts, and vice

versa (ibid.). As humans, one will always have historical presuppositions and

understandings, which may be revised through experience and interactions, but which

also determine what one learns and hereby help to transform these prior

understandings through interpretation of new data and insights, as seen in figure 1

(ibid.). These presuppositions are no barrier, rather a condition to understanding

(Gadamer, 1986).


16/183

Figure 1: The Hermeneutic Circle (compiled by the author, inspired by Gadamer, 1986)

The philosophical hermeneutic approach agrees with the social constructionist

worldview that nothing is an absolute truth (section 2.1.1), thus social constructivism

and hermeneutics can be seen as two parts of the same mindset.

2.1.3 Social constructionism and hermeneutics in this study

The scientific standpoint of this study initiates within the research background and aim,

and is ‘lived by’ in the process of exploring the research questions and milestones. The

study takes a consumer perspective, in determining the understanding and experienced

brand value of co-creation (section 1.3), and thus focuses on the process by which

meanings are generated, sustained, and modified similar to the philosophy of both

social constructionism and hermeneutics (Andrews, 2012: 40). The social

constructionist view further comes to show especially in the theoretical framework

(chapter 3), where postmodern market and consumer contexts direct the assessment of

theory on both the development within the branding paradigm (section 3.2) and the

perspective on co-creation (sections 3.3; 3.4). Social constructionism did in fact gain

influence by the postmodern movement, sharing “the goal of understanding the world

of lived experience from the perspective of those who live in it” (Andrews, 2012: 40).

Hence the study does not interpret the static concept of co-creation, but rather explores

through qualitative methods, consumers’ identification of reality herein and how they


17/183

identify with and add brand value and meaning to co-creation processes - marked by

personal and situational contexts. When the study designs qualitative research

methods, it is in this relation that knowledge is created, presuppositions come into play,

and the understanding horizons are expanded. Here the hermeneutic circle acquires a

central position, and the idea of part and whole comes to show when the analysis looks

at the data from various inductive and deductive levels and continuously holds the

individual parts against the whole. Thus, the data is divided up into individual parts, but

also understood as a single empirical basis - a constant circular motion of interpretation

(Gadamer, 1986). Overall, the effect of social constructivism and hermeneutics as

scientific standpoints of this thesis, has forced the study to consider consumers as

socially constructed, and be aware of the researcher’s role in the production of the

empirical data, which the research conclusions are based upon.

2.2 Introductions to the research methodology

As mentioned above, a qualitative research method is chosen, as it is well associated

with the subjective and interpretive nature of social reality (Daymon & Holloway, 2002:

4). Through qualitative research methods one is able to explore the way people make

sense of a social phenomena and their subjective experience hereof in order provide

insights from the perspective and world view of the informants (Burr, 2003, s. 149;

Daymon & Holloway, 2002: 12). Research in social constructionism is generally

associated with the gathering and interpretation of rich narrative data, conducted

through inductive methods from which theories or patterns of meaning can be

developed (Burr, 2003; Daymon & Holloway, 2002). This will also be the primary

method of this study, when analyzing data inductively in relation to different semantic

themes extracted from the data in question, leaving the analysis open and adaptable

during the process (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). Further, as these themes develop,

they will be examined through new analytical stages with elements of ‘Foucauldian

discourse analysis’ in managing the data collection and comparing it to the theory and

conceptual framework put forth in chapter 3. Thus the study also uses a deductive

approach based on the researcher’s presuppositions of co-creation and the branding

paradigm (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). Hence it is argued that this qualitative

approach is iterative, as it involves a continuous interaction between theory, data


18/183

collection, and analysis (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). The qualitative methodology

will take form of a focus group and 3 supporting interviews, as these methods will let

the researcher interact with that being researched and thus experience the knowledge

construct from the point of view of the respondents (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 242).

The full elaboration of research methodology and strategy is found in chapter 4.


19/183

3 Theoretical Framework

In order to establish a suitable theoretical background for resolving the aim of this

thesis, and to answer research question one, this chapter attends to milestone one and

two (section 1.3) and presents the foundation on which the research is founded by

emphasizing literature relevant to the area in question. To unravel the importance of

the context the chapter initially, in section 3.1, introduces the theoretical and

philosophical context of postmodernism. Subsequent hereto, the developments within

the branding paradigm are accounted for in section 3.2, in order to reach the

introduction and establishment of the key concept of co-creation. Section 3.3 will then

clarify and elaborate on co-creation and the perspective of branding that this concept

comprises and initiates; this is done against the backdrop of a literature review on co-

creation. Section 3.4 explores the relationship between co-creation and brand

identification and the relation to the developing branding paradigm and the

postmodern consumer culture. From this a conceptual framework is introduced in

section 3.5, which will function as a base and inspiration for the empirical research and

analysis (chapter 5).

3.1 A postmodern context

In line with and as an extension of the social constructionist approach of this study

(chapter 2), the theoretical framework is generated and works from a postmodern

recognition that there are new conditions for branding and marketing operating in a

market that is far more complex and fragmented than earlier (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993).

The following sections will elaborate on the postmodernist thinking and the market and

consumer culture transformations it has activated.

Ever since the beginning of innovation theory (Schumpeter, 1934) marketers have been

assuming that brands produce and consumers receive, meaning that innovation and

brand experiences would originate from within the brand and that the value hereof

would be ultimately created by the exclusive resources of the brand (Arvidsson, 2011;

Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). With a more emergent

approach to the dynamic market, the postmodern revolution is driven by the idea of

continuous progress and has emerged from a doubt in and response to the modern


20/183

society's rational perceptions of the market structure, where the power was with

brands (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Christensen et al., 2005: 157). Postmodernism puts

focus on the individual consumption and lifestyle and moves marketing from a

production perspective to a consumer perspective (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993). Within

the postmodern society production and consumption are repositioned in the sense that

consumption is now a premise for production (ibid.). Production in itself does not

create value; instead consumers create value through their consumption and

experiences (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993: 235; Bostman & Rogers, 2010). Thus within

these market changes “the primary action through which value is created shifts from

optimized, managerially planned activities or labor to innovation and events; and the

substrate through which value is created shifts from the physical and material to the

immaterialities of knowledge, language and sociality” (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013: 100).

Consequently consumption is not seen as the termination of the brand cycle, “but a

moment where much is created and produced, … it is a social act wherein symbolic

meanings, social codes, political ideologies, and relationships are produced and

reproduced” (Breen, 1993 in Firat & Venkatesh, 1995: 251). Postmodern thinkers show

skepticism toward metanarratives and deny their validity to one universal reason (Firat

& Schultz, 1997). This is equivalent with the social constructionist belief of meaning

being contextual and subjective (section 2.1.1). With the collapse of order and unity

comes fragmentation, allowing for diversity and paradox structures to co-exist without

common purpose (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993). This implies that postmodernism

accommodates an irrational and subjective reality, where each instance of consumption

and brand relationship is independent and fragmented to fulfill unconnected needs

(ibid.).

3.1.1 Postmodern consumer culture

Postmodernist thinking adapts to consumer characteristics and consumption patterns

(Berner & Tonder, 2003; Holt, 2002), which is the main influence on the concept of co-

creation. The postmodern approach makes markets more unpredictable; consumers are

not just passive and manipulative recipients of products and services, they are and

insist on being collaborators in generating and sharing meaning and value (Vargo &

Lusch, 2004: 7; Christensenet al., 2005: 164; Ind et al., 2012). At the heart of


21/183

postmodern critique of modern marketing principles is the assumption that consumers

are consistent and compliant with preferences and behavior patterns possible to

predict (Firat & Venkatesh, 1995). Contrary postmodernism has located consumers

within uncontrolled spaces, and suggests that each individual consumer should be

viewed within the context of everyday life, instead of observing them as unified through

segmentation towards which brands can aim mass communication (Firat & Venkatesh,

1995: 255; Brown, 2006). Postmodern sensibility even encourages the avoidance of

commitment to just one single way of being. According to Firat & Schultz (1997: 198)

the principal goal of these postmodern individuals is “to (re)produce and (re)present

oneself as an image”. Hereby consumers merely exercise freedom of choice and

movement where impulse commands (Firat & Schultz, 1997; Brown, 2006). Such a

stance clearly allows for an expansion of fragmentation and of fragmented moments of

experience (section 3.1). As argued by Cova (1996: 18), ”the essence of postmodern

experience is participation; without participation, the consumer is merely entertained

and does not experience”. He thus argues for the postmodern consumer to be more

concerned with the social links of consumption and the corresponding identities than

the consumption of objects alone (Cova & Dalli, 2009). Postmodernism creates arenas of

consumption and value creation where it is possible to explore the multiple identities

that correspond to the image that the postmodern consumer wants to convey to their

social environment in each of the fragmented moments (Christensen et al., 2005; Firat &

Schultz, 1997; Holt, 2002). This potential for choice further frees consumers from the

need to remain loyal (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993: 233). Consumers do not to the same

extent as earlier redeem ownership of products or brands; rather an economy of

sharing has developed. As Gansky (2012) in her book ‘The Mesh’ very well pinpoints

that human beings have a long tradition of sharing experiences, entertainment,

knowledge etc. and she argues for an increased use hereof - a fundamental shift in our

relationship with the things in our lives. Consumers are more than ever rethinking this

relationship relative to the value hereof, and seek to engage and share in new ways to

achieve this value and the social representation hereof (Gansky, 2012). For brands this

fragmentation presents a challenge and new demands on marketing, as it becomes

harder to adapt to continuously increasing diversified consumers, and to further create

coherent values between the consumers and the brand (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Cova,

1996). Brands should no longer analyze consumer through segmentation, rather focus


22/183

should be on the communication and participation of creating consumers’ image (Firat

& Venkatesh, 1993). According to Christensen et al. (2005: 162-163) the postmodern

response to this postmodern condition is “not to try and control the meanings linked to

the … products or brands, but to playfully engage (with) the consumers in

constructing and navigating experiences”. Within the postmodern realism both the

liberated individual and the individual’s social connections apply to concumer behavior

(Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Cova, 1996). Therefore the brand and communication hereof

is to live up to the individual's personal preferences, but also social wants and needs.

Brands should bring together consumers’ ability to connect and share values and thus

be an integrated part of this connection, as argued by Gansky “the brand is a voice and a

product is a souvenir” (Gansky, 2012: 10).

3.1.2 Consumer empowerment through social technologies

Recent social changes, especially those associated with the Internet and Web 2.0 have

given social interactions and consumer participation greater pace and significance

(McKinsey Global Institute, 2012; Bostman & Rogers, 2010: 212-213). In short, web 2.0

is technology beyond the static Internet pages; it is a growing development of user-

generated content and collaboration through social media, e.g. Facebook, YouTube, and

Twitter (Li & Bernoff, 2008; Fournier & Avery, 2011). These new social technologies

have created a shift in people’s ability to be informed, networked, and empowered

(McKinsey Global Institute, 2012; Ramaswamy, 2011; Arvidsson, 2011). As argued by

Fisher and Smith (2011: 328-329) “any consumer can become a ‘writer’; that is,

consumers are now able to author content and distribute it at almost no cost through

a proliferation of videos, pictures, blogs, forum discussions”. These technologies

empower consumers to create their own personalized experiences and share content

with like-minded that earlier was not in their possession to share (Fisher & Smith,

2011). Further these technologies endorse two-way symmetric communication and

serve as platforms facilitating interaction with and amongst consumers, providing

brands with unique and creative opportunities to capitalize on stakeholders’ innovative

potential and knowledge (Brodie, et al., 2013; Fisher & Smith, 2011; Fournier & Avery,

2011). Technology has not only enabled new means for engagement but also changed

the overall mindset of consumers’ roles in the interaction and communication with


23/183

brands, shifting the locus of control from the brand to consumers, suggesting a new

discourse in the relationship between the two (Fisher & Smith, 2011: 328). Accordingly,

consumers are empowered to challenge a brand promise, while the effectiveness of

managing and communicating a consistent brand image through traditional advertising

is decreasing (Knox & Lawer, 2006). The technological developments and the

subsequent enhanced social disclosure can be said to be a precedent for brands to stop

framing consumers as passive observers, but instead recognize a new mutuality, where

also the consumer can make the brand target of criticism or debate (Fisher & Smith,

2011; sections 3.1; 3.1.1). As stated in the recent report from McKinsey Global Institute

(2012: 10) “ultimately, the power of social technologies hinges on the full and

enthusiastic participation … creating these conditions will be far more challenging

than implementing the technologies themselves”. Thus to acquire the full potential

value and impact of consumer empowerment brands must thus change their mindsets

and structures and become “extended networked enterprises” (McKinsey Global

Institute, 2012: 2).

Through these sections postmodernism has been elaborated on in order to understand

the contemporaries and contexts in which the research questions exist. Brands are

faced with changing consumer characteristics, bringing active interpretations to the

market in a constantly play with multiple identities. For the postmodern consumer, it is

not an ‘either/or’ relation but a ‘both/and’. Having attended to this overall framing,

complying the first part of milestone one, the following sections 3.2 and 3.3 will now

specify and explore the second part of the milestone; the developments within the

branding paradigm (section 1.3).

3.2 The transforming fields of branding

As depicted in the above sections, the postmodern phenomenon has provided key

implications for marketers who are deeply rooted in the traditional approach to

marketing and branding tools often tailored the modern consumer (e.g. marketing

management towards mass markets, pure product focus, one-way communication etc.).

To act in a present society, the guidelines of postmodernism should be introduced into

marketing research, and marketers should attempt to ‘walk-the-talk’ in adopting new


24/183

thinking to replace old tools (Brown, 2006). However when postmodernism is merely a

critique and not a concept (section 3.1), it offers no solution on what to replace

traditional marketing with. Fact is that traditional marketing modes still have a

permanent place in the marketing department, as argued by Brown (2006: 221) “just

because the market has changed, or is supposed to have changed, it does not necessarily

follow that tried and trusted methods of marketing research must change as well”. Thus

a part of adapting to postmodernism could also be to apply proven tools to the

phenomenon of postmodernism.

3.2.1 From a product to value perspective

In the wake of the new postmodern ontological conceptualizations, softer approaches to

marketing have occurred (Hanby, 1999: 9). The branding paradigm, traditionally build

on Laswell’s (1948) linear communication formula (appendix 1), moved away from the

mechanical product perspective with focus on transmission towards an identity

perspective (Hanby, 1999). The passive ‘brand as an extended product’ with Kotler

(1987) in front, arguing for a focus on functional benefits and a communication as a

one-way linear process (appendix 2), was replaced with Aaker’s (1996) and Kapferer’s

(1997) ‘brand identity’ perspective. Here brands were regarded as respectively

established positions and holistic entities, and branding was focused on the brand's

'identity' and 'personality' (Aaker, 1996; Kapferer, 1997; Hanby, 1999: 10). Aaker

(1996) too believes that a brand includes product related features, and thus started his

research within the product perspective. However, in his creation of the brand identity

system, he also accepts that a brand is more that just a product (Aaker, 1996; Aaker,

1997), a view that is incorporated and further developed by Kapferer (1997). The

perspectives and work of both scholars are further elaborated on in appendix three and

four. Aaker’s (1996) identity system is an encoding and decoding model in the sense

that opinions are encoded by the brand (identity), which is then decoded and

incorporated by a passive recipient (image), thus the marketer is defining the brand

identity without special considerations for consumers’ perceptions (Aaker, 1997; Aaker,

1996). Kapferer (1997) supports Aaker's (1996) claim that the brand identity

construction is a competence within the brand; according to him consumers do not

possess the right skills needed to understand what the brand's inner core values consist

of. Both scholars are thus strongly rooted in the sender-oriented optics, warning against


25/183

including the uncontrollable consumer opinions, however they note that the brand

image should not be fully ignored (Aaker, 1996: 181; Kapferer, 2004: 113). Within the

identity perspective the single purpose of branding is thus to construct and

communicate a coherent, consistent and meaningful identity that consumers can

acquire (Kapferer, 1997; Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1996). However, despite being a

progressing reaction to the more static brand as a product paradigm, both Aaker (1996)

and Kapferer (1997) still point to a somewhat different way of thinking consumers into

the branding process compared to the more postmodern branding approaches (Cova,

1996; Firat & Schultz, 1997). From confronting the identity metaphor from a classic

existential perspective, a more nuanced perspective of identity is needed, incorporating

a relational and dynamic concept of identity, which is discursively constituted and thus

formulated and negotiated within and between different stakeholder groups (Hanby,

1999). Thus, the stage is set for a concept of identity away from the classic brand

management literature, as the examples represented by Aaker (1996) and Kapferer

(1997). The purpose of incorporating Aaker (1996) and Kapferer’s (1997) view on

brand identity is to emphasize their roots in a sender-oriented (and defined) brand

identity tradition, focusing on identity as something substantial, coherent, essential and

unchanging (Hanby, 1999). Further, both theorists incorporate a brand personality

perspective in their identity optics (appendix 5; Aaker, 1996; Aaker, 1997; Kapferer,

1997) that within the right context demonstrate a slight move towards the more

relational branding paradigm. The next section introduces the more nuanced branding

concept more suitable to the postmodern thinking.

3.2.2 Towards a relational brand perspective

Firat and Venkatesh (1993) argues for marketing to be considered as the ultimate social

practice of postmodernity and regards the new relational perspectives on marketing as

a postmodern institution that can liberate the individual from modernity's grand

narratives and tyranny of 'absolute truths' and 'objective reality' (Firat & Venkatesh,

1993; Firat & Schultz, 1997). The postmodern consumer has given rise to the

development of relationship marketing. By recognizing the consequences of the

postmodern trends in society and consumer culture, relationship marketing is oriented

by a dynamic and ambiguous identity concept with a multiple meaning that is

constantly negotiable (Hanby, 1999). One of the strong exponents of a dynamic


26/183

approach to branding is Fournier (1998), arguing that the brand is an active and

contributing partner in a relationship existing between the consumer and the brand.

One of Fournier's (1998) central points is that the consumer does not just take over the

brand's identity, but rather seems to negotiate its meaning in relation to both individual

and social life projects. This matches the postmodern thinking, in regards to both Cova

(1996) and Firat’s (1995) viewpoints (section 3.1). Fournier’s (1998) relationship

approach to the conceptualization of a brand prioritizes the consumer in the

construction of the brand meaning (appendix 6; Fournier, 1998), and together with the

development of the postmodern consumer, this perspective forms the basis for a higher

level of interaction between consumers and brands. It is all about understanding the

person behind the consumer and not just trying to manage the consumer as in CRM

(customer relation management), since doing so often devalues emotional values and

the potential of consumer relationships (Fournier & Avery, 2011: 63-64). Fournier and

Avery thus include a social constructivist perspective on relationships.

This consumer-oriented approach to brands stands in direct opposition to the classic

references in the field (Hanby, 1999), and although Kotler’s (1987) marketing mix,

Laswell’s (1948) communication model, as well as Aaker (1996) and Kapferer’s (1997)

brand identity and personality finds still seem to be important elements in today's

branding practice, new ways of conceptualizing the marketplace has taken shape with

the consumer in the center (Hanby, 1999). As depicted in figure 2, there has been a

move from a sender-oriented transmission of communication, where focus is on the

functional product features with no contextual consideration, through a identity

oriented perspective with the analysis of consumer needs to generate value, towards an

interaction paradigm recognizing the complex and dynamic process of relationships in

which people form their opinions in collaboration with brands (Heding et al., 2009).

This new marketing philosophy places greater demands on brands ability to innovate.

Alongside with the movement towards social relations and consumer focus, Fournier’s

(1998) relationship perspective has also been further developed. Among others,

Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) have introduced the concept of value co-creation,

suggesting an approach in which meaning and experience are constructed and

communicated based on consumer premises. Co-creation, which is the key concept in


27/183

this study, will be elaborated in the following sections when attending research

milestone two.

Figure 2: The developing perspective on branding (compiled by the author)

3.3 Co-creation – a new corner of branding

Energized by new technology (section 3.1.2) and postmodern trends in society (sections

3.1; 3.1.1), co-creation brings along a new holistic and social perspective on energizing

consumers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011).

Consumers are a major source of product innovation, but are also becoming more than

just innovators, they actively get involved in co-creating their own personalized brand

experiences and thus in the process of generating individual and collective brand value

to pursue their desired self-identity (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; section 3.1.1). This

reflects a pattern that not only leads to new innovation and collaboration designs but

further spreads to marketing and more recently branding (Hatch & Schultz, 2010). The

previous assumption of consumers only being involved in the point of exchange is being


28/183

challenges by the active, connected and empowered consumers seeking “to exercise

their influence in every part of the business system” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 6).

Attempting to define the co-creation concept is not an easy task, especially not when

traveling under several different names, such as ‘value co-creation’ (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004), ‘consumers-as-innovators’ (Hippel et al., 2011), ‘the ethical

economy’ (Arvidsson, 2011), and a ‘service-dominant logic’ (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

However, the basic principle behind these terms is more or less the same. Most scholars

yet, define the concept based on the primary account made by Prahalad and

Ramaswamy (2004). According to the two scholars, co-creation refers to the processes

by which both consumers and the brand cooperate in creating value, being a function of

the individual experiences in the market, being it through the development and creation

of new systems, products, services, experiences etc. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 6-

8). It is joint problem solving and not just the brand trying to please the consumer

(ibid.). Thus differing much from the traditional firm-centric construct with passive

consumers, segmented to match products and services (section 3.2.1). Instead of

increasing product variety, co-creation attains differentiation by creating experience

variety, where consumers can engage in an active dialogue with the brand and co-

construct personalized experiences here through (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 8).

While the “informed, networked, empowered and active consumers” (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004: 6) have challenged the notion of value, the scholars advise

companies to “escape their product-centered thinking and instead focus on the

experiences that customers seek to co-create and hereby create value” (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004: 7). The notion of co-creation thus breaks with the one-way brand to

consumer relationship in which consumer segments are shaped to fit into corporate

offerings, rather it encourages active involvement. Gouillart (2010) further adds to

Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) theory on co-creation, and concisely describes it as

“a theory of interactions” (Gouillart, 2010). This involves changing the way the brand

interacts with individuals and setting up new modes of engagement that allow these

individuals to insert themselves in the value chain of the brand. According to Gouillart

(2010) the idea of co-creation is thus to unleash the creative energy of consumers in

such a way that it transforms both their individual experience and the economics of the

brand that enables it. As it remains beyond the scope and ability of this thesis to assign a


29/183

clearly bounded definition of co-creation, this study builds on a combination of these

above perspectives on co-creation, but finds it relevant to add a consumer outlook since

the co-creation of value is not necessarily always initiated by the brand. As argued by

Arvidsson (2010; 2011), value creation further unfolds in the fringes of the brand, and

derives from forms of social cooperation with consumers and other stakeholders that

are less receptive to corporate control. An increased transparency of brands (section

3.1.2) provides consumers with previously exclusive information and vigor, allowing

them to engage in effective dialogue and creativity, often outside of the brand’s

registration. This uncontrollability is further supported by Merz et al.’s (2009) notion of

brand value in stating that “brand value is not only co-created through isolated, dyadic

relationships between firms and individual customers […] it is also co-created through

network relationships and social interactions among the ecosystem of all the

stakeholders” (Merz et al., 2009: 338). Thus, co-creation, both in relation to the concept

itself and to the branding paradigm it sits within, functions as a new take on

communication to and interaction with the empowered postmodern consumers. Co-

creation thus encourages a blurring of the role between the brand and the consumers,

and goes beyond the relationship perspective of branding. Within co-creation value

becomes a function of the individual experiences in the market – both the one of brand

engagement and of social interactions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Gouillart, 2010),

thus co-creation encourages a new mode of value creation, turning the market into a

forum for co-creation of experiences between the brand and consumers (Lopdrup-

Hjorth, 2013), as visualized in figure 3.

Figure 3: The emerging concept of the market inspired by (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004)


30/183

From the perspective of social constructionism and postmodernism this study argues

for the importance of acknowledging the individual within the consumer and not see

consumers as static subjects of segmentation. Within co-creation and thus the

developed branding perspective, consumers are individuals choosing their own

relationships and ways of consumption (Ramaswamy, 2011). Enabled by new

interactive technologies (section 3.1.2), this new logic in branding indicates that, “a

brand’s meaning and value can now be significantly created and modified from the

bottom-up instead of from the top-down” (Fisher & Smith, 2011: 347). Hence the value

within the interactions of the developed approach should not be found in quantitative

elements such as buying behavior and customer loyalty, yet rather the value lies in the

individual experience and the creations of emotions and social interactions (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004; sections 1.2; 3.1; 3.1.1). As stated by Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2004: 13) “the experience is the brand. The brand is co-created and evolves with

experiences”. Supporting this notion is an increased focus on brand experiences in

branding literature, e.g. Payne et al. (2009) use the term brand relationship experience

to describe the brand, underlining a relationship-based view of the brand with a focus

on continuous consumer experiences. The close relation to new technology and the

relationship that it enables (section 3.2.2) further indicates that co-creation is likely to

be central to the emerging knowledge society (Arvidsson, 2011; Ramaswamy, 2011), a

social and networked nature of consumption that the product-centric understandings of

consumer behavior do not recognize (Fisher & Smith, 2011). Brands are networks

wherein co-creation is assumed to generate value for consumers by having them realize

their potential to utilize consumption to share and demonstrate knowledge, and

construct and maintain their identity (Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). Thus,

brands are not ends themselves, but a means to experiences. The way this new age of

consumer engagement and empowerment recognizes a shift in corporate and

marketing thinking is specified in table 3.


31/183

From To

Passive buyers Active agents

Listening Dialogue

Consumers as buyers Consumers as resources

Researching needs Understanding experiences

Reliance on experts Consumer knowledge

Centered on products Centered on consumer need and experiences

Table 3: The shift in corporate and marketing thinking (inspired by Roser et al., 2009)

Relating co-creation to the democratization and decentralization of value creation

(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010a) postmodernist

recognitions is incorporated in questioning the firm-centric view and extending the

issue of value creation to a mutual interaction (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; section 3.1).

Which seemingly has profound consequences not only for the purposes of value

creation in general, but for brands as well, now required to establish “an active, explicit,

and ongoing dialogue” with consumers in order to manage these market and consumer

changes (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000: 81; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013).

3.3.1 The Co-creation design

In the attempt to explain the relation between the postmodern thinking and the new

branding perspective Prahalad and Ramaswamy have introduced four building blocks

of co-creation, seen in figure 4 (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9). They explain the

market changes towards the co-creation of value as a joint outcome of these four

building blocks with the acronym DART; dialogue, access, transparency, and risk-

benefits that challenge the traditional mindset and make up the interaction between

brands and consumers (ibid.). This focus on active collaboration is essential, because

co-creation of value only exists if interactions occur (Cova et al., 2011; Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004: 11; Grönroos, 2011: 290). The four building blocks are however

mostly directed towards brands, as they are the ones encouraged and able to act on

these parameters. Hence there is a need to look into the consumer value and discourse

of co-creation as well, which will be done in the following sections, and further

empirically explored in chapter five.


32/183

Figure 4: Building blocks of co-creation of value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9)

The core prerequisite of co-creation is, according to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004),

the interaction that occurs and can be created between the brand and consumers.

Herein dialogue is an important element as it “implies interaction, deep engagement

and the ability and willingness to act on both sides” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9);

it is the growing conversations and equal partnerships between brands and consumers

(ibid.). However in order to have a meaningful dialogue, it is crucial that consumers are

provided with the required access and transparency from the brand, as co-creation

should be an equal connectivity (ibid.). The goal of consumers is increasingly to access

experiences and not necessarily to own products, thus brands must provide resources

for consumers to create new and personal experiences and opportunities (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2005: 25-26). With the access consumers have online today, they will

quickly be able to find the information needed through other channels if the brand does

not open up by itself, leaving the brand as the ‘bad guy’ (section 3.1.2). It is therefore

important for brands to incorporate transparency and move away from the previous

information asymmetry. They must provide the information consumers need in order to

interact and create value for both the brand and themselves (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2004; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2005: 30). Together the three (dialogue, access, and

transparency) lead to the consumers’ assessment of the risk-benefits when entering

into a relationship with the brand (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9). Rather than just

depending on the brand and experts as previously done, the decision processes are


33/183

becoming more personalized alongside experiences (ibid.). Both consumers and brands

must make adjustments for co-creation to succeed; this involves recognizing that the

interaction between the two must be built on the above four building blocks (Prahalad

& Ramaswamy, 2004: 13).

Altogether co-creation is about understanding the dynamic market and re-

conceptualizing brand identities, being co-constructed by consumers (Cova et al., 2011;

Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Co-creation thus transforms the static into vibrant and

opens up for negotiation of the brand. Brands are no longer the sole authors of the

brand’s destination and purpose; so are also consumers with their individual voice and

empowerment (section 3.3). This stresses the importance of interaction to ensure

alignment and valuable outcome for both brands and consumers. In this study Prahalad

and Ramaswamy’s (2004) building blocks will function as a starting point and

prerequisite for the co-creation process and as the prelude for further understanding

and development hereof, which will be explored in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

3.3.2 Routes of co-creation

Just as the different branding paradigms continue to co-exist despite their different

levels of relevance and match to the current market (cf. sections 3.2; 3.3), co-creation

can also be seen from various perspectives. The importance of value co-creation has

fundamentally increased together with the postmodern approach, whether being

downstream or upstream in the value chain, and focus is on the co-creation of value,

experiences and meaning (Gouillart, 2010). However some perspectives of co-creation

still allude a product-perspective where the process of co-creation is foremost focused

on the joint product or service development between consumers and the brand, which

empower, encourage and guide users to develop solutions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). This is further compared to the term ‘open innovation’; a

consumer-centric innovation process, where consumers are involved as a source for

ideas, technical solutions, designs, or even first prototypes (Kohler et al., 2011). Instead

of the brand creating innovations and exchanging it with their customers, during open

innovation consumers take an active role and co-create innovation together with the

brand (ibid.). The lines between these different co-creation alluding perspectives are

somewhat blurred, and the perspectives, being it focus on the product, innovation,


34/183

technology, or social experience, overlap because they are originally founded on the

same thinking (Ind et al., 2012). Thus indicating many different uses, understandings

and subdivisions of the concept, making the concept rather complex. Moreover it is

argued that the different forms of co-creation are not mutually exclusive, rather they

can reinforce each other and provide different benefits, each of which help to create a

deeper and stronger relationship between the brand and consumer. This study will

merely focus on the more holistic ‘value co-creation’ concerned merely with the

creation of an innovative environment where consumers can co-construct personalized

experiences - the product or service in matter might not always change trough co-

creation, rather so does the individual consumer experience construct (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004). This focus will emphasize the consumer attention that is equal to

the postmodern thinking (sections 3.1; 3.2) and incorporate the more emotional and

social aspects as the drivers of branding and consumer involvement. Prahalad and

Ramaswamy (2004) further argue that value co-creation does not include product

development in its sole form, as this is a staged experience and the brand will still have

a product/service-oriented focus with the intention to attract consumer attention, not

corresponding to the current market (ibid.). Co-creation as a practice and approach

rather breaks with the traditional roles and the asymmetrical communications herein,

and encompasses all points of the consumer-brand interaction, as they are all

opportunities for the creation of value (ibid.).

In order to briefly illustrate the magnitude of co-creation, a few examples are here

incorporated in figure 5. These examples support the fact that the use of co-creation can

vary in form and purpose and will further be used in the focus group research, as cases

to initiate discussion (section 4.1.2; appendix 7). The first example is the LEGO Group

that with its famous user-linked approaches has introduced the CUUSOO platform,

incorporating mostly co-creation elements of design and innovation. The unique

platform invites consumers to use their creativity to come up with new LEGO

ideas/designs, and submit and share these for review amongst other consumers with

the purpose of collecting votes to be considered as future LEGO products (appendix 7).

Hereby LEGO embraces the idea of open innovation when the brand openly

incorporates consumers in product development. The second example with BMW is

focused more on the community sense of co-creation. The automotive brand has created


35/183

“a virtual meeting place for consumers interested in car related topics and eager to

share their ideas and opinions on tomorrows automotive world” (Bartl et al., 2010: 5).

The interactive platform offers idea contests, user toolkits, and innovation research

studies (appendix 7). It is an on-going co-creation process, where user interactions and

ideas are displayed and saved on the platform, and used in the development

departments of BWM (ibid.), thus also social by the innovative element. Lastly, the

DANONE example is incorporated for its co-creation work with the Activia brand. Here

the co-creation is again about shared knowledge, but also more clearly about the future

of the brand. DANONE has created an online Activia advisory board and community of

400 women, to discuss the different product and marketing initiatives in order to make

sure that the 10-year-old Activia brand continues to grow and show results both for the

brand and for consumers (appendix 7). Here through DANONE use co-creation to

understand and attain valuable insights and ideas from its target audience and further

ensure new positions for the brand (ibid.). Having illustrated the different modes and

uses of co-creation, the following sections will elaborate on motivational factors driving

co-creation engagement.

Figure 5: Co-creation examples (complied by the author from appendix 7)

3.3.3 Motivation and value of co-creation

Co-creation redefines the meaning of value and the process of creating value (section

3.3). It is no longer just about how brands can create value for consumers, but rather

how consumers can co-construct experiences, bring new relevance to the brand, and

thus create value in a joint collaboration with the brand (Arvidsson, 2011). With this

mutual interaction, being essential for successful co-creation (section 3.3.1), it is found

Co-creation of knowledge and a

route forward

Co-creation of design - ‘open

innovation’

Co-creation community of ideas

and opinions


36/183

important to look into the motivational factors behind, to better understand the concept

and identify possible outcomes hereof.

3.3.3.1 Consumer motivation for co-creation

Consumer motivations for engaging in co-creation are wide-ranging and include both

intrinsic and extrinsic benefits (Füller, 2010; Yanning, 2011). Based on an analysis of

existing co-creation theory, consumer motivations for co-creation can be divided into

different benefit clusters of rational, hedonic, personal, and social benefits. Rational

motivations are based on dissatisfaction with existing brand and/or product offerings

and involve the satisfaction of utilitarian needs in the possibility of affecting the

usefulness of a product (Füller, 2010). Hedonic benefits are the sense of pleasure and

entertainment based on consumer curiosity and brand interest (Füller, 2010;

Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). Personal motivations are merely the positive

rewards of feedback and the increase in reputation and recognition from the brand and

other peers, comprising the more emotional benefits of self-development and

expression as discussed in the section on postmodern consumer culture (section 3.1.1;

Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010). Herein lie also financial rewards, although

rarely used today (Füller, 2010; Grarup, 2012). Lastly the social motivation entitles

consumer interest in the social and networking aspects of the co-creation activity. Social

needs are here rewarded through identity creation and interaction with the brand and

other consumers, hence the experience value of co-creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2004; Grönroos, 2011). Co-creation is a way for consumers to feel empowered to

influence and interact with the particular brands that help making their lives

meaningful and strengthens their self-conception (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). It is

argued that motivations have likewise changed alongside the postmodern consumer

culture (section 3.1.1), and that intrinsic consumer motivations are strongly inclining in

todays evolving market, as this personal rewarding engagement and behavior will be

the most valuable option merely based on social needs (section 3.1; Roser et al., 2009).

However the forthcoming qualitative research will be able to elaborate heron (chapter

5).

It is important to note that co-creation, belonging to the field of marketing, is bilateral

with a stand on each side of the interaction (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). It supports


37/183

and generates value for both consumers and brands. Thus despite of this study’s focus

on merely consumers’ value creation, it is important to look into motivational factors

for the brand as well, in order to discuss the forthcoming research findings from a

holistic perspective.

3.3.3.2 Brand motivation for co-creation

Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) approach to value co-creation likewise emphasizes

the organizational benefits of encountering consumers’ interests and abilities to

enhance relevance, build strong relations, and help generate innovations. The brand

perspective is as mentioned further the attention of many scholars (section 1.2). Hereto

the discussed market changes suggest that collaboration and co-creation is the new

mode of competition (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Grönroos, 2011; Gouillart, 2010).

By meeting consumers’ desire to generate innovation and their demands for

engagement and unique experiences, co-creation is reducing the previous gap between

the brand and the consumer, reinforcing the human connection (Roser et al., 2009).

Moreover co-creation and the shift in value creation take a function usually performed

internally by producers and marketers, and outsource central parts to the innovative

and creative minds of consumers, making consumers a part of brand resources and very

much valuable to the brand (ibid.). This further opens for cost-reductive and

optimization benefits in terms of market research and innovation (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004; Grarup, 2012; Füller, 2010). Managed effectively, brands will

through the unique value ultimately unlock new sources of sustainable competitive

advantage of productivity and knowledge benefits through increased efficiency and

improved effectiveness (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Payne et al., 2009). Thus co-

creation brings several brand benefits of differentiation, brand awareness, cost

reduction, and higher consumer satisfaction in being able to co-create solutions that

best fit consumer needs with individualized consumption experiences (Yanning, 2011;

Roser et al., 2009; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010; Grarup, 2012). As stated

by Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a: 100), “give your stakeholders a bigger say, and

they’ll lead you to better insights, revenues, and profits”. However it is found important

to note that the developing mode of value creation, moving away from the sole domain

of economics (sections 1.6; 3.3), hereto induces a risk of speculations, when benefits are

directly equated with profit and revenue (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). Through co-creation


38/183

brands gain valuable insights that allow them to make safer and more successful

choices (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Thus, co-creation further reduces risk for

brands, as they, not to the same extent as before, must predict whether consumers will

accept innovations and brand identities (ibid.). The degree of value and benefits created

for the brand is determined by the total consumer experience, being the center of co-

creation (section 3.3). Thus, all together these brand benefits further stress the

importance of dialogue and interaction; it should be a win-win mode of value creation

(Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013).

3.4 Brand identification through co-creation

With knowledge about how co-creation has refocused the branding approach, (section

3.3) and with a thesis focus on consumer value creation, and an interest in consumers’

discourse of co-creation in relation to brand value (section 1.2), it is deemed relevant to

incorporate the term of brand identification. Based on the theoretical review of both the

branding paradigm and co-creation, brand identification is presumed to be a valuable

outcome of co-creation. Driven by the quest for authenticity and the importance of

personalization, postmodern consumers pursue true identification through individual

brand consumption and modification (Fisher & Smith, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2004). Thus, brand identification can be argued to determine the power and potential of

the value co-creation. In order to understand this identification and the increasing

influence of co-creation in a postmodern society, one needs to again look into significant

factors within the branding paradigm that too have been driven to accommodate the

postmodern consumer culture (Holt, 2002; sections 3.21; 3.2.2). Because the brand is

important, as it is the brand that frames the co-creation process and moreover inspires

the value outcomes hereof, and vise versa, the outcome of co-creation further affects the

meaning of the brand (Ind & Coates, 2013). Identification refers to the emotional and

social connection the consumer has with the brand (Aaker et al., 2004), and the self-

congruity process between the brand image and the consumer’s self-concept, being the

main driver of brand identification (Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011: 309; Helgeson &

Supphellen, 2004; section 3.1.1). Thus brand identification relates to both the notion of

brand identity introduced by Aaker (1997) and Kapferer (1997) (section 3.2.1), and the

one of brand relationship by Fournier (1997) (section 3.2.2). However by using the


39/183

concepts of identification and identity in relation to the developed brand paradigm of

co-creation, this study differ especially from Aaker (1997) and Kapferer (1997) in the

terms of use. They work by the hypothesis that brand identity has only one function,

namely to build a favorable image through representations of the identity of the brand

(section 3.2.1). However, as a result of the more relational and social optics (section

3.2.2; 3.3), the brand identity and image are somewhat ambiguous and should rather be

understood as a mutual and social construction (section 3.1; 3.3). It is argued that the

brand identification, in this postmodern society, will not be one dominant conception of

the brand, but the individual experience of the brand that varies from situation to

situation. Within a postmodern marketplace identity is fragmented and under

continuous transformation (section 3.1), making the social and contextual aspects of the

identification imperative. Postmodernism and co-creation calls for an emphasis on

connectivity and creativity, and not least the possibility to construct different

experiences of the same brand that utilizes the representation of different self-images

(section 3.1; Firat & Venkatesh, 1993).

3.4.1 Interaction human-to-human

For the postmodern consumer, brand identification involves interaction with the brand,

hereto Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) building blocs of interaction are, as

mentioned, regarded as the starting point for further development within the branding

paradigm (section 3.3.1). With this vast importance of a mutual dialogue2, it is found

relevant to continue the branding development and build hereon, in the pursue of new

perspectives matching the present market. Interaction and dialogue in their direct

forms allude a perspective of human-to-human, and refer to the brand as an equal

participant in the social connection with consumers. Thus one could argue that Aaker’s

(1997) brand personality factor (section 3.2.1; appendix 5) still plays a role in the

brand-consumer relationship, providing a set of personality traits to the brand based on

it actions, which equal consumers’ current self-reference (Aaker, 1997; Keller, 1993;

Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011). However as identity is fragmented and not static as

earlier (section 3.1.1), the brand personality further needs to be seen within the

recognition of a new brand approach. Postmodern consumers construct, represent, and

2 Comprising access, transparency, and risk-benefits (section 3.3.2)


40/183

maintain their self-identity through brand experiences, but not necessarily based on the

brand status, rather the value of the experience itself is what heightens the self-concept

(sections 3.1; 3.3). Thus the brand personality perspective in this study would merely

concern the brand as a relationship partner and not as an isolated personality applied

to the brand/product. Co-creation facilitates consumer engagement on a mutual level

and enables this consumer self-exhibition through brand experiences (section 3.3;

Ramaswamy, 2011). One could hereby argue that co-creation helps provide human

traits and personality to the non-human form of a brand, as it sets the stage for close

interaction and further gives the brand the human ability to listen and understand,

being an important outcome for consumers to engage in co-creation (section 3.3.3;

Payne et al., 2009).

3.4.2 Interaction as a social construction

With the brand being a relationship partner in the co-creation process, there is as

mentioned a focus on the social awareness and the contextual aspects within the

consumption, experience, and identification of a brand (section 3.2.2). A strong brand

relationship will ensure that the interaction does not comprise of two parallel processes

but one merged and shared process (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Therefore brands

can no longer function as the authority of consumer choices and behavior; rather they

are merely a means to value, in a market where consumers enrich their social identities

through the brand experience (sections 3.1; 3.3). As argued by Holt (2002: 83) “the

postmodern branding paradigm is premised upon the idea that brands will be more

valuable if they are offered not as cultural blueprints but as cultural resources, as useful

ingredients to produce self as one chooses”. Brands and consumers should no longer

exist in a void, they need to interact and co-create value for each other, human-to-

human. Co-creation requires certain closeness between consumers and brands and is

proven to benefit both brands and consumers, giving both parties the roles of providers

as well as beneficiaries (section 3.3.3; Cova & Dalli, 2009: 333; Pongsakornrungsilp &

Schroeder, 2011: 309). Hence co-creation is argued to bring brands and consumers

closer together through shared values and mutual exchange of intangible resources

(section 3.1.1). By increasing the number of connection points between the brand and

consumers, co-creation becomes a driver of relationships and may even strengthen the

relationship between the two (Hoyer et al., 2010: 292; Grarup, 2012). This refers back


41/183

to the discussed relational brand perspective lead by Fournier (1998), arguing that the

brand meaning occurs in the relationship between the brand and the consumer (section

3.2.2; appendix 6). However, in line with other brand perspectives Fournier’s (1998)

relationship view is too being challenged by co-creation and the advanced relational

focus (sections 3.2.2; 3.3). The consumer is not only an individual as recognized in

Fournier’s perspective, but also a part of a social and cultural fabric. Thus apart from

the relationship between the brand and the consumer (section 3.2.2), another area

needs to be recognized with also interactions between the consumer and other

consumers (section 3.3; Heding et al., 2009). From this perspective, it is argued that

peer-to-peer communication formats influence the more traditional, vertical brand-to-

consumer interaction, designating a new social and joint value creation independent

from brand attentions (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). The difference can be summarized in

the figure 6 below.

Figure 6: The developed relations perspective (complied by the author)

It is, thus, important to note that when considering consumers as collaborators in the

co-creation process of generating value and meaning (section 3.3), it does not

necessarily imply that these consumers are interested in an actual relationship with the

brand. As pointed out by Cova (1996) “the postmodern consumer prefers to create and

maintain relations with other consumers, not necessarily with a brand or a company

behind the brand” (Cova in Christensen et al., 2005: 159). Thus co-creation should

encourage stronger relationships, but not necessarily for the traditional sake of brand

loyalty, which is questionable in a fragmented postmodern consumer culture (section

3.1.1). Rather it should be for the brand identification that can just as well be applied in

a consumer-to-consumer relation (Tuškej et al., 2013). Through co-creation, one moves

away from simply two-way communication and towards active interaction shaping


42/183

expectations on a multilevel access and hereby co-creating brand value on the base of

dialogue, access, transparency, and risk-benefits (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000;

section 3.3.1). Thus brand identification should be a result of synergy between all types

of relationships, being it consumer-to-brand or consumer-to-consumer. Hereby the

ability to build a strong brand will further depend on its participatory market

orientation and thus ability to engage consumers in dialogue (Ind & Coates, 2013).

All in all these above discussed brand factors of brand experience, brand personality in

the form of human-to-human brand relationships, social peer connections, and brand

value and evaluation are mutually dependent factors encouraged and strengthened by

co-creation. Together they can, as advocated, comprise and result in brand

identification, which of course differ from situation to situation, dependent on social

interaction and context. The following section brings together the theoretical review

and evaluation to inquire into contemporary accounts of co-creation, and presents a

conceptual framework based hereon.

3.5 Theoretical subset and conceptual framework

Through this theoretical chapter the concept of co-creation has been specified in its

relation to the context of a postmodern consumer approach and developments within

the branding paradigm, thus answering research question one and attending milestone

one and soon also milestone two of this thesis. The development of co-creation has

changed the understanding and perspective of branding; having evolved to focus on

social relations and experiences, being the driving force and output of co-creation and

brand value (sections 3.3; 3.4). Having emerged as a response to postmodern market

changes, the co-creation of value focuses on consumer demands for active participation

and takes a new holistic and social perspective on consumer interaction. With an

indicated mutual beneficial engagement between consumers, brands, and other

consumers, there is a need for a social and contextual dialogue in the creation of unique

brand experiences (sections 3.3.1; 3.3.3). Co-creation is in its true nature a relational

process, and therefore interaction is paramount. As clarified in section 3.3.1 this

interaction encompasses four building blocks of co-creation being dialogue, access,

transparency, and risk-benefits. Thus with inspiration from Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2004) these parameters are incorporated as prerequisites for co-creation in this


43/183

study’s conceptual framework below in figure 7. Based on the theory clarified in the

above sections, the study suggests that successful co-creation3 leads to greater brand

identification among consumers (section 3.4). A result that is very much determined by

and dependent on consumers’ reflections and negotiations of the factors of brand

experience, relationship, brand value, and social connections (sections 3.4.1; 3.4.2),

being the expected value assets of co-creation as visualized below. Hereby the first stage

of the framework highlights the input in co-creation, followed by the interaction and the

actual co-creation process. The third stage shows the value impact on consumers listed

as the four brand factors and value assets. These factors can through different

configurations and consumer valuation increase the likelihood of consumers’ brand

identification, and thus a shared valuable outcome of co-creation. The increased focus

on mutual and equal dialogue thus shapes new recognitions of the brand identity

construct through co-creation.

Figure 7: Conceptual framework (complied by the author)

By suggesting the complexity of co-creation and its relation to brand identification, the

conceptual framework contributes to the understanding of this complexity by accepting

the many parallel processes of interaction and means of value. This furthermore calls

3 Being it co-creation of products, services, experiences or something different.


44/183

for a reflection of the values and understandings that consumers realize of co-creation

and how they build discourses from their notion hereof. Through this theoretical

review, the study has thus highlighted some preliminary configurations of consumer

value assets influenced by co-creation, as visualized in figure 7 and clarified in table 4

below. These value assets will affect the research collection, and will thus be further

explored and elaborated in the forthcoming analysis and discussion, together with

consumers’ discourses of co-creation, to attend milestone three and four. However it is

important to note that the study moreover engages in the research with an open and

inductive perspective to the data, utilizing the qualitative iterative approach as

mentioned in section 2.2.

Value asset Description Theoretical sections

Brand experience

It is argued that co-creation lead to richer brand experiences, which might increase the extent to which each individual incorporate the brand into his/her self-concept.

(sections 3.3; 3.4)

Brand relationship

Co-creation is argued to bring brands and consumers closer together and thus foster stronger relationships - but different from the traditional vertical brand-to-consumer interaction, rather a human-to-human relationship.

(sections 3.4.1; 3.4.2)

Social peer connection

Co-creation is said to foster social connections with other peers that not necessarily involve the brand in its traditional form.

(section 3.4.2)

Brand value (evaluation)

Co-creation is argued to create brand value through relationships, and thus make consumers evaluate brands more favorably.

(section 3.4)

Table 4: Suggested value assets of co-creation (complied by the author)

Having argued for the overall theoretical framework, and thus addressed research

question one, and proposed a conceptual framework on the relationship between co-

creation and brand identification as foundation for the empirical analysis, the

subsequent chapter accounts and argues for the overall research strategy, methodology,

and analysis employed to answer research question two.


45/183

4 Research Methodology

This chapter operates as a guide and basis for the analytical parts of the study in order

to outline the reflections made to encounter the research aim (section 1.3; Aaker et al.,

2007). The intention of this chapter is thus to demonstrate a clear linkage between the

study’s scientific foundations and the choice of research methodology.

4.1 Methodology

To answer research question two and acquire the most qualified data for analysis, a

qualitative methodology of a focus group and three supporting interviews is chosen.

Both have the same beneficial attributes to explore the perspectives of participants’ in-

depth and be flexible when allowing answers to form the evolving conversation and

knowledge creation (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 220-246). The focus group is chosen as

the main means for data collection as it is well suited for this explorative study with its

collective group interaction encouraging more spontaneous expressive and emotional

views, and will be less cognitive than individual interviews alone (Kvale & Brinkmann,

2009: 150; Bryman, 2012). From a social constructionist viewpoint it is thus suitable to

produce data that says something about the construction of meaning. This means that a

focus group will generate more diverse knowledge providing evidence from a range of

different attitudes on the same subject (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 242). The purpose

is to stimulate ideas, thoughts and opinions about the value and experience of co-

creation from the point of view of the participants (section 1.3). Through qualitative

research one is able to go beyond the rational answers of asking people what they want,

and instead ask ‘why’, in order to attain deeper thoughts and reasons behind the

rational answer (Ind et al., 2012: 1). However as the group interaction of a focus group

might also reduce control, and lack the ability to go in depth with the individual

opinions (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 150), individual interviews with three of the

participants are included for research support. This further allows for additional

themes to be explored that might arise during the focus group, and the interviews will

thus be able to unfold the meaning behind the expressed opinions in the focus group.

Figure 8 illustrates the empirical methods chosen and purpose of use of the same.


46/183

Figure 8: Overview of empirical data (complied by the author)

4.1.1 Selection of respondents

The type of sampling used, when selecting respondents is purposeful and thus based on

conditions determined by the aims of the study (Daymon & Holloway, 2002: 245). The

research is aimed at the general consumer, more specifically generation Y4 as they will

be used to maneuvering in the postmodern marketplace as a more connected and

communicating generation. The selected respondents all have an association to the area

of communication, and thus have knowledge of the terminology used herein, which will

appear in their comments. This is by the researcher argued to be an advantage when

unfolding a complex and rather new concept such as co-creation. Six respondents are

chosen for the focus group (table 5), a size large enough to provide a variety of

perspectives and keep the dynamics going, and small enough to avoid disorder

(Daymon & Holloway, 2011; Bryman, 2012: 351-352). From these six participants,

three are chosen for the individual interviews, to further explore opinions (table 6).

4 Generation Y (born in the mid-1980's and later) is the core of the postmodern consumers – a generation that is flexible in its consciousness and communication (Schroer).


47/183

Females Males

L - 26 years old, Planner R - 28 years old, HR

D - 27 years old, PR assistant M - 29 years old, Unemployed

C - 25 years old, Model

K - 25 years old, Student

Table 5: List of interviewed respondents for the focus group

Individual interviews

R - 28 years old, HR

D - 27 years old, PR assistant

K - 25 years old, Student

Table 6: List of interviewed respondents for the individual interviews

4.1.2 Semi structured interviews

As full objectivity is not an option from this study’s scientific realization (section 2.1.1),

there will always be presuppositions present, impacting the study’s approach to the

subject of research. Therefore both the focus group and the individual interviews are

semi-structured, meaning that interview guides (appendixes 9; 10) are designed

beforehand, including an outline of topics, questions, and case examples (Daymon &

Holloway, 2011: 225; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 130). The focus group guide is created

based on the theoretical review and the conceptual topics specified in section 3.5. The

individual interviews are designed based on the focus group and the additional themes

that aroused herein in need for further assessment. A semi-structured mode ensures

that similar types of data are collected from all participants (Daymon & Holloway, 2011:

225-227). However the questions are guiding and not leading, hence the structure also

has an explorative purpose and allows for spontaneous occurrences of linked topics, as

these will only strengthen the proximity to the research object (ibid.). The purpose of

the introductory questions and case examples are merely used to open and stimulate

opinions of the co-creation concept, and the questions are open-ended to help

respondents initiate and form the conversation. Having a semi-structured mode means

that the moderator can focus on listening and following up on the different answers to


48/183

best produce relevant knowledge (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 106; Daymon & Holloway,

2011: 227).

Having argued for the overall research methodology and accounted for the sample

studied, the subsequent sections account for the mode of analysis and reflections

hereof.

4.2 Analytical strategy

The approach to the qualitative research represents a social constructionist and

hermeneutic approach, where the interpretation of meaning from language constructs

is central (sections 2.1.3; 2.2). As the qualitative research focuses on an understanding

and interpretation of meanings, so should the mode of analysis. Therefore elements of

‘Foucauldian discourse analysis’ are applied, in order to understand the discourses

articulated by concept and value of co-creation. According to Foucault (1972),

discourses are representations in society that are “constituted by and operating through

language and other symbolic systems …] through which we experience the world”

(Burr, 2003: 18). Discourse analysis is thus a tool for social and conversational analysis,

and by looking at what is constituted as object and subject positions (what is being said

and in what connections it is being said), one can analyze different discursive

repertoires that participants draw upon (Brown & Yule, 1983). Hereto it is, with a

hermeneutic approach, argued that each participant has a presupposition pool of prior

knowledge and contexts, which comes to show as the conversation and discourse

proceeds (Brown & Yule, 1983: 80; section 2.1.2). Hence discourse analysis is here used

methodologically to access the process of rhetorical connections within the data

collected, and the meanings of the participants, being the discourse references and

narratives through which they elaborate on the position of co-creation (Davies & Haré,

1990: 47; Brown & Yule, 1983; Paltridge, 2012). As for the discourse analysis in this

study, it is not conducted on a text-linguistic level; rather it is used in terms of the

holistic language and conversation perspective. To achieve a substantive outcome and

to examine the discourses that construct the participants’ understanding of co-creation,

topic coding or deconstruction is needed (Burr, 2003: 18; Gibson & Brown, 2009).

Inspired by the hermeneutic text interpretation, the study uses coding to reduce,


49/183

organize, and categorize the semantic data into different themes and subthemes salient

to the area of enquiry (Gibson & Brown, 2009; Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 306; Kvale &

Brinkmann, 2009: 201-202; Burr, 2003: 18). Working with the codes the study has

searched both inductively and deductively for relationships that indicate patterns to

provide structure for analysis. Deductively the codes are theory-driven based on

themes from the theoretical framework (chapter 3), and inductively the coding is data-

derived in identifying additional patterns of interest that emerged during the research

and data examination (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 202). According to Braun and Clarke

(2006: 82) ”a theme captures something important about the data in relation to the

research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within

the data set”, hereto it is further argued that a theme is flexible depending on the

context of use. The themes are added to the transcriptions with code numbers and

letters in appendixes 12-15 while table 7 illustrates an overview of the appointed

themes and subthemes.

Theme Code Subthemes

Co-creation 1

a) Product centered

b) Customization

c) Negotiation – open interpretation

d) Modes of co-creation e) Value added

f) Co-creation communication

Brand identification 2

a) Prior brand relationship and knowledge b) Purpose

c) Self-recognition d) Product quality

Brand Relationship 3 a) Dialogue b) Brand exploration

c) Involvement

Brand Value 4 a) Brand evaluation

b) Brand preference

Motivation 5

a) Feedback b) Feeling unique

c) Social recognition d) Brand profit

Brand loyalty 6 a) Purchase intention

b) Brand commitment

Brand skepticism 7

a) Risk

b) Exploitation c) Marketing stunt


50/183

Social connections 8

a) Networks

b) Belonging c) Social influence

Personal image 9 a) Self expression

b) Social identity

Brand experience 10

a) Fun

b) Interactions/ social connections c) Knowledge generation

Trust and honesty 11 a) Brand behavior b) CSR

c) Brand promise Table 7: Overview of themes and subthemes used for analysis (compiled by the author)

From the identified themes, different elements and discourses of co-creation are

recognized and used to structure the analysis and discussion, however they will not all

be given equal attention. One is hereby, through the use of the hermeneutic circle and

it’s iterate functions, able to understand the data as a whole by interpreting its parts in

relation to the research context, providing the possibility of a “continuously deepened

understanding of meaning” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 210-211). In answering

research question two and attending milestone three and four, the codes and discourses

of the research data will further be held up against the scientific and theoretical

background put forth in chapter 2 and 3. The process is visualized in figure 9 below,

depicting the empirical analysis and research process of this study. Based on the

theoretical and scientific understanding gained by the researcher, the empirical

research is initiated with the focus group and elaborated on through the three

individual interviews (sections 4.1; 4.1.2). Together they form the data material for

analysis that trough coding and meaning condensation is taken through elements of

discourse analyses, whereto new knowledge is developed.


51/183

Figure 9: Analytical process (complied by the author)

4.3 Method reflections

Although focus group and interview research is beneficial in many ways, it also has

limitations; these research methods are distinct events of conversations following their

own rules that to some extent will differ from everyday context of conversations

(Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 255). This should, however, not keep this study in

employing them as use of data, but rather increase awareness of the limitations that

commonly involve lack of control, domination from one or two participants, influences

from the moderator, and/or group density altering individual opinions (Daymon &

Holloway, 2011; Bryman, 2012: 359). Furthermore both interview forms might make

some participants exaggerate their answers in the attempt to control their appearance,

thus affecting the reliability of knowledge generated (Daymon & Holloway, 2011). It is

recognized that the researcher is not necessarily able to analyze participants' real and

ultimate relation to what is being discussed, however the insights should not be viewed

as right or wrong, yet rather as products of the research context and inference


52/183

(Smithson, 2000; Brown & Yule, 1983; section 2.1.3). Moreover one must note that

analyses of discourses will vary depending on the context; the system is developed as

one comprehends the data and identifies discourses (Burr, 2003; Brown & Yule, 1983:

27). Hereby the data studied will always be a fragment of the discourse chosen by the

researcher as relevant and by the researchers assumption of coherence, producing one

particular interpretation that would be different within another setting. However

adopting a social constructionist and hermeneutic approach it is argued as acceptable to

take a subjective approach to interpretation (sections 2.1.1; 2.1.2). Nonetheless this

does not exclude the importance of considering context and the need for ongoing

reflections, as this will create a better understanding of the meaning and dynamics

(Brown & Yule, 1983; Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 239). It is recognized that because the

empirical analysis aims to understand participants’ interpretations, it results in a

double hermeneutic approach as the social reality observed and interpreted by the

researcher has already been interpreted by the informants (Lock & Strong, 2010: 214-

218). The scientific point of departure therefore has implications for this study’s

research process, and also for the role of the researcher – who too is influenced by a

cultural and social context.

4.3.1 Research evaluation and value

In order to evaluate the quality of the research it is important to account for the truth-

value of the findings (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 244). However, due to the subjective

nature of qualitative research and the social constructionist approach, the ‘usual’

questions of and criteria for reliability and validity, stemming from a more positivistic

perspective, is somewhat discharged (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Daymon & Holloway,

2011: 78). Rather this study recognizes that designs are emergent and not necessarily

replicable, as there are no absolute truths and objectivity is not for the researcher to

claim (chapter 2). Hereto Guba and Lincoln (1985) introduced four new

trustworthiness terms to replace the conventional formulations, which are considered

in this study (Bryman, 2012:273; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 244). These are “credibility

(in place of internal validity), transferability (in place of external validity),

dependability (in place of reliability), and conformability (in place of objectivity)” (Guba

& Lincoln, 1985: 219).


53/183

In order to ensure that findings and interpretations are credible one must ensure that

the research is carried out based on good practice, and that the findings are approved

by participants (Bryman, 2012: 274-275). Lincoln & Guba (1985: 314) refer to this as

respondent validation or member check, which has been implemented in this study

after the analysis of the data. The participants were surprised by some of their own

statements and contradictions, but had no significant objections. Transferability refers

to the contextual uniqueness of the research, making it difficult to specify external

validity and directly transfer it to other studies in other contexts or times (Guba &

Lincoln, 1985: 316). As a qualitative researcher one can however provide others with a

‘thick description’ of the research, enabling them to conclude whether transfer is a

possibility (Bryman, 2012: 275). In this chapter, the interview guides, and

transcriptions will form this description. As a parallel to reliability Lincoln & Guba

(1985: 316-318) propose the idea of dependability involving an outside inquiry audit

to authenticate the research. However the auditing is not used to its full extent in this

study, as due to the thorough transcriptions hereof it is not found imperative (Bryman,

2012: 275). Lastly conformability is introduced to ensure that the researcher “not

overtly allows personal values or theoretical inclinations manifestly to sway the

conduct of the research and findings derived from it” (Bryman, 2012: 276). This is

ensured by using both inductive and deductive research through semi-structured

methods, so that the focus group and interviews are guided, but with an open mind and

room for exploration (sections 4.2; 4.2.1).

From the preceding chapter it should be evident that the research design and research

aim have been carefully interlinked. The following chapter now turns attention to the

analysis and discussion of the research findings.


54/183

5 Data analysis and discussion

In answering research question two, this chapter sets out to analyze and discuss the

research findings from the focus group and interviews. In pursuing the iterative

approach of the hermeneutic circle with both an inductive and deductive method, the

findings are evaluated against the literature and conceptual framework outlined in

chapter 3 and moreover through coding and discourse representations found through

analysis to identify new themes and connotations of interest (section 4.3). Throughout

the chapter, discourse fragments (citations) will be provided with a reference to the

transcriptions5, and a unit number as listed in the appendixes. The researcher will base

the identification of respondents’ opinions on their linguistic articulations, which is said

to be consistent with their discourse representations unless otherwise indicated

(Brown & Yule, 1983). In the course of this chapter, the researcher shall examine and

discuss the overall understanding of the concept of co-creation, initially based on the

focus group data. Subsequently, the notion of co-creation in relation to brand

identification and value assets (section 3.5) will be considered in relation to discourse

representations made by participants in both the focus group and interviews.

5.1 The discourse of co-creation

When attending the first part of research question two, and thus also milestone three of

this study (section 1.3), it is argued that the conversations from the data collected

produce discursive resources that create a collective identity and translate it into the

meaning and discourses of co-creation. In contributing to the lack of knowledge of how

consumers understand co-creation and identify with brands here through (section 1.2),

respondents were initially asked to elaborate on their immediate reflections of co-

creation and if they believed they had ever engaged in co-creation processes

(appendixes 9; 12). From the initial reflections it is evident that respondents articulate

co-creation as merely centered on the product or service, as seen in the remarks below:

L: I think it co-creation maybe has something to do with the product or service of the

organization. (Appx. 12: 13)

5 The focus group transcription is found in appendix 12, the interview with K in appendix 13, the interview with D in appendix 14, and the interview with R in appendix 15.


55/183

D: I think my initial thoughts are *hmm* maybe product related as well. As well as

procedure related … But then I think, for me, I maybe combine co-creation with value

added to the brand as well. If that makes sense? (Appx. 12: 14)

C: I think it adds value both to consumers, seeing it from the other side of the table, but

also for the brands, because they can then represent what the consumers actually want.

(Appx. 12: 66)

Aside from the product perspective, value creation moreover develops as a topic of

conversation, as being part of co-creation. The latter remark is made after the

participants are introduced to some examples of co-creation, indicating that they, when

provided with discourse representations, also acknowledge the importance of mutual

value in co-creation. This is too emphasized in the theoretical perspective of especially

Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) definition of co-creation being the processes by

which both consumers and the brand cooperate in creating value (sections 3.3; 3.3.2).

However, this concept assessment moreover reveals how most participants held limited

knowledge of co-creation, and the initial stages of the focus group contributes to the

complexity of the concept as a result of the many modes hereof (sections 3.3; 3.3.2). The

participants were confused and somewhat cautious in their assumptions using phrases

like “if that makes sense”, “I think”, and “maybe” (appendix 12), indicating not only an

insecurity on the subject but also a hesitant ambience, with the participants awaiting

the opinion of others before they fully articulate their own. This is noteworthy, as it

confirms the assumption of continuous development in meaning and discourse, with

participants being influenced by the social surroundings and their own outward

appearance (section 3.1.1; Cova & Dalli, 2009; Firat & Schultz, 1997).

In these initial stages of assertion the term customization was further mentioned as a

part of the complex understanding of co-creation, initially with a proposition that

customization must differ from co-creation:

M: I normally think about the fact that it co-creation is different from customization.

(Appx. 12: 17)

R: I thought of build-a-bear to begin with as co-creation, but that must then be more

about customizing. (Appx. 12: 18)


56/183

As framed from the above conversational fragment, being the first to mention the term

customization, M influences the other participants’ understanding and discourse

reflections with his presupposed assumptions hereof (Brown & Yule, 1983: 28-29),

adding a term that was not introduced by the moderator. The subsequent remark by R

indicates that he has accepted this presupposition, and incorporated this in his

developing reflections. This is moreover an interesting observation as the term

‘customization’ is consequently used fairly prompt when the participants have to think

of and explain their own experiences with co-creation. A cognitive occurrence that

might not have been their first thought, had M not mentioned it as his initial remarks of

defining co-creation. Hence accompanying the contextual notion of today’s postmodern

consumers that, as humans, we are very much affected by the present social

environment and social interactions, in taking into consideration the features of M’s

developing discourse representation (Brown & Yule, 1983; sections 2.1.1; 3.1.1). When

talking about personal co-creation experiences, the majority of respondents hereby

referred to customization, not that they necessarily paralleled it with co-creation, but

because that was now top of mind and had become a common ground and

representation of the participants, as manifested in the following remarks:

Moderator: Have you ever engaged in co-creation processes? (Appx. 12: 23)

L: More customization I think… For example adding a color to a shoe, or something like

that - or the build-a-bear as [R] mentioned. (Appx. 12: 27; 30)

D: Yes, maybe more customization (Appx. 12: 28)

Only one respondent could initially recall a personal experience that he would actually

label co-creation, an open knowledge-sharing workshop he attended for a greener city

project (appendix 12: 31). A few of the others also remembered examples of co-creation

as the conversation went along, and their cognitions were more activated on the topic.

However, they were not recollections that occurred as a response to their personal co-

creation experiences, but merely in talking about the concept in general. Thus

highlighting the importance of examples and concretization when attempting to define


57/183

the complex concept of co-creation and activating the cognitive minds of participant6.

The researcher can from this argue that co-creation, as a concept, is somewhat diffuse,

and a process that consumers might engage in or be a part of without truly recognizing

it as being co-creation. This further comes to show in the following remark from the

individual interview with R, where he recognizes and positions co-creation within in a

developing branding discourse:

R: I think it ads an extra layer of fuzziness to branding. Branding without co-creation is

… more straightforward. There is a lot of brands competing and a lot of noise, but it is

much more approachable. When you ad an element of co-creation, you sometimes are

lured into it, and sometimes you realize that ‘I have just been a part of a co-creation

process without even knowing it'. That can be good or bad. (Appx. 14: 89)

The conversation fragment above further indicates that the fuzziness of co-creation

leads to some skepticism in using the phrase “lured into”. Acknowledging this

uncontrollability from both the consumer and brand point of view (sections 3.1.1; 3.3),

the research findings encourage a discussion of this skepticism and risk assessment in

relation to co-creation, which will be initiated in section 5.4.1. All together, this

indication of fuzziness and different observations of co-creation confirms the

methodological standpoint and theoretical notion that co-creation is a social construct

(sections 2.1.1; 3.3). Moreover the findings indicate that the concept might not be as

prevalent among consumers as depicted in literature, and has not reached the everyday

life and immediate interest of consumers yet.

5.1.1 Negotiating brands

In unfolding the concept of co-creation and adding a discourse of branding, the element

of brand negotiation is further incorporated as seen in the following statements - an

element that is moreover emphasized in the theoretical framework as being an

important factor in the co-creation process (sections 3.3; 3.3.1).

K: When I think of co-creation, I think of how we negotiate brands… Like if you have a

brand and you leave it up to consumers … to add value to the brand. (Appx. 12: 19)

6 Which is why examples were used in the focus group to initiate discussion (appendix 9). It is recognized that these examples will moreover influence participants’ discursive references.


58/183

D: I think that the co-creative process of involving consumers and taking their ideas into

account in developing something for your brand … then it is not just a one-way brand,

but a negotiated brand. (Appx. 15: 9)

When linking brand negotiation to the concept of co-creation, the participants concur

with Fournier’s (1998) central points in brand relationship, being that, the consumers

seem to negotiate the brand’s meaning in relation to both individual and social life

projects (section 3.2.2). Thus recognizing the relational and interactive discourse and

nature of co-creation (section 3.4.2). Through this link it is further argued that the

participants see co-creation as a personal brand experience, and thus endorse Prahalad

and Ramaswamy’s (2004) assertion that the brand is co-created by consumers and

changes along with experiences, and hereby creates value through interaction and

negotiation (section 3.3). However seeing co-creation as an experience further fuels the

complexity and confusion among respondents, as this very much blurs the lines in the

framework of co-creation. What in theory can be very simple seemingly is very complex

in the minds of consumers, which inter alia comes to show in the following remark:

D: I think it is hard if you look at it in that way as an experience, then everything

becomes co-creation even the way you use your Mac computer. You would then position

the brand in a situation where you would make other people perceive it depending on how

they are interacting with the brand through the product. (Appx. 12: 88)

Despite the participants being confused about the ‘co-creation of experiences’ and its

unclear lines, this study will with its theoretical background argue that co-creation put

the brand in a vibrant and negotiable situation where the brand value is affected by the

interaction and experience with the brand/product (sections 3.3; 3.3.1). The question is

whether this happens unknowingly in the eyes of consumers? Nonetheless, in order to

move respondents closer towards the recognition of ‘co-creation of experiences’, a new

co-creation example was incorporated in the second round of data collection; the three

supporting interviews (appendix 10), now to be further elaborated on.

5.1.2 Routes of co-creation

In section 3.3.2 of the theoretical framework and further in the focus group, examples of

co-creation were given to illustrate the variation in form and purpose of the concept,

and to initiate discussion. ‘Co-creation of design and open innovation’ was exemplified


59/183

using the LEGO CUUSOO platform while ‘co-creation community of ideas’ was illustrated

through BMW’s co-creation lab. Lastly DANONE and its Activia advisory board were

used to demonstrate ’co-creation of knowledge’ (section 3.3.2; appendix 7). However as

a result of the focus group research, it was found that respondents had difficulties in

visualizing and understanding the ‘co-creation of experiences’ (section 5.1) that

according to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) is the idea that every use of a brand

involves individual co-creation of consumption experiences (sections 3.3; 3.3.2). This is

the most progressive level of co-creation, which might also be the reason why it is the

one that caused the greatest confusion among the focus group participants (section 5.1).

Consequently it was found relevant to incorporate an additional example of co-creation,

illustrating the mode of experience, for use in the interviews and thus further discussion

and elaboration of co-creation. Hereby the thesis’ iterative qualitative approach

(sections 2.2; 4.2) comes to show as the researcher has learned from the first mode of

analysis and accordingly incorporates new inputs to the second round of data collection

(Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 303). These results will then again be analyzed alongside

the focus group findings in the remainder of this chapter.

The example chosen to expand this understanding is Nike’s running system: Nike+. It

consists of a censor that runners can insert in their shoes, a connected device, such as

an iPod or a Nike Fuelband, and then the Nike+ website and community for interaction

between all the devices (appendix 8). Here the product and design is already created,

and the co-creation process is focused on the holistic experience and personal use of the

product and brand in general. Nike+ sets the stage for a community of runners that co-

create their own experiences around the Nike product every time they use it and engage

with other consumers doing the same (Ramaswamy & Goulliart, 2010b; appendix 8).

Hence Nike connects with the experience of the runners as they interact with the

product and brand, now being the engagement platform opening up to multiple types of

co-creators. With the inclusion of this new example for use in the interviews, the

researcher moreover recognizes the need for an improved illustration of the co-creation

examples within figure 5 in section 3.3.2. To properly illustrate the overall routes of co-

creation the figure is modified to the below figure 10, where the DANONE example is

merged into the ‘idea and knowledge’ route with BWM, and the Nike+ example is added

as a more advanced level. Again it is important to note that these different forms of co-


60/183

creation are not mutually exclusive; rather they can be used together to reinforce the

value outcome (section 3.3.2).

Figure 10: Modification of co-creation examples (section 3.3.2; appendix 7; 8)

Within the supporting interviews, the factor of experience is thus again discussed and

backed with new knowledge and input from the added case example. The participants

feel equally favorable about the Nike+ initiative in itself; one of them actually uses the

system. However they still have difficulties aligning this experience mode of co-creation

with their understanding of the concept. They see the use of Nike+ as being their own

personal experience that they could have with any other brand or product. They see it

more as a service and way of supporting the brand, than as co-creation, which comes to

show in the following remarks:

D: I am not sure I see it as co-creation, maybe more of a service. (Appx. 15: 43)

K: I think in this type of co-creation I am not affecting the brand I am supporting the

brand. So in that way I would think positively about Nike and still identify with Nike, but I

wouldn't think that I am co-creating the brand as such. (Appx. 13: 50; 55)

R: It per definition might be co-created, but I would feel a lot more that it is my fault alone

that I get this experience. …] I could still have the same experience with another product.

… The co-creation needs an element where I can say 'without Nike I wouldn't have had

this experience' (Appx. 14: 77, 79, 83).

Hereto it is further argued that the participants in their discourse of the concept

presuppose brand involvement as a condition for co-creation, as they do not recognize

Nike+ as co-creation because they themselves own the experience. Thus Prahalad and

Co-creation of design ‘open innovation’

Co-creation of ideas and knowledge

Co-creation based on personal experiences


61/183

Ramaswamy’s (2004) approach to co-creation of experience might be among the more

ultimate of ideas, or at least not something that knowingly is recognized by consumers.

It seems that the respondents would think more positively about Nike through this type

of experience, so even though they do not believe they engage directly with the brand,

what is intended as co-creation of experience still affects their brand evaluation

favorably. Therefore co-creation of experience as in the Nike+ example might not be co-

creation in the eyes of the consumers, however it is from the point of view of the brand,

adding value to the brand. The question is then, if co-creation needs to be recognized by

consumers to be successful and lead to brand identification?

5.1.3 Customization as co-creation?

When discussing the routes of co-creation and thus the different modes hereof, the term

customization, mentioned in section 5.1, is brought up again later in the conversation.

This time in the context of a co-creation example introduced by one of the respondents,

with the brand Kit Kat that launched new product flavors, where people had to vote for

the flavor that they preferred. As a result, Kit Kat would take the other three of the

market, knowing that the one remaining would be the one selling the most (appendix

12: 211). The respondents positively discuss the example and further allude that they

find this mode of co-creation, which they label customization, more simple and easily

accessible:

L: If I should want to participate in a co-creation process with a brand that is not like my

heart and soul, then the customization way is just easier for me. It doesn’t take as much

effort. (Appx 12: 214)

D: I think for me personally, it is a more fun way. Because, even though I couldn’t really

care less about what Kit Kat products are like *smile*, they made me go to the shop and

buy one just to taste it, because the flavors were so ridiculous that I just had to taste them.

And then I just kind of went into a battle with everyone else on the Facebook page, because

I wanted the peanut butter one to win. (Appx. 12: 215)

The respondents here to some extent equate customization with co-creation, despite

the somewhat clear distinction earlier in the conversation (section 5.1). Hence the

notion, put forth by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), that co-creation does not include

product development in its sole form (section 3.3.2), might still be somewhat too


62/183

idealistic. The product focus appears to still be appealing and relevant among

consumers. Nonetheless, despite the accessibility of customization and thus framing

product focus as a part of co-creation, the respondents articulate that the more

motivating and valuable form of co-creation is the one where they as consumers are

empowered and involved in the more important dialogues and thus are indispensable

for the brand and not just the customization of a product:

R: I am more into co-creation where the brand or company could not have done it without

the consumers. (Appx. 12: 75)

This again only strengthens the complexity of co-creation, and suggests that the routes

and different modes of co-creation, inscribed in many different discourses, might have a

greater impact on the outcome and consumer mindset, than first anticipated (sections

3.3.2; 3.5). With the existing understanding of co-creation among participants, it is not

possible to talk only of the general co-creation of shared value (section 3.3). The

participants aspire to more specific examples and modes of co-creation in order to

consciously discuss the concept, and are affected hereof when determining the value

and the outcome, as manifested in the below remarks:

D: The type of co-creation would definitely affect my view on the co-creation process.

(Appx 12: 91)

K: The form of co-creation would also be a part of how it co-creation for me affects the

outcome, the brand relationship, value and so on. (Appx 12: 92)

This is a noteworthy finding that supplements the characteristics of the fragmented

postmodern consumer who pursues different entities to match different moments and

the desired identity herein (section 3.1.1; Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Firat & Schultz,

1997). Therefore, this individualization of consumers is argued to moreover affect their

desire to distinguish between co-creation routes and ability to choose the mode that fits

their current needs and situation at hand.

5.2 Brand identification through co-creation

From the theoretical review it is argued that brand identification is an imperative factor

for co-creation to fully succeed brand wise (sections 3.4; 3.5), and this following section


63/183

will look further into the research findings hereto, attending the second part of research

question two. The discourse of brand identification is included prior to the value assets

of co-creation, also in the focus group guide, as it is believed that by introducing the

element of brand identification the respondents initiate discourse representations

hereto and activate presuppositions concerning the value outcome of co-creation. This

might be perceived as influencing the discourse development, however it is deemed

essential to stay within the limited scope of the research.

In line with the theoretical assessments (section 3.4) there is across the respondents

supporting confirmations that brand identification can be a positive outcome of co-

creation, however with several conditions mooted as requirements hereto and elements

hereof. Although a couple of the respondents claim indifference to the brand behind the

co-creation initiatives, they yet acknowledge brands that have engaged successfully in

co-creation. Other respondents emphasize that co-creation would only result in brand

identification in so far that they are familiar with the brand beforehand, and thus have a

favorable prior relationship with and knowledge about the brand. This perception

reflects a standpoint that is supported, one way or another, by all participants and thus

develops as common ground when talking about brand identification. The standpoint

will be further explored in the following section 5.2.1. Brand identification in itself is

discussed as strongly connected to personal and emotional values and the brand

purpose. The below statements assembles the overall attitudes held by respondents

towards brand identification as well as its relation to co-creation:

C: It co-creation does actually change how I view the brands. (Appx. 12: 66)

L: I am tired of brands that are not here for anything. There has to be some greater

purpose with the brand for them to make an impact in my life. (Appx. 12: 46)

K: I think that when you get the opportunity to co-create with a brand, you agree to put

part of yourself into the brand. … For me to identify with a brand there has to be some

shared values and an emotional connection, if that makes sense. I need to se my self in the

brand before I can identify with it. (Appx. 13: 10; 53)


64/183

M: It is really about identifying something in the brand that is also how I want to be seen

and how I am as a person. … So the experience will also change my own identity that I

show others. I will be more committed to the brand further on. (Appx. 12: 45; 99)

R: On a conscious level I don’t think it co-creation affects me at all, on a subconscious

level perhaps. But I don’t think you will be able to see a difference in my bank receipts to be

honest. It really need to have me be involved in a long period of time before I make any big

changes, for me it is more hyped than actual value. I identify with brands that are

approachable …, honesty and that you know what you get, that is important. (Appx. 12:

231; 50)

The latter statement by R is the only contradictory opinion towards co-creation leading

to brand identification. Here R chooses not to accept and adopt the other participants’

presuppositions, and rather add his own, thus this contradiction further allows some

perspective on the developing discourses and encourages reflections among

participants. However in the individual interview, R accepts and adopts some of the

discourse representations and presuppositions from the focus group, and conversely

recognizes the importance of identification and its interrelation with co-creation:

R: I would also look at it the other way around, if you can't identify with the brand, how

can you co-create it, why would you co-create? If… At some point in the co-creation

process you will have to identify to a certain extent. Otherwise, how can it make sense?

Unless the co-creation process is so detached from the company, that you don't realize the

brand. … So I think it is just a part of the process. (Appx. 13: 15)

These findings back the theoretical argument made by the researcher in section 3.4 and

3.5 that brand identification is a valuable outcome of co-creation. The participants

supplement the fact that brand identification is an emotional connection and a self-

congruity process between the brand image and the consumer’s self-concept (section

3.4; Aaker et al., 2004; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011), and they further add that within

this process rests also factors of social connections and other brand influences.

Consequently, brand identification is not stimulated by co-creation alone and is not a

guaranteed outcome hereof. It is the holistic brand experience that determines whether

consumers identify with a brand or not; co-creation does as established however

function as a strong influencer hereto. Just as expected in the theoretical assessment

there are certain requirements in order for brand identification to arise, assumed co-

creation value assets that through different connections can result in brand


65/183

identification (section 3.5). When discussing the process of and relationship between

co-creation and brand identification, the respondents highlight different related

benefits and effects as conditions hereof. Aside from the above-mentioned importance

of prior brand familiarity, especially factors of brand relationship, social connections of

likeminded, self-expression, brand commitment, and trust were emphasized and

considered in different associations. It is thus determined that co-creation affects

consumers’ brand attitude, however for it to affect brand identification as well, a

combination of these elements should be present. These value assets, as they are

referred to in the conceptual framework (section 3.5), will be further analyzed and

expanded in the subsequent section 5.3 and the remainder of this chapter.

In analyzing participants’ discourses around brand identification, the research findings

further show that involvement is framed as a paramount for identification, indicating

that consumers are more inclined to identify with brands through co-creation initiatives

that they themselves have been involved in. Conversely, just as well as involvement in

co-creation can reinforce brand identification, involvement in a poor co-creation

experience can damage the brand evaluation and image, and very much make

consumers retain from identifying with the brand:

L: If I was involved in co-creation and it was poorly executed it would devaluate my brand

experience and relationship, and would put a greater distance between the brand and

myself. (Appx. 12: 82)

D: Or if the co-creation outcome and promises was not acted upon afterwards. (Appx. 12:

83)

The above fragments of conversation moreover present yet another indicator of

underlying brand skepticism among participants. They represent the informed group of

postmodern consumers who see value in brand interaction, but also is aware of the

underlying agendas for brands, recognizing the possible negative effect of poorly

executed and maintained interaction. As mentioned, this skepticism will be discussed in

section 5.4.1. Nonetheless, despite this element of risk, the significance of involvement

further emphasizes the previous discussed fundamentals of interaction and negotiation

(sections 5.1; 5.1.1). Therefore, together with the postmodern approach (section 3.1),


66/183

and the branding paradigm developments (sections 3.2; 3.4), research findings suggest

that brand identity and identification should be a participatory process of negotiations

and reflections on consumers’ selves, hence a co-constructed brand identification. This

brand identification, creating a sense of self-brand connection among consumers, is

argued to positively serve brands in a competitive market, provided that the value

assets are established.

5.2.1 Prior brand knowledge and relationship

Having a social constructionist and hermeneutic framework, it is assumed that the

participants are affected by presuppositions of their past experiences and

understandings of social processes, and thus are subjective in talking in the light of their

present understanding of the situation (section 2.1.2). An influence and subjectivity

that, as mentioned, further appears in the research findings, when the importance of

prior knowledge about the brand is highlighted, in the determination of opinion and

identification (section 5.2). Following the initial assessment of the effect that co-

creation has on brand identification, the researcher soon discovers a tendency of

reflection of and reference to previous brand experiences and knowledge:

D: You need to be very much familiar with the brand, and have had some kind of

relationship with it. … I need to know how they behave business wise. I mean it doesn’t

really add any value to me that they co-create, when I do not know if they use child labor

or are underpaying their employees. … I am not just going to buy DANONE because I

have taken part in some co-creation activity, if I don’t like the rest of their business values.

(Appx. 12: 54; 67; 69; 171)

K: I think you would never engage in a co-creation process if you weren't interested in a

brand. Or I wouldn’t. (Appx. 13: 20)

C: I don’t think you would participate in a co-creation process if you didn’t have the

relationship in the first place. I wouldn’t engage with DANONE either because I don’t have

a relationship with them, but I might engage in some other co-creation process where I

already have a relationship with the brand. Then, when this prior relationship exists, co-

creation can add value to me and how I see and identify with the brand, and maybe also

lead to loyalty. (Appx. 12: 173)


67/183

As evident from the above remarks the prior brand relationship and knowledge is a

heavy and imperative influencer at the outset of the co-creation process, thus not only a

prerequisite for brand identification though co-creation, but also for co-creation

engagement in general. Findings here frame the hermeneutic approach in the study of

brands, when arguing that the understanding of a brand cannot be isolated from earlier

interpretations. A framing that is supported by Hatch and Rubin (2006), who have

included Gadamer's (1986) views in a context of branding, and argue that

”understanding past and present brand meanings plays a key role in developing a brands

potential” (Hatch & Rubin, 2006: 41).

Within the above remarks, the participants moreover add a corporate social

responsibility (CSR) discourse to the conversation, in the sense of brand promise and

behavior. When talking about prior brand knowledge, the participants refer to the

relationship but also the business code of conduct and social behavior. They thereby

emphasize the importance of the holistic brand experience where a single occurrence of

co-creation will not affect the brand identification and value alone (sections 3.3; 5.2).

Thus, the brand needs to align co-creation with the remainder of activities and core

values, which further argues for the importance of brands following up on the co-

creation processes and keeping their promises. As seen from the findings so far, it is

noteworthy that the DANONE co-creation example (presented by the researcher in the

focus group) is equally disregarded among the participants, partly because they

influence each other’s opinions hereof but also due to cognitive reasoning. Since they

have just agreed that brand identification requires a prior familiarity with the brand,

being unfamiliar with DANONE’s brand values, which they all seem to be, hereby

cognitively equals DANONE as an unidentifiable brand.

5.2.1.1 Brand status

This prior brand association further comes to show within a discourse of brand status.

The respondents dynamically achieve meanings from the discourse of co-creation

throughout the discussion and are, when talking about brand identification, divided in

their opinions on the self-representation through brands. Where most of them follow

the postmodern consumer construct (section 3.4) and seem to be forming and

representing their self-identity based on the value of the co-creation experience itself,


68/183

others seem to do so based on the brand status, hence challenging the theoretical

proposition. Of example, L expresses that she neither is in favor of the DANONE co-

creation example, due to it being ‘just’ a community with no other purpose, at least this

is how she sees it (appendix 12: 157). However, when providing an example of valuable

co-creation she talks about a similar community by Unilever in San Francisco or New

York that she sees as very cool (ibid.). Thus her evaluation of the co-creation initiative is

very much determined by the prior knowledge and relationship with the brand, herein

what she deems to be cool. Supported by the individual interviews and the discussion of

the Nike+ example, this also applies for brand popularity:

K: I think that because Nike is really popular, I would be more intrigued to go into co-

creation with them. I use Endomondo myself for when I run … they have a community

too, and I have never even updated how I run or... … whereas I presume that Nike would

facilitate this community in some way that is professional, and I would then engage more

because I see Nike as a professional company. (Appx. 13: 60)

Hereby it is found that the brand popularity and status might as well encourage co-

creation engagement and positive results hereof, a popularity that also comes with

higher expectations from consumers as articulated in the above remark where Nike is

perceived as more professional due to its popularity. This indicates that without the

prior relationship as a prerequisite of co-creation, brands are much more receptive to

consumer skepticism and distrust.

In developing this discourse on brand familiarity, the respondents supplement with a

metaphor of the human-to-human relationship, as seen in the following conversation

fragment in table 8. This fragment demonstrates a jointly produced view, where the

flow of conversations is framed as instances of conversational completion. Here L

proposes an alternate reflection on the discourse, which is accepted and further

developed by the other participants, thus they are together producing an opinion as one

‘collective voice’ (Brown & Yule, 1983), a conversational construction facilitated and

constituted by the focus group setting (section 4.1).


69/183

L: I think it is cool to use a metaphor of people relationships. Like if didn’t know you, you

would never ask me to co-create something with you without having the prior

relationship. So co-creation also needs to come as a natural consequence to a relationship

that already exists with the brand. In the beginning, when I might only be slightly familiar

with the brand, co-creation will not make sense, because we don’t have the foundation to

build it on.

C: I agree with that, I don’t think you would participate in a co-creation process if you

didn’t have the relationship in the first place. … Then, when this prior relationship exists,

co-creation can add value to me, and how I see and identify with the brand, and maybe

also lead to loyalty.

L: I agree.

D: Yes. So it is kind of like dating *smile*, going from the dating-stage into a relationship.

K: *laughing* Yes you wouldn’t be engaged to someone you don’t already have a

relationship with.

M: Exactly *smiling*

L: *laughing*

R: And you wouldn’t start talking about children in the first stages.

Table 8: Conversation fragment from focus group (appendix 12: 172-179)

The human-to-human perspective is a noteworthy finding, as it independently is

supported by the theoretical review in alluding human characteristics to the non-

human form of a brand (sections 3.4.1; 3.4.2). Thus the evaluation and development

made to the branding paradigm in chapter 3 is moreover applicable and recognized by

participants. With references to the brand as an equal participant in the relationship

and interaction, co-creation does in fact reinforce the human connection and reduce the

previous gap between brand and consumers (Roser et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2009).

5.2.2 Spoken discourse and social identity

With regards to the discussion on brand identification it is found relevant to go back to

a previous mentioned fragment concerning the Kit Kat example (section 5.1.3), and look

into how the focus group setting and interaction moreover add to the element of

identification:


70/183

D: I think it is for me personally, it customization is a more fun way …. Because, even

though I couldn’t really care less about what Kit Kat products are like *smile*, they made

me go to the shop and buy one just to taste it, because the flavors were so ridiculous that I

just had to taste them. And then I just kind of went into a battle with everyone else on the

Facebook page, because I wanted the peanut butter one to win. So it sort of became a

personal competition as well. (Appx. 12: 215)

The choice of wording and spoken discourse here says something about how D wishes

to position herself in terms of her social identity, as these choices inevitably will contain

imaginings that invoke ways of being (Brown & Yule, 1983). This is interesting to

observe as she, and the other respondents, most likely are not aware of the discourses

they draw upon when speaking, as they simply regard it as the way they talk. In using

the remark; ”even though I couldn’t really care less about what Kit Kat products are like”

and “because the flavors were so ridiculous”, it is argued that D purposely, as a part of her

intergroup behavior, tries to justify her engagement with the Kit Kat brand and further

to position herself as a consumer who is actually not devoted to minor details as the

flavors of Kit Kat. Thus, motivated by interpersonal needs and the social self she uses

language to perform and create a particular social identity within the focus group

setting (Brown & Yule, 1983; Paltridge, 2012: 26). Together with the following remarks

from the same respondent and the identified CSR discourse (section 5.2.1) it is argued

that for D, it is important to be identified with brands that have a prominent stance

against the environment and responsibility in general:

D: I was actually reading on the back of a milk carton the other day, I think it was Thise.

They where saying that by 2015 five organic farmers have chosen to leave and be non-

organic, because it was too expensive or something… But then this milk company appealed

for help, so if you knew any farmers that would like to become organic farmers, one could

put the two in contact. That was interesting for me, because I like to drink organic milk. So

I thought I want to help the under-dog here, even though I don’t know any farmers. (Appx.

12: 131)

D: At Waitrose English supermarket …] you get a coin after you have purchased

something …, and they have then already chosen three different courses that they will

donate money to, and the cause that receives the most amount of coins from the

customers, will also receive the most amount of money. That for me made me feel that I

had something to say in regards to how the supermarket that I put my money in, how they

help the local community. (Appx. 12: 243)


71/183

This does not mean that she cannot appreciate the Kit Kat co-creation example, which

she still does in talking very enthusiastic about it (Appendix 12: 211). Kit Kat is just not

the brand that she whishes to position herself as related to, rather Thise and Waitrose,

as in her above remarks, are brands that she visibly identifies with towards her social

surroundings. These observations are found particularly interesting in the linking of co-

creation and brand identification, emphasizing the prominence of the prior relationship

and knowledge (section 5.2.1). It designates that the brand character and social values

might be of strong influence on the co-creation and brand identification, as consumers

may be more likely to socially endorse the initiatives that match their desired self-

representation. Therefore it is further noteworthy when seen in connection with the

contextual approach of the postmodern consumer (section 3.1.1), supporting the notion

of both the fragmented postmodern consumer and the importance of the social image.

This relevance of social connections will be further discussed in sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.4.

Lastly, this fragment of interaction further addresses one of the limitations to

qualitative research put forth in section 4.3, with participants’ amplification and

positioning affecting the reliability of the data (Daymon & Holloway, 2011), however

put into context, the observation is being unraveled and it only strengthens the

knowledge creation.

5.3 Value assets of co-creation

When looking at the participants’ conversations and utterances about co-creation and

brand identification, as discussed above, they also refer to why they would engage in co-

creation and thus draw on the discourses of motivation and benefits as a backdrop

when attempting to explain the concepts and the value hereof. A discourse supported by

Grönroos (2011) arguing that interaction between the brand and consumers only occur

when motivational factors are present (section 3.3.3). As seen in the above sections and

the following remarks, these consumer benefits and thus motivational factors for

engagement, include brand familiarity, feedback and dialogue, stronger brand

relationship, enriched social connections, the possibility of self-expression and identity

creation, brand commitment and so forth (section 5.1; 5.2). All these factors are what in

theory is referred to and outlined as probable value assets of co-creation (section 3.5).

They moreover counterpart the four consumer benefit clusters put forth in section


72/183

3.3.3.1; particularly the personal and social benefits are highlighted within the research

findings, comprising positive rewards of feedback, recognition, self-expression, identity

creation, and interaction (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010;Grönroos, 2011).

However the participants moreover designate that they are aware of the advantages

that brands stand to gain from co-creation initiatives. They recognize and add the

motivational factor behind as being guided by brand interest, such as ‘profit’,

‘optimization’, and ‘knowledge’, motives that correspond with what scholars (e.g.

Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Payne et al., 2009; Füller, 2010; Ramaswamy &

Gouillart, 2010b; Roser et al., 2009) emphasize as the main brand benefits of co-

creation. Participants accordingly draw on the assumption that co-creation and the

value hereof are inter alia defined by the motivational elements for both brands and

consumers to engage herein:

D: In terms of value added I think there is two aspects in it as well, that is value added to

the product or procedure, or whatever is optimized. But then it is also value added in

terms of the brand reputation and identification. … For me it depends on how well the

co-creation ties in with the rest of how the brand operates. Because we all know that the

hidden agenda of this is merely their own profit and consumers’ image of the brand. (Appx.

12: 20; 67)

C: I think the real value absolutely comes from the peers as well, but between the company

and consumers the value comes from feedback and dialogue and the results of the co-

creation. Your contributions also become the motivation. (Appx. 12: 128; 148)

R: Yes and it co-creation also affects how you… I suppose… value the brand. Because if it

is a good experience, […] if they provide you the environment, the scenario, the purpose of

the co-creation that makes sense to you. That you actually feel that you are either

developing something, you feel good about it, meeting new people, what ever your

outcome is. If you are heightening some of these aspects I suppose that the brand value

will also follow along. (Appx. 14: 23)

The above remarks conversely articulate that co-creation, however, only creates value

when conforming to other elements of brand behavior, intention, and interaction

(section 5.2.1). As argued in the theoretical framework, these elements of expectations

within the brand-consumer interaction are all opportunities for the creation of value

(section 3.4.2; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). In line with what in the theoretical

chapter was referred to as the ‘democratization and decentralization of value creation’


73/183

(section 3.3), co-creation situations will thus result in a dynamic value concept

(Degnegaard, 2014; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), as the understanding of value will differ

depending on motivation, interaction, and benefits. Therefore the concept of value is

extended and hard to capture, requiring these value assets to be researched further. The

following sections will look into how the research findings specify the changing concept

of value in co-creation. When talking about the values of co-creation, the participants

commonly refer to these assets as to why they would engage in co-creation, thus the

following sections of elaborations should not only be seen as an outcome of co-creation,

but as an integrated part of co-creation that encourage consumers to engage in the first

place. To create coherence and reference points to the theory, the value assets are

comprised into sections of ‘brand relationship’, ‘social peer connections’, and ‘the co-

creation experience’ with an additional asset of ‘self-expression’.

5.3.1 Brand relationship

With respect to participants’ attitudes towards co-creation and the value hereof, the

research findings confirm a strong connection between co-creation processes and

brand relationship, not only as a prior relationship but also as a valuable outcome of co-

creation. This supports previous examined developments and discourses around

Fournier’s (1998) relationship perspective and Aaker’s (1997) brand personality

(sections 3.2.1; 3.2.2; 3.4.1; 3.4.2) in the sense that two sides of the relationship is

highlighted. One is the relationship where the brand replaces a relation to a person,

thus applying human traits to the brand (section 3.4.1), and the other is with the brand

functioning as a facilitator of relations to other peers (section 3.4.2). The latter will be

elaborated on in the following section 5.3.2. Building on the human-to-human

relationship metaphor introduced by the respondents (section 5.2.1), the research

findings allude that not alone is the relationship important for engaging in co-creation,

it is also very much strengthened through co-creation and the mutual dialogue herein. A

relationship and dialogue that is found to be of utter importance satisfying both

personal and social motives (sections 5.3; 3.3.3.1). This strong influence on brand

relationships is manifested in both the focus group and individual interviews:


74/183

K: Co-creation is kind of the door into the brand and it opens up for this relationship where

you can go into dialogue with the brand and affect the brand in a way. (Appx. 13: 14) …

you wish to explore the brand, and to extent the brand in a way, with your own

personality. To extent the relationship you have with the bran you need the “co” in the co-

creation. This mutual dialogue is really important. (Appx. 12: 2; 13; 141)

C: I think that co-creation can as we talked about make me feel closer to the brand. …

That’s what I think is the ultimate value of co-creation the relationship. (Appx. 12: 97;

148)

R: If you are not collaborating, then you are at least cooperating, and you need to know

what is going on with the other partners, being it the company or other people. So the

relationship aspect definitely has an impact on the co-creation outcome. And the brand

will naturally be a part of it, if they orchestra the co-creation. So you could actually say

that the perspective of a brand as a person, as we talked about in the focus group, is an

entity in co-creation, and in that sense you would also include that in the relationship.

(Appx. 14: 21)

L: I read the ‘co’ as meaning to-way, and if I feel that I have to keep contributing there has

to be a balance. … does it add value to me that they create a new product, maybe because

I would like the product. But somehow it is more about the ongoing process, not only the

end-outcome. … I would constantly have to feel that I add value. It is just like if you have

a conversation. If I feel that [D] is not listening *laughing*, then the relationship in that

conversation goes down, because I don’t feel appreciated. (Appx. 12: 124)

As reflected from all above remarks, the respondents refer to the importance of a

personalized relationship with the brand and that the novelty hereof could be what

leads to brand identification and moreover a long-term relationship. It is noteworthy to

see how their discourse of co-creation is developing during the interview processes,

referring to the ‘co’ in co-creation is argued to be an indication of enhanced

understanding of the concept. When talking about this ‘co’ in co-creation the

respondents especially refer to discourse representations of a mutual relationship and

dialogue:

R: As long as the brand is loyal to you as well. That is again the ‘co’ part of co-creation.

And sometimes I think that brands forget that, it has to work both ways. (Appx. 12: 166)

This emphasis on the mutual relationship is argued to be an enlarged understanding of

value as a dynamic (sections 3.3.3; 5.3). It is, as seen in the research findings, an ongoing


75/183

potential across consumers and their relationship with the brand, and due to the

fragmented characteristics of consumers, it is argued that much of this value of co-

creation can only be captured in the relations (section 3.1.1; Degnegaard, 2014),

supported by the fact that co-creation of value only exists within active collaboration

and interaction (Cova et al. 2011; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2004: 11). As articulated in the remarks, the relationship asset further involves the

benefit and motivational factor of feedback. It seems that respondents are equating the

relationship with feedback and the reassurance that they, as consumers, are adding

value in the co-creation process. They need the brand to tell them they are appreciated

and valuable for the brand, which again highlights the two-way dialogue of the

relationship. However, the participants further recognize that there are restraints to

their influence, and there is a general opinion that they as consumers are adaptable in

the relationship. Hereto comes also the establishment of an ongoing process and

dialogue that should help brands manage these changes within value creation (section

3.3; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000: 81; Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013).

5.3.2 Social peer connections

Elaborating on the ‘co’ in co-creation research findings indicate, as manifested, that the

increased empowerment of and interaction among consumers to a certain degree

decentralize the importance of the brand’s presence. Inline with Cova (1996)

participants suggest that they not necessarily need the brand in order to create valuable

experiences, and that they just as well can do so through relations with other

consumers. Thus, the argument made by the researcher in the development of the

relationship view (sections 3.4.2; 3.5) that co-creation should encourage stronger

relationships that can just as well be applied in a consumer-to-consumer relation, is

evident from the findings as well:

R: I am not sure that co-creation always will make me stronger connected to the brand as

such… Maybe more to the other participants involved. (Appx. 12: 98)

L: This co-creation process then not only gives me the opportunity to grow in terms of

interest and knowledge but also put me in connection to likeminded. (Appx. 12: 142)

C: I think the real value absolutely comes from the peers as well. (Appx. 12: 148)


76/183

K: The social connections and relationship with others is definitely a part of co-creation

and something that I would gain value from personally. I don't think it has to do directly

with brand identification, but you can never be able to take it out of the co-creation. So it

might also affect brand identification, but kind of isolated. (Appx. 13: 37)

With reference to this social bonding that co-creation enables, the respondents

frequently allude that a co-creation experience was enhanced if they participated with

other people, especially those with whom they shared an interest. When, at the same

time, value is being created socially between peers rather than solely from the brand,

the changing value concept is again highlighted (section 5.3). Talking about the social

connections with likeminded peers, the respondents again draw on the discourse of

motivations and benefits, more precisely; the social motivations rewarding social needs

through interaction (section 3.3.3.1). However, despite respondents’ emphasis on the

value of social connections, none of them engage in brand communities themselves. For

instance when discussing the Nike+ example in the individual interviews, all

participants expressed that they did not use the community part of the brand

experience, as it might be intended, being it the Nike+ or another similar

product/service (appendixes 13; 14; 15). Thus the findings here slightly contradict the

theoretical review; arguing that the more you can involve and engage consumers the

larger the competitive advantage is going to be (sections 3.3; 3.3.3.1). Participants

allude that consumers might not always be interested in or see value in this full

involvement. Something that for brands should be kept in mind when establishing co-

creation initiatives and the objectives hereof.

As seen from the latter above remarks, the findings also indicate that the social peer

connections, not necessarily is a value asset of co-creation leading to brand

identification. Seeing the social part as detached from the brand relationship, this value

asset also becomes somewhat a separated outcome equivalent to brand identification.

Thus brand identification is not the only criterion for co-creation to be successful.

Stronger social peer-to-peer connections might as well be the preferred outcome of co-

creation for consumers, and need to be reconsidered within the conceptual framework

as a parallel to brand identification (section 3.5). However, besides this separation it is

argued that the power of social connections nevertheless also can be framed as an

influencer on brand identification. These connections are a collective existence of social


77/183

and beneficial experiences around a brand, in the manner that consumers also

benchmark their opinions and feelings about a brand against other consumers,

constructing their own brand identification based hereon. As put by one of the

respondents:

R: The social connections are a valuable outcome; in the sense that other people also affect

the way I perceive the brand. They will provide me with their understanding, their

identification with the brand … and I suppose that it is only natural to adopt some of

these perceptions or reject them. If you reject them …] that will then just be a sign of how

you identify with the brand. […] I don't think you are able to do that to the same extent in a

context where it is not about co-creation. You should be, depending on how you facilitate

it, be closer to these people, than in ordinary branding situations. (Appx. 14: 27)

Therefore, the value of co-creation can further be regarded as an emergent property of

social relations, and consumers are not only generating their own identities, rather they

are participating in generating a social ‘we’ (Bostman & Rogers, 2010). Consumers trust

each other, they are often pursuing the same goals and do not think of hidden agendas

when co-creating an experience or connecting with each other, they share the same

value through peer-to-peer networks and new social technologies (sections 3.1.2; 3.4.2).

The social connections of co-creation hereby not only reflect a separated outcome, they

further initiate the processes and developments of brand connection and identification.

5.3.3 Utilization of the co-creation experience

It is acknowledged that participants have difficulties in defining co-creation and the

complexity of the different uses hereof (sections 5.1; 5.1.2), especially in terms of the

co-creation of personal experiences, where they clearly state that they do not see the

Nike+ initiative as co-creation of experience, and do not feel stronger connected to Nike

as a rest hereof (ibid.). However they concurrently allude that they like the idea of an

experience around co-creation, and see great value in the experience of being involved

in the co-creation process, and more importantly remark how it affects the brand value

and identification:


78/183

R: For me the experience adds more value than the given product. … Because if the

experience adds value, it doesn’t matter if the product changes or if a new product

emerges, as long as you had fun doing it or it changed your view or knowledge about

something and got you involved. This would make me much more positive in my attitude

towards the brand, however the brand doesn't mean that much to me - the experience can

stand alone. (Appx. 12: 75; 77; 85)

M: I think it might be easier to create a more intimate or holistic experience if you are

involved in developing that experience. ...] that will also make you stronger connected to

the others involved (Appx. 12: 87)

D: Take TripAdvisor for example. … There is so much value added if you get positive

reviews to your brand and to the personal experience that you will have with that brand.

… Reading these reviews, maybe that would also affect my brand experience. Because

other people’s opinions would count. (Appx. 12: 96)

Thus the findings support the theoretical argument of co-creation leading to richer

brand experiences, which might increase the extent to which consumers incorporate

the brand into their self-concepts and thus identify with the brand (section 3.5).

Together with the social connections discussed in the previous section, the participants

see value in sharing the co-creation experience with others, thus sharing the

consumption of brands. The findings indicate that the excitement and satisfaction of an

experience is catching and can spread from consumer to consumer, hereby it utilizes the

great value of word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendations and brand advocacy – the

‘earned media’ (Roser et al., 2009), adding to the previous examined brand benefits of

co-creation (section 3.3.3.2):

D: I would probably feel more comfortable if I knew that I had been involved in a co-

creation project… *hmm* I am not sure what the word is... I would maybe talk more

positively about the brand to others than I would about other brands. (Appx. 15: 33)

This, however, is also applicable in the contrary where a negative experience would

generate negative WOM and put the brand relationship and value at risk. Nonetheless,

the respondents used wordings such as: ‘intimate’, ‘fun’, ‘happy memory’, ‘empowered’,

‘cool’ etc. to characterize feelings of excitement and delight. Thus these senses of

excitement and positive brand involvement are considered to be a vital ingredient in the

co-creation experience, attending the hedonic motivation factor of pleasure and


79/183

consumer curiosity (section 3.3.3.1; Füller, 2010; Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder,

2011). One of the respondents included the example of Harley Davidson as a

noteworthy illustration of co-creating brand value and experiences in a community. An

example that remarkably is comparable to the Nike+ example that the respondent did

not see as co-creation (section 5.1.2):

R: This adds a whole different level of value. … The Harley community doesn’t really have

that much to do with the bike it self, but the perception of the brand and the value of the

brand is totally different and much stronger. It is about the experience and the relations

that they have with the brand and each other. (Appx. 12: 160)

Looking further into the reasons behind this continuous obscurity and contradictions in

the discussions of co-creation of experience, this study will argue that articulating the

concept might just be making it more confusing than necessary. Experiences are

occasions that often happen without the recognitions of the conscious mind, as most of

consumers’ mental processing takes place unconsciously (Carbone, 2014). Moreover

with participants differing much in their personal elaboration hereof, this study

advocates that it might not be possible to implement an overall definition of co-creation

of experience to the individual consumer experience; personal change is inevitable and

it will be much depending of situation and context (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Pine

& Gilmore, 1998; Quoidbach et al., 2013). Again here the actual interaction and

involvement comes to be important (section 5.2), and based on theory and the

discourse representations made by the participants, this study asserts that participation

in itself can be framed as experience, constituting another apparent reason for these

diverse and perplex findings.

5.3.4 Self-expression

In accordance with the value of social connections, postmodernism further advocates

the liberated self-expressive individual, recognizing that a brand is to live up to the

individual’s personal preferences (section 3.1.1; Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Cova, 1996).

Hereto the research findings further demonstrate a consensus for co-creation and the

value assets hereof to enable self-expression:


80/183

K: In the longer run I think you want to identify with the brand that says something about

who you are as a person, and you kind of build your... or no you don't build your life around

them, but you use them in your everyday life to show the world around you who you are. In

a way... … Which could be affected by co-creation. (Appx. 13: 63; 65)

L: If I chose to engage in co-creation it is also a way to express some part of my own

identity. (Appx. 12: 235)

K: Also some sort of pride …, if you do participate in co-creation and the product, your

idea, is put in production. That would be the best part of my CV *smile*, that would be

really cool! (Appx. 12: 149)

Together with the positive WOM these remarks indicate that co-creation can be a way

for consumers to portray themselves to their surroundings through the value that the

co-creating situation or brand provides. Thus the findings allude that consumers are not

only defined by what they own, as earlier (section 3.1.1), rather the move is towards

being defined by reputation, community, and the sharing behavior herein (Bostman &

Rogers, 2010; Gansky, 2010). As the following conversation fragment in table 9

illustrates, the participants’ opinions hereof are however divided. Where some talk of

self-expressiveness through co-creation others refer to a hint of superficiality herein:

M: If you co-create with a cool brand it makes you cool.

L: Yes exactly. It would be either for the inside personal gain or for the outside perception of me. D: But it would again for me depend on how deeply involved I am and the brand makes me. If I am just one out of a 1000 I wouldn’t use that to brand my self.

L: I think that…

D: But if I am one among 5 people I would.

L: I think I see it differently; I will maybe make my decision before even going into the co-creation.

R: Here we are talking about the purpose again…

L: g into the co-creation process I would evaluate if it were something I would do for me to grow and to become more knowledgeable, or have an interest in whatever the product is. Or if I do it because I want to use it to actively communicating who I am.

D: I think it is very rational and very non-likely. Unless it is a product that you have made a lot of considerations about.

L, R & M: *laughing*


81/183

L: But lets say a brand like BMW. I really identify with that brand and really want to attain the personality -creating with BMW, and maybe sharing it on my Facebook, would allow me to also take advantage of the brand and position my-than to buy the BMW. D: It would depend on what you are developing and what you are co-creating with them. If you are creating a product, yes that is pretty cool to communicate, are you voting on four different types on Kit Kat products, not so cool to communicate.

R: where you have actually done some more besides clicking to a flavor. Then you are really engaged and can sort of proof that to your surroundings.

D: Yeah 100%

Table 9: Conversation fragment 2 from focus group (appendix 12: 242-261)

Therefore it is argued that the individual consumers constitute themselves through the

various discursive practices, in which they participate, co-creation being one (Brown &

Yule, 1983; Firat & Schultz, 1997). However the above findings further suggest that not

all forms of co-creation will encourage self-expression, or be accepted as cool and value-

added among other consumers. Nevertheless it is argued to be much dependent on the

individual opinion and attitude whether or not a specific co-creation engagement is

deemed cool as providing social and self-expressive value. Once again this value asset

entitles motivational factors of both the personal and social (section 3.3.3.1), when

participants suggest that they through co-creation and brand identification benefit from

the emotional self-expression, identity creation, and the social recognition hereof

(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller, 2010; Grönroos, 2011). Through co-creation

brands become vehicles for self-expression, another dimension that needs to be

considered in relation to the conceptual framework (section 3.5), however maybe more

as a valuable outcome of brand identification and the social connections through co-

creation, than of co-creation alone.

5.4 Co-creation requires trust and honesty

When studying the respondents’ utterances about co-creation and the brand

engagement, there is a strong agreement that trust and honesty are vital factors

throughout the co-creation process, but especially as an initial requirement of the

engagement in co-creation. As an extension to the significance of the prior brand

relationship and knowledge (section 5.2.1), the respondents articulate a concern for the

co-creation purpose and that brands should be honest in their expression hereof, even if


82/183

the purpose of co-creation is initiated in a shortage of knowledge or failure from the

brand. Hence, trusting that the purpose is legitimate and that the brand takes care of

you as a consumer in the process and ensures that you benefit from it as well, is an

essential factor and motivation for engaging in co-creation, or choosing not to. This

attitude and concern comes to show in the following comments:

K: I think you have to have some sort of trust in the brand to even go into consider co-

creating with the brand, and you would have to trust the brand facilitating this co-

creation properly, and … not just exploit you as a consumer. (Appx. 13: 77)

R: You could say that if there is distrust, there is not going to be any co-creation or

relationship. It has at least to be neutral. But if it is neutral, then it is because you don't

know the company, and … then how can you trust them? (Appx. 14: 67)

D: Well for me the brand would have to be trustworthy and honest in everything they do.

… otherwise it would no longer be a brand that I could identify with. (Appx. 15: 55)

R: If they are here to make money, then say so. Thank you. Honesty and that you know

what you get, is important. … even if it is not what I want to hear, it is still nice to hear.

(Appx. 12: 50)

The participants here again draw on the CSR and responsibility discourse, with an

overall agreement that you as a consumer need to be able to trust that the brand will

stick to its core values, the values that the consumer can identify with and might be the

reason they engaged themselves in co-creation to begin with. Hereby the conditions of

risk-benefit and transparency in the co-creation interaction, introduced by Prahalad

and Ramaswamy (2004), stand as important input on and assessment of co-creation

(sections 3.3.1; 3.5). However, it is argued from the findings that the factor of trust

comprises additional conditions in consumers’ assessment of co-creation that affect the

initiation of co-creation beyond transparency and risk-benefit. In this context, it seems

to stress that this credibility and trustworthiness is argued to be a receiver-oriented

design, the brand may try to interfere through the discourse of responsibility and ethos,

but in the end it is the consumer that determines the degree of trust. Within co-creation

the gap between sender and receiver (brand and consumer) is reduced (sections

3.3.3.1; 5.2.1.1), creating closeness that is argued to help generate credibility and


83/183

mutual trust, however with reservations for the implementation and continuance of the

interaction.

5.4.1 Brand skepticism

Owing to the suggested positive impacts, co-creation may yield, the research findings

lend support to the idea that co-creation through the value assets of relationships,

brand value, self-expression, and experience can yield brand identification (sections 3.4;

3.5; 5.2). However any skepticism or negative experiences might affect this as discussed

in section 5.1, and inline with the above discussed trust and honesty, brand skepticism

is argued to be an important factor of influence of the success of co-creation. As

mentioned, the research participants acknowledge that brands too have an agenda by

engaging in co-creation, and that it can add value to both parties (section 5.3). However,

this recognition further pledges skeptic attitudes towards the value outcome that

brands attain when engaging in co-creation, as manifested in the participants’ use of

articulations such as “PR stunt”, “something of a marketing stunt”, “we all know that the

hidden agenda of this is merely their own profit”, and “you cannot trust them”

(appendix 13: 77; appendixes 12: 67; 70; 100; 188). With this study’s designation of co-

creation and value in mind (sections 1.6; 3.3), these references to economic

conceptualizations of value further creates some clarification complications for brands

and their co-creation initiatives (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), as they thus allude value as

one-way beneficial and not collective as prescribed by co-creation principles. In talking

about the value for brands, one respondent particularly shows skepticism through a

concern for exploitation:

D: I also think that there is some kind of insurance bank in the co-creation for brands, if

something goes wrong or if they don’t do well, or if they get criticized, they can always say

that this came from a co-creation process with consumers. They are not completely

responsible, well they are, but they can sort of present it in a way that make them seem

less responsible … if it doesn’t turn out as it should. (Appx. 12: 186)

Hereby the importance of a positive brand relationship with mutual trust and dialogue

may not be as apparent in co-creation as expected (sections 3.3; 3.3.1; Ramaswamy,

2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Scholars have further predicted this skepticism

as a result of a one-way approach to consumer involvement (Cova & Dalli, 2009;


84/183

Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013), where the changes in value creation not only empower

consumers but also make brands capable of employing and exploiting competences

outside the conventional institutes (ibid.). Thus emphasizing the importance of brands

to move past the co-opting lens and engage stakeholders in a mutually useful way. The

skepticism further comes to show in the findings when discussing the communication of

co-creation. Consistent with the WOM emphasized earlier, participants show a

somewhat indifferent and critical attitude towards brands communicating their co-

creation initiative:

R: For me it communication doesn’t make any difference. For all I know they could just

be making it up. If it was Jens from Roskilde who came up with the idea, I don’t care. … It

is the same thing as CSR, if you advertise your CSR very aggressively for me it doesn’t have

any affect, but if I somehow hear from other sources that this company actually donates

10% of its profits, then it is a completely different story. Also actions speak louder than

words. (Appx. 12: 116; 154)

The above remark thus also highlights the importance and effect of third party

communication. As consumers’ decision processes are becoming more personalized

(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: 9), they no longer depend on brands and experts to

direct them, and as the research participants allude, they are much more influenced by

their social surroundings (section 5.3.2). Third party endorsement and WOM hence

generate more authentic communication that would heighten the co-creation initiative

more than the brands’ own communication hereof. It is argued that the many brand

influencers in today’s marketplace (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) transform

consumers, who might have been true brand believers, into more critical consumers

and brand skeptics, complicating their open-mindedness towards new initiatives

including co-creation. The research findings hereby indicate that participants’

assessment of trust and acceptance of co-creation initiatives merely depend on their

present opinion of the brand (section 5.2.1), the communication, and present social

context (section 5.3.2). Hence brands shall in their communication openly acknowledge

own benefits of co-creation and simultaneously draw more attention to how consumers

also benefit from these initiatives by putting focus on the unique values (section 3.3.3).


85/183

5.4.2 The question of brand Loyalty

Throughout the developing discourse on co-creation and brand identification, the

research participants touched upon the topic of loyalty, and the opinions are here too

divided. Within the above-presented theoretical framework, it is argued that brand

loyalty is questionably in a fragmented postmodern consumer culture (sections 3.1.1;

3.4.2), however some of the respondents oppose this argument and indicate that it is sill

possible to be loyal to brands:

K: I think the fact that you can identify some of your own personal values in a brand for

example that means that you might be more... that you might prefer one brand over the

other. … I think... The co-creation and the relationship you get out of it strengthens that

loyalty. (Appx. 13: 18; 71)

L: Loyalty can increase due to co-creation, but the co-creation has to come at a natural

point where I am already having a relationship with a brand. (Appx. 12: 172)

Here the trust factor again plays an important role. As much as trust is a prerequisite of

co-creation it further needs to continue throughout the process and relationship, and

must go both ways for the relationship to last more long-term and maybe even generate

loyalty. Other respondents concur with the theoretical arguments and believe that

loyalty is not possible, especially R, also being the advocator of other brand critical

arguments, argues for this, as articulated in the below remark. In questioning the term

he later suggests that maybe loyalty in today’s market is parallel to being fanatic.

Respondent D questions loyalty as well and replaces it with purchase intention:

R: I mean we can't even stay loyal to the people we are married to *smile*. If that is the

case, how should companies expect people to be loyal to one brand? (Appx. 14: 57)

D: Co-creation might not necessarily make me loyal, but as you said [K], because you have

been involved in something fun you might because of your heuristics, that might be the

product that you purchase. If you are faced with having to choose between different

products. (Appx. 12: 268)

Therefore it is argued that loyalty after all might not be a liable strategy and objective

for brands, and should not be the criteria for success in terms of co-creation. Rather the

long-term relationship of continuous co-creation should be the aim and what affects


86/183

brand decisions and commitment. Among today’s fragmented consumers, short-term

memory is precious (section 3.1.1), thus creating and adding value in a certain period of

time should in itself be a success factor. However, research findings further show that

the fragmentation might not be present to the same definite extent as argued in the

theoretical framework. Participants indicate that they are affected by many different

brands at the same time, but seeing that their comments and discourse representations

moreover indicate a vast importance of a prior relationship with the brand, they further

allude that they stick to and is influenced by a brand for a longer period of time, when

talking about co-creation at least. Thus despite the fragmented consumer behavior,

brand commitment is still applicable, maybe not as the more intense loyalty, but rather

as commitment and preference possibly towards many brands at the time, matching

different self-constructs.

With the analysis and discussion of the data collected, the following chapter will

recollect the conceptual framework created based on the theory review and evaluation,

and accumulate the research findings into an improved version hereof.


87/183

6 Analytical impact and perspective

6.1 Evaluation and further development of conceptual framework

The subsequent chapter of analysis and discussion is in its both inductive and deductive

mode of examination able to demonstrate and specify the concept of co-creation and its

relation to the branding paradigm and brand identification, attending research question

two and thus also milestone three of this thesis. Based hereon, this following part will

evaluate the conceptual framework established from theory in section 3.5, and further

develop it to capture the research findings, attending milestone four. The following

conceptual framework therefore depicts the overall theoretical and research findings

and thus the answer to the research questions. The framework still holds that co-

creation interaction based on Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) building blocks as

brand prerequisites allows consumers to attain certain value assets that improve and

increase the likelihood of consumer brand identification (section 3.5). However as a

result of the analysis and discussion, different elements has been added and altered

compared to the initial framework, as seen in figure 11.

Figure 11: Modified conceptual framework (complied by the author)


88/183

In the analysis and discussion of co-creation manifested from a consumer perspective

research, there has been a focus on ambiguity and complexity but also on the vibrant

relation between the concept and brand identification. It is found that co-creation can

lead to routes of value from which both consumers and brands can benefit. However for

consumers to engage in co-creation and for it to be a source of brand identification, it is

found that besides Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) building blocks of interaction

(dialogue, access, risk-benefits, and transparency), additional and very vital factors of

trust and honesty should be added and hereby also the context of prior brand

knowledge and relationship (sections 5.2.1; 5.4). As established, the brand character

and social values are of strong influence on the co-creation and brand identification

(section 5.2.2). Findings hereby correspond to the hermeneutic approach and the

importance of including both the past and the present to understand the whole of the

brand so as to put the brand into a new context of interpretation (Hatch & Rubin, 2006:

47) that is further applied to the process of co-creation and likability of brand

identification. Moreover, it is articulated that the mode of co-creation is an important

influencer on the value outcome (section 5.1.3). With regards to brand identification,

the brand relationship, experience, and evaluations are all factors that through the

analysis is found to be valuable motivations for co-creation, that all have a great impact

on the process towards brand identification. Despite much confusion, consumers see

great value in the brand experience created by co-creation. However it is found that the

co-creation experience have a strong influence on the enhanced connections with other

consumers and not only on the actual brand identification, thus consumers do not need

the brand in order to create valuable experiences, not on a conscious level at least

(section 5.3.3). Nonetheless, the social elements within the co-creation experience still

initiate the processes and developments of brand identification and connectedness. It is

likewise found that the mutual dialogue through co-creation will strengthen the human-

to-human relationship between brands and consumers, a relationship that from the

perspective of consumers further is an important motivational factor comprising the

feedback and recognition from brands, and framed as a strong influence on the

identification (section 5.3.1). Brand evaluation is not given a separate section within the

analysis and discussion, as it is merely seen as an overall factor, being affected

throughout the process and by the other value assets. Nevertheless, it is still kept as a

separate impact in the framework as participants indirectly refer to brand evaluations


89/183

throughout the findings, interestingly this is one of the few factors that seemingly can

be affected without direct involvement in the co-creation process, as it just as well by

other consumers opinions and WOM (sections 5.3.2; 5.3.3). The benefit and value of

social connections is found to be a dominant and somewhat separated outcome for

consumers that not logically would lead to brand identification (section 5.3.2). Thus,

within the adaptive framework it has been relocated as a separate co-creation outcome,

affected by the brand experience, but also just the co-creation interaction itself.

Moreover, research findings recognize self-expression as an important benefit and

value among consumers (section 5.3.4), hence a value asset of self-expression is added,

however not as a result of co-creation alone, rather a valuable consumer benefit of the

stronger social connections and brand identification. Inline with the benefit of self-

expression, more long-term value elements of brand commitment and long-term

relationship are added. These are in the analysis discussed in relation to the question of

loyalty and are, despite articulations of brand skepticism, found relevant to implement

as alternates hereof to match the current consumer culture (section 5.4.2). Here the

context of brand knowledge and status (section 5.2.1; 5.2.1.1) further comes to show, in

the argument that consumers can co-create with all sorts of brands, but the co-creation

only leads to a stronger long-term relationship and commitment if they identify with the

brand and find it cool. Additionally, the continuous integration and development of co-

creation processes is essential to obtain these value assets and not least long-term

benefits, therefore co-creation should not simply be a communication strategy and

marketing show but rather an ongoing process as illustrated in the modified

framework.

Throughout the entire analysis and discussion, context is found to be an important

factor, as the value assessment and success of co-creation initiatives will always vary

depending on the situation, mode of co-creation and very much the parties involved.

The element of context further encompass the much discussed and emphasized prior

brand knowledge and relationship, being a strong influence especially within the initial

phases of co-creation engagement (section 5.2.1). This implies that those brands that

build co-creation into their corporate DNA will be more likely to succeed, and generate

value on the long run. It seems from the research findings that consumers are open

towards the many possibilities of co-creation, but if brands are not willing to take it all


90/183

the way, they violate consumers’ trust and leave them skeptic (section 5.4; 5.4.1).

As the conceptual framework is significant to the unit of analysis, it should not be seen

as a generalization of the research findings; yet merely as a depiction of what the

findings indicate.

6.2 Analytical perspective

The study is initially based on an interest in the increased importance of and academic

attention to the emerging concept of co-creation (section 1.2). However the identified

complexity and skepticism among research participants further indicate that the

concept of co-creation may have been subject to arbitrary interpretations and practices,

resulting in the term serving as a marketing stunt for other similar initiatives or simply

to attain consumers’ attention and preference (sections 5.1; 5.2; 5.4.1; Lopdrup-Hjorth,

2013). Thus putting the findings into perspective, it can be argued that co-creation is

becoming a buzzword. The highly promoted benefits for brands (e.g. Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004; Grönroos, 2011) might have initiated great excitement of the

associations of the concept, encouraging brands to engage in co-creation with no further

ado or consideration. It seems that the involvement of consumers is becoming more and

more of a mantra for brands, however without a measured and considered basis for

interaction questions arise: Is it co-creation just for the sake of co-creation, and are

brands more caught up with the buzz, than the actual value in the mutual interaction?

Having presented the conceptual framework, and thereby attended milestone four, and

further briefly put the research findings into perspective, the final chapter now outlines

the central contributions of this study, and reflects on limitations and future research.


91/183

7 Conclusion & future research

The aim of this thesis was to unfold the concept of co-creation and build new knowledge

and a broader perspective hereto by answering the two research questions: (1) How is

the concept of co-creation influencing the more traditional branding paradigm? (2) How

do consumers understand co-creation and how does co-creation affect their creation of

brand value as means to brand identification? As a guide to answer these questions, five

milestones where developed for further clarification. Here it was presupposed that

there exists a relation of connection and influence between the emerging concept of co-

creation and brand identification, with it being a part of the branding paradigm. The

presupposition was confirmed throughout the study

In attending research question one, an extensive review of relevant literature was

carried out. Initially the study accounted for the postmodern market and consumer

trends and examined the developing branding paradigm in which co-creation emerged

and now appears, and thus accounted for milestone one. The literature review revealed

that postmodernism has had a great impact on the transforming branding paradigm,

especially by changing consumers’ perspective on value creation. Co-creation is a

reaction to this postmodern consumer culture, and has transformed the traditional

brand perspectives, with solely product or relational focus, towards a more holistic and

social energizing of consumers. However, despite being the effects of developing market

and consumer trends, this consumer centric approach of co-creation was argued to still

encompass the more traditional brand perspectives (e.g. Aaker’s (1997) brand

personality and Fournier’s (1998) relationship approach), simply within a new context.

Based hereon a conceptual framework was generated, asserting that successful co-

creation initiatives can potentially lead to greater brand identification among

consumers, provided that the co-creation process favorably affects elements of brand

relationship, experience, value, and social connections. Hereby the study accounted for

and answered research question one and also milestone two. These theoretical

assumptions were then used in the preparation, execution, and processing of the

qualitative research.


92/183

An empirical study in the form of a focus group and three supporting interviews was

conducted to explore the perspectives of consumers and answer research question two.

Constituted by participants’ articulations and manifestations, the researcher was able to

analyze the discourses surrounding the concept and brand value of co-creation. The

findings indicated that participants’ understanding of co-creation is not as

straightforward and prevalent as depicted by theory. Nevertheless despite complexity

of the concept, participants recognized both relational and interactive discourses, much

supported by theory. Overall it was found that participants acknowledge the mutual

benefits of co-creation and hereto merely understand and evaluate co-creation based on

motivational discourses, and not least prior knowledge of and relationship with the

brand behind. Thus the study adds to the motivational factors and the prerequisites of

co-creation participation discussed in theory (e.g. Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Füller,

2010; Grönroos, 2011). Here the element of mutual trust was likewise found essential

to the participation and process of co-creation.

The findings further indicated that participants recognize several beneficial brand

values and connections of co-creation, affecting their attitudes towards both the

interaction and the brand itself. Especially factors of brand relationship and familiarity,

social connections, brand commitment, identity creation, and self-expression were

highlighted. Factors that moderately correspond to the brand assets identified from

theory and the conceptual framework. However the element of co-creation as

experience, caused great confusion and was thus in need for reevaluation. In this

connection it was found that the co-creation mode of experience from theory might be

too idealistic, as an experience is an individual and very much context-depending factor.

The co-creation of experiences should merely be framed in connection with the actual

participation and engagement, and not as an actual mode of co-creation.

There was agreement across the participants that the process of co-creation, together

with a presence of the recognized brand values, could lead to and be a source of brand

identification and maybe even commitment. Consequently, brand identification is not

stimulated by co-creation alone and not a guaranteed outcome hereof, the holistic brand

involvement is what determines whether consumers identify with a brand or not. Co-

creation does, as established, however functions as a strong influencer hereto.


93/183

Alongside with brand identification the element of social connections was moreover

articulated as a positive and desirable outcome of co-creation, equal to brand

identification, and thus a dominant factor of motivation. Participants indicated a social

dependence in their actions and not least opinions, they want to feel a part of something

and co-creation can be a provider hereof. This is further closely connected to the

identified value of self-expression, articulating that participants through co-creation

and the social relationships it provides are able to express their desired personality and

image.

Going back to the element of trust, participants moreover indicated brand skepticism

with a concern for distrust and the negative co-creation experience, affecting the brand

related outcome. The findings thus designated that brand behavior, intentions, and

interactions are important elements for brands to encounter positive outcome of co-

creation. It seems evident that co-creation should be a mutual beneficial and continuous

process that moreover should be part of the brand’s DNA to determine the more long-

term success hereof. Hereto comes also the long-term outcome of brand commitment

that was found to be the new and revised brand loyalty.

Having explored consumers’ understanding of co-creation and its relation to brand

value as well as having emphasized that a mutual ongoing brand interaction will

positively affect attitudes towards co-creation and the likelihood of brand identification,

milestone three has been attended. On the basis of the overall findings, the study

submitted a modification of the conceptual framework generated from the theoretical

review, and thus attended milestone four providing a new setup for co-creation in

relation to brand assets and identification. Hence the outcome of the study has further

been theory building in terms of a developed conceptual framework contributing to the

field and study of co-creation. All together the findings suggested that co-creation very

much is a social construct with the understanding and value hereof being individual and

context-dependent. In the light of the findings provided, the research further lends

insight into the practice of managing co-creation and the dialogue herein. The

succeeding section will emphasize the theoretical and practical implications encouraged

by this study, and thereby attend milestone five and complete this thesis.


94/183

7.1 Contribution to knowledge

7.1.1. Theoretical Implications

By attending the lack of insight into how co-creation influences and is established

within the traditional branding paradigm, this thesis contributes with new knowledge

to the limited existing literature on co-creation and the branding paradigm. The

theoretical review contributes to the developments of traditional branding perspectives

(e.g. Aaker, 1996; Fournier, 1998), assigning them to an updated context. The theory

and research findings further contribute to the frame of co-creation literature by

establishing a conceptual framework demonstrating the dynamic relations between the

process of co-creation and brand identification, revealing new elements of brand value

and consumers’ desired results hereof. Hereby the study not only esteemed traditional

research directions, it also built hereon for it to adequate the emerging postmodern

market and consumer trends. Scholars and academics will be able to use the framework

as basis for future research.

Using Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) research as main pillar of the co-creation

literature review and their DART building blocks as basis for the conceptual framework,

the findings also lend new insights hereto. It is argued that the four building blocks of

co-creation should become five, adding the important factor and prerequisite of co-

creation: trust. The study thus suggests a modification in the acronym to DARTT.

Hereby the theoretical perspectives put forth in this study both compliment and

enhance existing literature on co-creation.

7.1.2. Practical Implications

The research findings are of relevance to brands engaging in co-creation initiatives, as

their benefits hereof are very much determined by consumers’ acuity of the experience

and value. Thus adapting to the findings should improve the chances for co-creation

success and long-term benefits. As the findings are founded in the particular research

context, it is not possible to provide concrete generalizable proposals for brands,

however managers will be able to use the conceptual framework to help align and

optimize brand value through co-creation. The findings have highlighted some

important focus points:


95/183

1) The brand must be honest and trustworthy

With trust and honesty being paramount in consumers’ relationship to and co-creation

with brands, these are argued to be implications that brands first and foremost should

to turn to and incorporate. The findings indicate that when consumers trust brands to

be honest in their engagement and purpose, they are more likely to attain positive

brand values from the co-creative interaction, and identify with the brand. An obligation

for genuine involvement thus emerges as an essential aspect for brands to avoid

skepticism and dissociation.

2) A clear and consistent co-creation strategy

Genuine involvement moreover involves a shift in co-creation strategy and focus. To

fully adopt the co-creative mindset, brands must adopt the co-creation mentality into

their DNA and thus into the brand behavior and processes along the value chain.

Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) advocate that brands must build new capabilities

around relations with consumers, the research findings add hereto in arguing that the

changing concept of value and dynamic interaction requires new ways of understanding

co-creation possibilities and challenges. Co-creation should be viewed and used as a

means of extending and operationalizing value creation, it is not about whether or not

to use co-creation, it is more a questions of how it is done inline with the remainder

brand actions. To ensure long-term effects, co-creation should moreover be an initiative

offering continuous development of experience and value.

3) Not to be caught up with the buzz

With the findings further indicating that not all consumers are ready, able or even

willing to co-create, it is important for brands not to be caught up with the buzz and

entirely diminish traditional branding as a part of their strategy. They should also

sustain the more traditional modes of branding as a parallel to co-creation, as these will

still define the core of the brand and provide consumers with the prior knowledge

needed for potentially engaging in co-creation initiatives. Successful brands should thus

become a hybrid of both traditional branding and co-creation when applicable;

embracing that it increasingly takes interaction and strong relationships to create brand

value.


96/183

With the above recommendations, the study has suggested how the research findings

can be instructive in practice. As a final summit, research limitations and suggestions

for future research directions will now be accounted for.

7.2 Limitations and future research

There are a few limitations of this research that need to be taken into account in order

to stimulate future research on the topic of co-creation. First the extensiveness and

complexity of the concept of co-creation bring limitations as far as this study

approaches the concept from a rather narrow empirical perspective. The rather low

number of research participants is very beneficial for a deeper understanding of the

concept, being the aim of the study. However, as mentioned within the method

reflections (section 4.3), it further constitutes a possible limitation, as its contextual

uniqueness will not result in high external validity of the results (Guba & Lincoln, 1985).

Therefore it is recognized that the data and findings are not generalizable to the greater

consumer group and directly transferable to other contexts, thus the study might lack

more objective perspectives on the subject. Nonetheless, with the standpoint from

social constructionism it is neither possible nor intentional to arrive at certain

generalizable knowledge (section 2.1.1), the aim of this thesis is not to provide closure;

rather it wishes to build further suspense and directions for future research. Therefore

future research should endeavor to obtain a larger sample of data to enhance validity

and transferability to a larger population. Preferably the sample should also hold more

respondents with specific co-creation experiences in order to obtain more significant

results and possibly draw other conclusions that will contribute to existing knowledge.

Future research should aim at discovering additional brand related outcomes of co-

creation, which could lead to a diverse structure and connection of the concepts’

connotation. The conceptual framework developed in this study provides a possible

basis for further examination and unfolding of co-creation in relation to the branding

paradigm. Adopting the findings and conceptual framework to specific cases could also

provide further insights into how consumers embrace their understanding and

discourses to specific situations.


97/183

Another possible limitation of this study is the extensive focus on consumer-brand

relationships within co-creation, hereby little attention is given to other stakeholder

and network dynamics, that might have influence hereon (Merz et al., 2009). Moreover,

new questions arise regarding the changing concept of value; how can brands interact

effectively and equally with consumers who will increasingly recognize and leverage

their own value to the brand, and how should co-creation settings be designed with the

concept of value possibly being extended across many different stakeholders? Hereto

comes also the increased power of consumers inter alia aided by the element of new

technology and social media as an essential source of interaction and facilitation of co-

creation. This aspect should also be looked into.

Additionally the term ‘individual’ used throughout the study, especially in relation to

the co-creation experience, might present a limitation and is not the ideal term. Even

though co-creation advocates the benefit of individualized experiences and brand value,

it is acknowledged that the term further suggests separation, going against the

emphasized social aspect of the study and findings. Thus it is argued that

postmodernism is somewhat contradictive in calling for social fragmentation and

individualism, while at the same time ushering a social reorganization (Cova, 1996: 18),

something that should be taken into account for further research.

Several aspects of the research findings draw attention to conditions that generate

potential new perspectives on research with the brand in focus. With the concept

possibly becoming a buzzword more than an actual strategy (section 6.2), resulting in

unsystematic interpretations and use, there is a need for narrowing down the research

of co-creation and the brand strategic use hereof. This study is only a small step in that

direction, and further research is required to fully understand the emerging paradigm

and value of co-creation.


98/183

8 References

Aaker, D. A. (1996) Building Strong Brands. London: Simon & Schuster UK Ldt. Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (2007) Marketing Research (9th ed.). USA: John Wiley

and Sons, Inc. Aaker, J. L. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research

34(3), 347-356. Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004) When Good Brands Do Bad. Journal of

Consumer Research 31(1), 1-16. Andrews, T. (2012) What is Social Constructionism? . The Grounded Theory Review

11(1), 39-46. Arvidsson, A. (2011) Ethics and value in customer co-production. Marketing Theory

11(3), 261–278. Arvidsson, A. (2010) The ethical economy: new forms of value in the information

society? . Organization 17(5), 637–644 . Awards, C. 2. (2012) LEGO CUUSOO Project. Available at:

http://www.core77designawards.com/2012/recipients/lego-cuusoo/ Accessed Retrieved March 25, 2014.

Baldwin, C., & Hippel, E. v. (2011) Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation

to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science 22(6), 1399–1417. Bartl, M., Jawecki, G., & Wiegandt, P. (2010) Co-creation in new product development;

conceptual framework and application in the automotive industry. Manchester: R&D Management Conference.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality . New York:

Doubleday & Co. Berner, A., & Tonder, C. V. (2003) The Postmodern Consumer: Implications of changing

customer expectations for organization development in service organization. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 29(3), 1-10.

Blog, L. C. (2011, December 7) Minecraft project achieves 10,000 supporters on LEGO

CUUSOO. Available at: http://blog.lego.cuusoo.com/2011/12/07/minecraft-project-achieves-10000-supporters-o/ Accessed March 25, 2014.

BMW. BMW Co-creation Lab. Available at: https://www.bmwgroup-cocreationlab.com/

Accessed March 13, 2014.


99/183

BMW. The BMW Group Co-Creators. Available at: https://www.bmwgroup-cocreationlab.com/cocreators Accessed March 25, 2014.

Bostman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010) What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative

Consumption. London: HarperBusiness. Branaghan, R. J., & Hildebrand, E. A. (2011) Brand personality, self-congruity, and

preference: A knowledge structures approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10(5), 304–312.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology 3(2), 77-101. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013) Consumer engagement in a virtual

brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research 66(1), 105–114.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, S. (2006) Recycling Postmodern Marketing. The Marketing Review 6(3), 211-

230. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. Carbone, L. (2014, March 11) Customer Experience and the “Unconscious Mind”. Available

at: https://www.1to1media.com/view.aspx?docid=34735 Accessed April 23, 2014.

Christensen, L. T., Torp, S., & Firat, A. F. (2005) Integrated marketing communication

and postmodernity: an odd couple? Corporate Communications 10(2), 156-167. Cova, B. (1996) The Postmodern Explained To Managers: Implications For Marketing.

Business Horizons 39(6), 15-23. Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009) Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory?

Marketing Theory 9(3), 315-339. Cova, B., Dalli, D., & Zwick, D. (2011) Critical perspectives on consumers’ role as

‘producers’: Broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes . Marketing Theory 11(3), 231–241 .

Davies, B., & Haré, R. (1990) Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. Journal

for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1), 43-63. Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and

Marketing Communications. London: Routledge.


100/183

Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2011) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. London: Taylor and Francis.

Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P., & Murdock, G. (2002) Researching

Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis. London: Arnold.

Degnegaard, R. (2014) Co-creation, prevailing streams and a future design trajectory.

International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 1-16. Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011) Expanding understanding of service

exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science 39, 327–339.

Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2013) Measurement Characteristics of Aaker’s

Brand Personality Dimensions: Lessons to be Learned from Human Personality Research. Psychology and Marketing 30(11), 950–958.

Füller, J. (2010). Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a Consumer Perspective. California

Management Review , 52 (2), 98-122. Firat, A. F., & Schultz, C. J. (1997) From segmentation to fragmentation; Markets and

marketing strategy in the postmodern era. European Journal on Marketing 31(3/4), 183-207.

Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1995) Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment

of Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 22(2), 239-267. Firat, F., & Venkatesh, A. (1993) Postmodernity: The age of Marketing. International

Journal of Research in Marketing 10(3), 227–249. Fisher, D., & Smith, S. (2011) Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when

no one has control . MArketing Theory 11(3), 325–350. Fournier, S. (1998) Consumers and Their Brands: Developing relationship Theory in

Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4), 343-353. Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011) The uninvented brand. Business Horizons 54, 193-207. Gadamer, H.-G. (1986) Philosophical Hermeneutics. In Q. Skinner, The return of grnd

theory in human sciences (pp. 21-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gansky, Lisa. (2012) The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing. New York:

Portfolio Trade. Gibson, W. J., & Brown, A. (2009) Working With Qualitative Data . London: Sage

Publications Ltd. .


101/183

Gouillart, F. (2010, 3 27) What the heck is co-creation? Available at: http://francisgouillart.com/wordpress/?p=720 Accessed January 22, 2014.

Grarup, T. (2012) Gaining power by giving it away: assessing LEGO’s co-creation of value

on the CUUSOO platform. Corporate Communication. Aahus: Aarhus University. Grönroos, C. (2011) Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing

Theory 11(3), 279–301. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage Publications. Hanby, T. (1999) Brands - dead or alive? Journal of the Market Research Society 41(1), 7-

18. Hatch, M. J., & Rubin, J. (2006) The hermeneutics of branding. Journal of Brand

Management 14, 40-59. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010) Toward a theory of brand co-creation with

implications for brand governance . Brand Management 17(8), 590-604. Heding, T., Knudtzen, C. F., & Bjerre, M. (2009) Brand Management: Research, theory and

practice. London: Routledge. Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004) A conceptual and measurement comparison of

self-congruity and brand personality: The impact of socially desirable responding. International Journal of Market Research 46(2), 205-233.

Hippel, E. v., de Jong, J., & Ogava, S. (2011) The Age of the Consumer-Innovator. MIT

SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 53(1), 27-35. Holt, D. B. (2002) Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer

Culture and Branding. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 29(1), 70-90. Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M. K., & Singh, S. S. (2010) Consumer Cocreation in

New Product Development. Journal of Service Research 13(3), 283-296 . Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013) The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review

25(1), 86-95. Ind, N., Fuller, C., & Trevail, C. (2012) Brand Together. How co-creation generates

innovation and re-energizes brands. London: Kogan PAge Limited. Jesic, D. (2012, May 16) Open Innovation at LEGO: an interview with Erik Hansen.

Available at: http://open-your-innovation.com/2012/05/16/open-innovation-at-lego-an-interview-with-erik-hansen-senior-director-technology-open-innovation-at-the-lego-group/ Accessed March 25, 2014.

Kapferer, J.-N. (1997) Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand

Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Press.


102/183

Kapferer, J.-N. (2004) The New Strategic Brand Management. London: Kogan Page. Keller, K. L. (1993) Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity. Jouranal of MArketing 57(1), 1-22. Knox, S., & Lawer, C. (2006) Consumer advocacy and brand development. Journal of

Product and Brand Management 15(2), 121-129. Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Stieger, D., & Matzler, K. (2011) Avatar-based innovation:

Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 160–168.

Kotler, P. (1987) Marketing: an introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009) Marketing Management (13th Edition ed.). London:

Pearson International Edition. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009) Interviews. Learning the craft of Qualitative Research

Interviewing (2. edition ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. LEGO. (2014a) LEGO CUUSOO. Available at: http://lego.cuusoo.com/ Accessed March

25, 2014. LEGO. (2014b) LEGO Mindstorms. Available at: http://www.lego.com/en-

us/mindstorms/?domainredir=mindstorms.lego.com Accessed March 25, 2014. LEGO. (2014c). Project Guidelines and House Rules. Available at:

http://lego.cuusoo.com/guidelines Accessed March 25, 2014. Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008) Groundswell - winning in a world transformed by social

technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Lock, A., & Strong, T. (2010) Social Constructionism: Sources and Stirrings in Theory and

Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lopdrup-Hjorth, T. (2013) Let's go Outside. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. McKinsey Global Institute. (2012) The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity

through social technologies. London. McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1993) Communication models for the study of mass

communication. London: Longman. Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009) The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant

logic perspective. Academy of Marketing Science 37(3), 328–344. Nike. (2014) Nikeplus. Available at: https://secure-nikeplus.nike.com/plus/ Accessed

March 25, 2014.


103/183

Paltridge, B. (2012) Discourse Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frowc, P., & Knox, S. (2009) Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and

designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research 62(3), 379–389. Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998) Welcom to the experience economy. Harvard Business

Review ,97-105. Pongsakornrungsilp, S., & Schroeder, J. E. (2011) Understanding value co-creation in a

co-consuming brand community. Marketing Theory 11 (3), 303–324. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-creation experiences: The next practice in

value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3), 5-14. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2005) The Future of Competition - Co-creating Unique

Value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000) Co-opting Customer Competence. Harward

Business Review, 79-87. Quoidbach, J., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2013) The End of History Illusion. Science

Magazine 339(6115), 96-98. Ramaswamy, V. (2011) It's about human experiences... and beyond, to co-creation.

Industrial Marketing Management 40, 195–196 . Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010a) Building the Co-Creative Enterprise. Harward

Business Review, 100-109. Ramaswamy, V., & Goulliart, F. J. (2010b) The Power of Co-Creation. Simon and Schuster. Roser et al. (2009) Co- creation: New pathways to value. Available at:

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/samsona/CoCreation_Report.pdf Accessed May 3, 2014. Roser, T., Alain Samson, A., Humphreys, P., & Cruz-Valdivieso, E. (2009) Co-creation:

New pathways to value. Available at: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/samsona/CoCreation_Report.pdf Accessed May 3, 2014.

Rowley, J., Kupiec-Teahan, B., & Leeming, E. (2007) Customer community and co-

creation: a case study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 25(2), 136-146. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits,

Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Schwab, D. P. (2005) Research Methods for Organizational Studies. New York:

Psychology Press.


104/183

Smithson, J. (2000) Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Social Research Methodology 3(2), 103-119.

Stories of Enterprise Co-creation. (2011, August 11) Nike+ Story. Available at:

http://www.slideshare.net/EnterpriseCoCreation/nike-8829199 Accessed March 25, 2014.

Trangbæk, R. R. (2012, March 2) LEGO CUUSOO heads into space with its second Japanese

model. Available at: http://aboutus.lego.com/da-dk/news-room/2012/march/hayabusa/ Accessed March 25, 2014.

Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013) The role of consumer–brand identification in

building brand relationships. Journal of business research 66(1), 53–59. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004) Evolving to New Dominant Locig for Marketing.

Journal of Marketing 68, 1-17. Yanning, R. (2011, 2 23) Fantastic Four motivations for co-creation. Available at:

http://news.eyeka.net/2011/02/fantastic-four-motivations-for-co-creation/ Accessed March 4, 2014.


105/183

Appendix 1: Laswell’s Communication model

Under the influence of the mass media growth the American media researcher Harold D.

Laswell developed his now classic and very much traditional communication model in

1948 (figure 12) (McQuail & Windahl, 1993). The theory has been called ‘the Laswell

Formula’ and a ‘needle theory’ as it primarily focuses on the effect or impact that the

message has on the receiver (ibid.). The model and perspective behind is a part of the

transmission paradigm, defining communication as a transmission of a message from

sender to receiver - communication is thus seen as a linear and sequential process

(ibid.). The model is very simple and exist of five parts; communicator (sender),

message, medium, receive and effect. The idea is that on should ask the questions; who?

Says what? In which channel? To whom? Whit what effect? Each of these issues form a

loop in the communication process, of which the arrows in the model shows, there is a

linear motion from left to right - from sender to receiver (ibid.).

Figure 12: Laswell’s communication model (McQuail & Windahl, 1993)

Laswell’s model is simple and does not account for how the message is shaped by the

sender and interpreted by the receiver, moreover there is no also no opportunity for

feedback (McQuail & Windahl, 1993).


106/183

Appendix 2: Kotler’s Marketing Management

Phillip Kotler is a typical example of how the traditional notion of communication takes

data in use in marketing theory, Kotler's (1987) marketing management model of the

communication process seen below are obviously partly inspired by Laswell. Working

with 9 elements comprising persons (sender and receiver) tools (message and media)

functions (encoding, decoding, response and feedback) and noise (figure 13) (Kotler,

1987). The governing principle the model is efficiency: it is the sender's task to get the

message across to the receiver - at the expense of the hundreds of other commercial

messages, which the receiver is bombarded with every day (Kotler, 1987; Kotler &

Keller, 2009).

Figure 13: Elements in the communications process (Kotler & Keller, 2009: 514)

In the sender-oriented paradigm, also called the economic approach, Kotler further

introduces his traditional marketing mix with the four P’s: product, price, place, and

promotion (figure 14; Heding et al., 2009). The idea is that the brand uses this mix to

create an intended meaning and intentional image with consumers. The consumer is

considered rationally thinking and as a predictable individual who is passively

incorporates the brands product information (ibid.). The transaction between the

company and the consumer is the functionalist nature in the form of a product that

satisfies consumer's functional needs and desires (Heding et al., 2009: 33).


107/183

Figure 14: Kotler’s marketing mix (Kotler & Keller, 2009: 63)


108/183

Appendix 3: Aaker’s Brand Identity Model

David H. Aaker’s (1996) Brand Identity Planning model (see below) is a strategic model

whose purpose is to construct and communicate a consistent and meaningful identity

that defines the associations and meanings that should interfere with the consumer's

perception of the brand (Aaker, 1996; Aaker, 1997). The sender and receiver

relationship in Aakers optics expresses that he considers a significant difference

between a brand identity and image; it is the brand that defines the brand identity

without special consideration for consumers' perception of the brans (ibid.). Aaker

(1997) see brand identity from four perspectives; brand as a product, brand as an

organization, brand as a person, and brand as a symbol, as depicted in his brand identity

system in the below figure 15 (Aaker, 1996: 79; Aaker, 1997). These elements are

instructions for the brand on how to generate a strong and unique brand identity that

includes both functional and emotional brand dimensions (Aaker, 1996: 78). The

elements do not necessarily have the same degree of importance to brand identity, but

should, according to Aaker all be considered in a branding process (Aaker, 1996: 79-80;

Aaker 1997). What is important to emphasize is that it is the company that defines the

brand's core values and brand's essential meaning, and thus the identity (Aaker, 1996:

85-89). The image that comes from consumers is reduced to more or less useless

information, with no direct influence on the brand identity (ibid.). In his ‘brand image

trap’ Aaker warns brands about involving consumers and let them dictate what the

brand is (Aaker, 1996: 69).7

7 It is noted that Aaker consider both an internal and an external focus to be important. But his point in his ‘brand image trap’ is that consumer perception of the brand is looking back in time and reflect past experiences with the brand, where brand identity reflects the future objectives and visions of the business, a power that lies within the business (Aaker, 1996: 70).


109/183

Figure 15: Aaker’s brand identity system (Aaker, 1996: 79)


110/183

Appendix 4: Kapferer’s Brand Identity Prism

Kapferer (1997) is rooted in the sender-oriented branding perspective, and supports

Aaker's (1997) claim that brand identity construction is a competence that lies within

the brand. According to Kapferer consumer do simply not possess the right skills

needed to understand what the brand's inner core values consist of (Kapferer, 1997).

Consumer perception expresses the ideal notions of the brand and is therefore

characterized as unrealistic and harmful to the brand's identity (ibid.). Kapferer (2004:

113) hereby warn against focusing on the receiver side of the communication, “firms

should begin two focus more on the transmission side of brand marketing and less on

the Receiving side". Kapferer (2004: 96) introduced his brand identity prism, which

comprise a combination of six internal and external facets (figure 16) that will affect

which promises that the brand delivers, and how they are redeemed.

Figure 16: Kapferer’s Brand Identity Prism (Kapferer, 2004: 96)

The six facets defines the identity of a brand and all six facets are related with each

other, forming a structured whole, where the content of one facet both depend on and

affect other facets (Kapferer, 1997: 105). In relation to branding and communication the

upper part of the prism (physical and personality) defines the sender and provides a

picture of the product (ibid.). The lower part of the prism (reflection and self-image)

defines the receiver, which then becomes part of the brand's identity (ibid.). The last


111/183

two facets (relationship and culture) help to bridge the gap between sender and

receiver. As a whole, the prism provides a broad and deep understanding of the brand

and helps to understand the essence of brand identity (Kapferer, 1997: 105-106).

Physique The physical and material distinguishing characteristics. Relationship A concept that lies just outside of the product itself, and is the brand's

business conducts or code – the style of behavior. Reflection The ‘picture’ of the lifestyle that the consumer wish to have when

purchasing the brand. Personality The traits of human personality that can be attributed to the brand. Culture The embedded values of the brand - the idea behind the brand. Self –image The consumer's own satisfaction or creation of identity when

buying/using the brand. Table 10: Kapferer’s he six identity facets (Kapferer, 1997: 105)


112/183

Appendix 5: Brand Personality

A part of both Aaker’s (1997) Brand Identity Model and Kapferer’s (1997) Brand

Identity Prism is ‘brand personality’, being the personality traits and interpretations

ascribed to a brand based on its brand actions (Aaker, 1997: 79; Kapferer, 1997). Brand

personality exists on the basis of the way the brand communicates on its product or

service. When creating a personality around the brand, brands give the consumers the

opportunity to express themselves through the ‘product person’ (Aaker, 1997; Aaker,

1996). Brand Personality acts as a self-expressive tool to reflect whom the consumers

are and what values they stand for (Aaker, 1996: 141-142). As argued both by

postmodern and self-congruity theory, consumers prefer brands they associate with a

set of personality traits congruent with their own (section 3.1.2) (Branaghan &

Hildebrand, 2011). Thus brand personality is important both in relation to the brand

image but also to the consumers’ self-reference, as it “encourages self-expression and

enhance brand attitudes and preferences” (Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011: 304).

Brands do not have emotions, people do. Thus in order to encompass the enchanting

elements of humanity that is aspired by postmodern consumers (section 3.1; 3.3),

brands need to acquire a personality that can interact with consumers and embrace the

human-to-human perspective. Aaker (1997) developed a framework for measuring the

personality dimensions of a brand, inspired by the ‘big five’ human personality scales

originally used in psychology (Aaker, 1996: 144; Aaker, 1997) (Figure 17).

Figure 17: A brand personality framework (Aaker, 1997) (Aaker, 1996)

Brand Personality

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Ruggedness


113/183

The framework consist of five personality dimensions; Sincerity, Excitement,

Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness, which then again consist of 42 personality

traits in total (Aaker, 1997: 352-353; Aaker, 1996: 143-145; Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer,

2013: 951; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011). Just like a person a brand has a complex

personality ranging across the five dimensions, a personality that is identified based on

relevance and suitability (Aaker, 1997). As mentioned, postmodern consumers use the

brand personality as a means to self-expression and to reinforce identity benefits

(Aaker, 1997; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011), as they in their pursuit hereof tend to

perceive brands as relationship partners (Fournier, 1998; section 3.2.2). Consequently

consumers attribute human characteristics to the nonhuman form of a brand, a

personality that will affect both brand perceptions and relationship (Aaker, 1997;

Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). Co-creation facilitates consumer engagement on a

mutual level and enables consumer self-exhibition through the brand experiences. Thus

one could argue that co-creation helps provide human traits and a personality to a

brand, as it sets the stage for close interaction and further gives the brand the human

ability to listen and understand.


114/183

Appendix 6: Fournier’s relationship perspective

The brand is seen as an active and contributing partner in a relationship existing

between consumers and the brand, a partner whose actions create trait interpretations

that together summarize the consumers’ perceptions of the brand’s personality and

thus the brand in general (Fournier, 1998: 368; Aaker et al., 2004).

Fournier has in her research construed four dependent indicators of brand relationship

strength: commitment, intimacy, satisfaction and self-connection, as seen in figure 18

(Aaker et al., 2004; Fournier, 1998).

Figure 18: Relationship strength (Fournier, 1998)

High levels of ‘commitment’ foster stability and in some cases higher loyalty in the

relationship, the greater the need for commitment the more consumers will move

towards a relationship. Furthermore commitment will increase contribution. ‘Intimacy’

refers to the profound understanding, which occurs if the relationship is close and

friendship-like and both parties are willing to openly share information, this will further

reduce any uncertainty that might arise. ‘Satisfaction’ is as it says; the satisfaction with

and happiness in the relationship, thus taking in to consideration the expectations and

benefits of relational engagements. Lastly ‘self-connection’ refers to the basic human

need of being a part of something, it adds strength to the relationship by activating the

self-image, in cases where consumers and the brand have mutual perspectives and a

common purpose. (Fournier, 1998; Grarup, 2012) The presence of these above

indicators will increase the possibilities of a stronger relationship between the

consumers and the brand; if of course the brand behind is able o utilize the potential


115/183

hereof (Fournier, 1998). From a value creation point of view, a strong relationship is

key, as this will ensure that interactions do not include two parallel processes but one

merged and interactive process (section 3.4).


116/183

Appendix 7: Case examples for the focus group

Case 1 – LEGO CUUSOO

The details in the following case example are attained from a previous study of this

thesis’ author (Grarup, 2012), however all the original sources have been researched

again for this purpose. Within the last years LEGO has given this user-linked approach

more attention, and is exploring co-creation as a valuable part of strategy. “We want to

engage more deeply with our fans and users [...] [and] listen more to their needs and

wishes so that we can better deliver what they want”, says Erik Hansen, Senior Director

of Technology & Open Innovation at LEGO (Jesic, 2012). The company has touched upon

co-creation when developing the Mindstorm products together with an online

community (LEGO, 2014b), however recently an initiative called CUUSOO has generated

a notable attention in regards to co-creation. LEGO’s learning and development

processes have more than ever opened up for external inputs. LEGO CUUSOO is a

unique platform inviting consumers to submit and share their own LEGO ideas/designs

and collect votes to be considered as future LEGO products (LEGO, 2014c). The site has

a ‘discover page’ letting users see what other users are proposing and where one can

further discuss and support the designs. If a project gets more than 10,000 supporters

LEGO might release it as a real product offer, and consumers having their idea chosen

will benefit from their work and earn 1% of the product revenue. (LEGO, 2014a) The

process is visualized in figure 20 below.

Figure 19: The LEGO CUUSOO Process (own adaption inspiration from the CUUSOO platform)


117/183

LEGO CUUSOO began in 2008 with a Japanese site, and in 2011 it was launched globally,

attracting “hundreds of ideas and saw thousands of votes cast by a 35,000-strong

community” (Trangbæk, 2012). The LEGO Mindcraft was the first design to be released,

receiving 10,000 votes worldwide in 48 hours (Blog, 2011). The CUUSOO platform is

still a beta version, however the vast popularity and success indicate that in will only be

developed further. The project also recently received the Core77 2012 Design Award,

with jury comments like the ones below in figure 21.

Figure 20: Jury statements – Core77 2012 Design Awards (Awards, 2012)

Case 2 – BMW Co-creation Lab

BMW use the creative minds and experiences of consumers to improve innovation. The

automotive brand has integrated its various co-creation projects into their holistic and

long-term co-creation initiative and platform; BMW Co-creation Lab (BMW, BMW Co-

creation Lab). The lab enabled by the German innovation company HYVE addresses

essential elements of co-creation. “It is a virtual meeting place for individual consumers

interested in car related topics and eager to share their ideas and opinions on

tomorrows automotive world” (Bartl et al., 2010: 5). The integrative platform offers

activities ranging from idea contests, user toolkits, virtual concept tests, and innovation

research studies up to lead user application forms (ibid.). It an ongoing co-creation

process, where user (consumer) interactions and ideas are displayed and saved on the

platform, and used as valuable insights in the development departments of BWM (ibid.).

With its now 4613 co-creating users, the ideas and knowledge sharing continuous to

grow (BMW, The BMW Group Co-Creators). As stated by the BMW Group Manager “each

time we launch such an initiative we remain impressed by the creative potential. The

generated ideas added innovative and valuable input to the topics we are already


118/183

working on and confirmed us that the overall direction we are following leads into the

right direction.“ (Bartl et al., 2010: 6).

Figure 21: Illustrations of the BMW Co-creation Lab (BMW, BMW Co-creation Lab, -)

Case 3 – DANONE Activia Advisory Board

DANONE’s Activia yoghurts have enjoyed double digit growth since its launch over ten

years ago (Ind et al., 2012: 143). However to maintain a steady growth in these fast

changing markets, the brand has build the ‘Activia Advisory Board’, an online co-

creation community of 400 women, to discuss and share knowledge around sensitive

female health issues and hereby create new ideas/products and drive future

communications and marketing campaigns to find and ensure new positions for the

brand (ibid.). Over five months, 1300 hours of consumer engagement, and 15000

individual contributions, this initiative has resulted in new products (among others the

‘Activia Single Pot’), that were developed much faster than normal, and sold much more

as it matched the consumer needs and wants, being developed by the same (Ind et al.,

2012: 143). Furthermore the community has provided valuable insights to develop new

communication and marketing campaigns to retain consumer awareness (ibid.). The

success created more valuable insights than traditional methods, which has made

DANONE keep the community and create more advisory boards to keep a close

relationship with consumers (Ind et al., 2012: 60-61).


119/183

Figure 22: Illustrations of the DANONE Activia Advisory Board (source: Google images)


120/183

Appendix 8: Nike+ case example

In 2006 Nike launched Nike+ (NikePlus) in collaboration with Apple and the new iPod,

in order to deeply engage with runners and the running community (Ramaswamy &

Goulliart, 2010b: 8). Nike+ is a co-creative engagement platform that allows the brand

to “learn directly from the behavior of its customers, generate new ideas rapidly to,

experiment with new offerings quickly, get direct input from customers on their

running preferences, build deeper relationships and trust with the community, and

generate ‘stickier’ brand collateral” (Ramaswamy & Goulliart, 2010b: 11-12).

Figure 23: The Nike+ brand and community (Nike, 2014).

The Nike+ system consist of a censor that runners can insert in their shoes, a connected

device, such as an iPod or Nike Fuelband, and the Nike+ website and community

(Stories of Enterprise Co-creation, 2011: 4). Thus the product and design is already


121/183

created, and the co-creation is focused on the holistic experience and personal use of

the product and social community. Runners can, trough their personal experience or

through the involvement in the community, track their own activities, set personal

goals, train smarter, improve performance, find better routes, discuss their experience,

challenge friends or other community members, and share their success (Nike, 2014).

The co-creative idea is that runners co-create their own experiences around the Nike

product of choice every time they use it and engage with other consumers doing the

same (Ramaswamy & Goulliart, 2010b).

The main outcome for Nike is no doubt to sell more running shoes and gear, however

they do this in a very engaging and co-creative matter, and it is only a minor part of the

entire running experience. It further allows the brand to engage runners and their social

networks in rich dialogues that generate deep knowledge and insights into the running

experience. Moreover Nike+ allows users to be co-creative to the extent they find of

value – engaging and disengaging when they wish to (Ramaswamy & Goulliart, 2010b:

8-10).


122/183

Appendix 9: Focus group guide

Introduction

Introduction of moderator, and handout of ‘sign-in’ sheet with a few quick demographic

questions (age, gender, occupation) while the moderator is introducing the focus group.

“My name is Tine Grarup and I’m the moderator today. I am an independent

researcher, and I don’t work for any particular company and I don’t have anything

to sell. This focus group is conducted to collect data for my thesis.”

Review of the focus group

The reason for and purpose of this study (without giving away key points).

o The purpose of this discussion is to talk about the concept of co-creation

in relation to branding. I’ll be asking your opinions and your experiences.

Explanation of the focus group process

o You represent consumers – the study wishes to learn from you

o There are no wrong answers in marketing research; I am looking for

different points of view. I want to know what your opinions are.

o Not trying to achieve consensus, I am gathering information

o The reason for using focus group is to get more in-depth information.

This allows me to understand the context behind the answers given and

helps me explore topics in more detail than one can do in a written

survey.

What will be done with this information

o The information will be used in analysis and conclusion of the thesis

Logistics

Focus group will last about one and a half hour

The session will be audio recorded

Feel free to move around as long as you stay with the discussion and participate

Everyone needs to talk but each person doesn’t have to answer each question.


123/183

Please talk one at a time and in a clear voice, avoid side conversations. It is

distracting to the group and I don’t want to miss any of your comments.

The bathroom is outside to your left

Help yourself to refreshments from the table

“Does anyone have any questions before we begin?”

Introductory Questions

Objective: to determine the participants immediate reflections on co-creation and brand

identification.

The concept of co-creation

When I mention ‘co-creation’, what comes to mind for you? – and why?

How do you understand the concept of co-creation?

Have you ever engaged in a co-creation process?

o If so, how was your experience?

o How do you see the brand behind the co-creation initiative?

Brand identification

How do you identify with a brand?

o What factors are important?

How big a factor is the brand itself (the business behind) in the experiences you

have with the brand?

The concept of co-creation is presented with use of the working definition from this

study as point of departure and through different case examples to visualize the concept

(see appendix 7 for case descriptions).

Co-creation refers to the processes by which both consumers and the business

cooperate in creating value; it is joint problem solving and not just the business

trying to please the consumer (section 3.3). It is all about interaction and

individual brand experiences.


124/183

Case examples

Case 1: BMW

Case 2: LEGO

Case 3: DANONE Activia

To each of the three cases the following objectives and questions will initiate a

discussion in relation to co-creation and the specific brand identification, value, and

experience (see the end of this appendix for case descriptions).

Brand identification

Objective: to determine if and how co-creation influence participants’ (consumers’)

opinion about and identification with the brand.

Does the engagement in co-creation initiatives change how you see the brands

o Does it make a difference whether or not you know the brand?

Does co-creation affect the brand value? Why?

Does co-creation affect the extent to which you relate and identify with the

brand? How?

Does co-creation affect your connection to other consumers?

Does co-creation affect your relationship with the brand?

o Do you feel more connected or empowered as a consumer?

o Are you interested in a relationship with the brand?

o How does the open dialogue affect your identification/relationship with

the brand – the brand value?

Does co-creation affect how you experience and/or consume the brand?

Does it affect how you evaluate the brand?

The value of co-creation

Objective: determined the value that participants (consumers) see in the co-creation

initiatives and what they would qualify as motivational factors.


125/183

What value do you see in co-creation?

Does co-creation affect your commitment to a brand?

Would you be interested in engaging in co-creation initiatives? Why?

Communication about co-creation

Objective: to determine whether the communication about the co-creation initiative

influence consumer identification and opinion.

How does the brand’s communication about co-creation affect your opinion?

Does showing evidence of the co-creation enhance effects on product and brand

opinions?

Does it make a difference whether you know about the co-creation or not?

How should brand best communicate about co-creation? Should they

communicate?

Conclusion

Any issues pending?

Anything not said during the group that you think should be addressed?

That concludes the focus group. Thank you so much for coming and sharing your

thoughts and opinions with me. If you have additional information that you did not get

to say in the focus group, please feel free to contact me. If there are things that need

further elaboration, I might contact some of you for a short enlarging interview, if you

have the time of course.


126/183

Focus Group Demographic Questions

To aid in the analysis of the data, we would appreciate you sharing a little information

about yourself. Unless otherwise indicated, please circle the item which best reflects

your situation.

1. Age: ___________________________________________________________________

2. Gender:

Male Female

3. Highest Level of Education (completed)

Certificate Bachelors Masters Ph.d.

4. Occupation: _____________________________________________________________


127/183

Appendix 10: Interview guide

Introduction

Introduction of researcher

o My name is Tine Grarup. I am an independent researcher, and this Interview

is conducted to collect data for my thesis.

The reason for and purpose of this interview (without giving away key points).

o The purpose of this interview is to further explore the findings from the

focus group that you also participated in. I will thus be asking your opinions

and further elaborations on subjects that you might have already discussed

in the focus group.

Explanation of the interview process

o You represent consumers – the study wishes to learn from you

o There are no wrong answers in marketing research; I am looking for

different points of view. I want to know what your opinions are.

o The information will be used in analysis and conclusion of the thesis

o The interview will last about 30 minutes and will be audio recorded

“Do you have any questions before we begin?”

Brand identification through co-creation

Objective: To further examine the value assets that through co-creation can lead to

brand identification, and the value assets that might arise from brand identification.

In the focus group you all to some extend agreed that co-creation sometimes

could lead to brand identification, could you maybe elaborate on how co-creation

for you can lead to brand identification?

o What brand factors are in this connection important for you in order to go

from co-creation to brand identification?

Does co-creation affect your relationship with the brand?

o What value do you get out of this?


128/183

Do you feel more connected or empowered as a consumer?

Are you interested in a relationship with the brand it self?

Does co-creation affect your connections with other consumers?

o What value do you get out of this?

o Does this social connection stand instead of brand identification?

Does co-creation affect how you experience and/or consume the brand?

Does it affect how you evaluate the brand?

How do these discussed factors affect your brand identification?

Value through brand identification

Does brand identification affect other factors on the more long term?

What is the result of your ability to express yourself through a brand and a co-

creation process?

o What value do you get out of it?

In the focus group you touched upon brand loyalty, could you elaborate on this in

relation to co-creation and brand identification?

Prior brand relationship and knowledge

In the focus group you mentioned that your prior knowledge and relationship

with the brand would affect your brand identification. Could you elaborate on

this?

Where does brand trust come in the picture? Before the co-creation process or

after?

Co-creation of experiences modified based on focus group findings

Objective: To widen the respondent’s insight in co-creation of experiences (the more

advanced level of co-creation), as most respondents in the focus group had difficulties

visualizing this type of co-creation (appendix 11). Here the Nike+ example is introduced

(appendix 8).

Does the co-creation example of Nike+ change any of your previous expressed

views on co-creation, experiences, and/or brand identification?


129/183

o If yes, in what way?

o Does the popularity of Nike affect how you evaluate this co-creation

initiative?

How big an impact does the mode of co-creation have on the outcome and brand

identification?

Conclusion

Any questions or issues pending?

That concludes the interview. Thank you so much for participating and sharing your

thoughts and opinions with me. If you have additional information that you did not get

to say, please feel free to contact me.


130/183

Appendix 11: Transcription details and data coding

Subsequent to the data collection, all recorded data was transcribed. Within the

transcriptions the researcher is referred to as ‘Moderator’. Moreover symbols and

specific punctuation signify unclear wordings, pauses, and expressions made by the

respondents as listed in table 11.

?xx? Unclear wording

*xx* Tone of voice or expressions that are not linguistic

… Small pause or change of mind

Table 11: Included symbols in transcriptions.

The themes and subthemes recognized from the research are summarized in the below

table (section 4.2). The theme codes are all applied in the following transcriptions

(appendix 12; 13; 14; 15) with the code number and matching letter.

Theme Code Subthemes

Co-creation 1

a) Product centered

b) Customization c) Negotiation – open interpretation

d) Modes of co-creation e) Value added

f) Co-creation communication

Brand identification 2

a) Prior brand relationship and knowledge

b) Purpose

c) Self-recognition

d) Product quality

Brand Relationship 3

a) Dialogue

b) Brand exploration

c) Involvement

Brand Value 4 a) Brand evaluation

b) Brand preference

Motivation 5

a) Feedback b) Feeling unique

c) Social recognition d) Brand profit

Brand loyalty 6 a) Purchase intention b) Brand commitment


131/183

Brand skepticism 7

a) Risk

b) Exploitation c) Marketing stunt

Social connections 8

a) Networks

b) Belonging c) Social influence

Personal image 9 a) Self expression b) Social identity

Brand experience 10 a) Fun b) Interactions/ social connections

c) Knowledge generation

Trust and honesty 11 a) Brand behavior b) CSR

c) Brand promise Copy of table 7 (section 4.2).


132/183

Appendix 12: Focus group transcription

Date Wednesday March 19th, 2014

Time 20:00-22:00

Respondents 6 people (see selection of respondents in section 4.1.1)

Transcription of focus group Unit Introduction Code(s)

2 [Moderator] Welcome to this focus group. My name is Tine Grarup and I’m the moderator today. This focus group is conducted to collect data for my thesis.

3 [Moderator] The purpose of this discussion is to talk about the concept of co-creation in relation to branding. I’ll be asking your opinions and your experiences. You represent consumers – the study wishes to learn from you. There are no wrong answers in marketing research; we are looking for different points of view. I want to know what your opinions are. Not trying to achieve consensus, I am gathering information. The information will be used in analysis and conclusion of this study.

4 [Moderator] The focus group will last about one and a half hour. The session will be audio recorded. Everyone needs to talk but each person doesn’t have to answer each question. Please talk one at a time and in a clear voice, avoid side conversations. It is distracting to the group and I don’t want to miss any of your comments. Help yourself to refreshments from the table.

5 [Moderator] Does anyone have any questions before we begin?

6 *silence* *shaking heads*

7 [Moderator] Ok, lets start.

8

9 The concept of co-creation Code(s)

10 [Moderator] When I say co-creation, what comes to mind? (1)

11 *silence* *thinking* *no answer*

12 [Moderator] If you have to look at it in terms of branding and co-creation as a concept. Let us take a round to begin the conversation

(1)


133/183

13 L: For me it is related to the product more than the branding process of it. I always think of… When I hear co-creation… It maybe has something to do with the product or service that the organization has. So that’s my first thought. It has to do with the product.

(1): a

14 D: I think my initial thoughts are *mm* product related as well. As well as procedure related, so it could be optimization or internal procedures as well. But then I think, for me, I automatically combine co-creation with value added to the brand as well. If that makes sense?

1: a, e

15 Moderator Yes *mm*

16 C: It’s the same for me, with internal processes mostly with consumers, but also with employees that can co-create inside an organization with management. And yes the product…

(1): a

17 M: I normally think about the fact that it is different from customization, because I think most people look at these things as somewhat similar, where I look at co-creation as developing platforms together where you can really add value. Where customization you have already build the platform and you can only change small things and add things.

(1): b, d, e (4)

18 R: That was also my thought. I thought of build-a-bear to begin with, but that is then more about customizing a bear. Whereas when you think of developing a new product or concept or something like that, so I totally agree with [M].

(1): b, d

19 K: I think in terms of branding, when I think of co-creation, I think of how we negotiate brands and.. Like if you have a brand and you leave it up to the consumers on for example social media, it is up to the consumers to add value to the brand for example via co-creation. But also like the other guys said, in terms of new product and product development co-creation is also relevant.

(1): c, e

20 D: In terms of value added I think there is two aspects in it as well, that is value added to the product or procedure, or whatever is optimized. But then it is also value added in terms of the brand reputation and identification.

(1): e (2): a (4)

21 K: Yes.

22

23 [Moderator] Have you ever engaged in co-creation processes, if you think of it just now?

24 K: *hmmm*

25 D: *hmm*

26 [Moderator] Not something directly called co-creation maybe?


134/183

27 L: More customization I think… (1): b

28 D: Yes, maybe more customization (1): b

29 [Moderator] When you say customization you mean? (1): b

30 L: For example adding a color to a shoe, or something like that - or the build-a-bear as [R] mentioned.

(1): b

31 R: I was… I participated in some sort of workshop at the main street. I walked by a window that said ‘come in and have a cup of coffee’, and I thought that might be a good idea. It turned out to some sort of green initiative, where they invited people to come up with ideas on how to make the entire street a more green street. It could be anything really. They invited people walking by to participate in what looked like a brainstorm, but I suppose it was really co-creating a greener way of life.

(1): c, d (10)

32 [Moderator] What did you think of it?

33 R: I really liked that it was so open and it wasn’t something ?linked to a certain idea?, but a place to grow your own ideas. And people were actually quite creative in the way they expressed how they understood being green. So it wasn’t really just developing rooftop gardens and something more concrete, it was open to interpretation.

(1): e (8) (10)

34 [Moderator] Who were the people behind it? Was it someone you know?

35 R: I can’t remember who was behind, some organization, they just sort of rented the store space and provided people post-its and ways to express themselves, and then write down what they had in terms of ideas.

(1) (2)

36 [Moderator] So it was not someone that you afterwards have thought of as someone you wanted to engage with?

37 R: No not really, I was just hoping to actually see some of the initiatives at some point. To be honest I didn’t really care who was behind it. I just was fascinated by the concept itself.

(5): a (7)

38 [Moderator] So did you see the results?

39 R: Not yet, I think it was a year from now, or two years from now. It would be sort of included in the way they developed in terms of new buildings and so and if they were funded by either the government or other institutions to make such initiative. So I haven’t seen it yet, but hopefully I will see it.

(5): a

40

41 Brand identification 42 [Moderator] Good. I think that was the initial thoughts about co-

creation. Just to put in another concept; brand identification, to briefly get your thoughts of how you

(2)


135/183

identify with a brand. I know it is a broad concept and question, but just briefly if you had to identify with a brand or connect with a brand, what are the important factors?

43 M: If I can take the brand as maybe musicians or bands, is that ok?

44 [Moderator] Yes, sure

45 M: Because I thought about it the other day. I have a lot of bands that I am really into and that I can relate to, and then there obviously are other artists where I totally don’t get it. And I think it is really about identifying something in the brand that it also how I want to be seen and how I am as a person.

(2): c (9): a, b

46 L: I think I identify most with brands that have this reason to exist - Raison d'être - [reason for existence]. I am tired of brands that are not here for anything, I want a brand that stands for something and has an opinion on the greater reason on why they are in business. Not just I’m selling this iPhone because I want to make money, sell and iPhone or because I am good at it. There has to be some greater purpose with the brand for them to make an impact in my life.

(2): c (5): d (11): a

47 [Moderator] Besides earning money?

48 L: Yes, besides just being an organization or a brand. It is just cool when a brand has a really strong attitude towards something I think. That is at least something that makes me identify with them more. For example LEGO with what they want to do with creativity and ensure that kids keep their creativity. I think that is a really good attitude.

(2): a, b (3): a, b

49 D: But I think that you can think a lot of good stuff about a brand and really kind of… Yes you can be really positive towards a brand and their initiatives and everything they say, but I think for me its also all about the quality, so if the quality lacks even though their mission, logo and slogan what ever is really in sync with my personality, it doesn’t really matter to me if the quality isn’t there. It is not a brand I would by or identify with if the quality doesn’t live up to my personal standards. Whereas I would still buy a brand, which does not necessarily, correspond with my personal values of life, but where the quality is still high. So the brand identification depends very much on the product and the product quality as well.

(1): a (2): c, d (4): b


136/183

50 R: I would say that I identify with brands that are approachable and also I really like the ones that are brutally honest. If they are here to make money, then say so. The best example was when I switched from Danske Bank to Jyske Bank, for other reasons, but the first things she said to me, my new advisor, was ‘we are a bank and we are here to make money, don’t ever forget that’. Thanks you. Honesty and that you know what you get, that is important. That kind of brutally honesty I really like, even if it is not what I want to hear, it is still nice to hear.

(2): a, c (5): d (11): a

51 D: But I think identification is a really strong word. (2)

52 C: I think for me brand identification mostly relate to something I wear, like clothes or shoes or whatever, where I can really identify with the brand and the values that lies in the brand. And I agree that quality is very important as well, also design in terms of clothing etc.

(1): a (2): c, d

53 K: For me to identify with a brand there has to be some shared values and an emotional connection, if that makes sense. I need to se my self in the brand before I can identify with it.

(2): c

54 D: This also means that you need to be very much familiar with the brand, and have had some kind of relationship with it.

(2) a

55 K: Yes. (2) a

56 M: I agree (2) a

57

58 Definition of co-creation and co-creation examples 59 [Moderator] I just want to briefly include a definition on co-

creation, so we have something common to carry on the conversation. It is still broad to still allow for a mixed discussion. But it refers to the processes by which both consumers and the business cooperate in creating value; it is joint problem solving and not just business trying to please the consumer. It is all about interaction and individual brand experiences. So that involves both product developments, innovation, creating experiences together, knowledge sharing and so on.

(1)

60 [Moderator] Keeping that in mind, I want to show you three examples of co-creation so we have something to talk from, for the next questions.

(1)


137/183

61 [Moderator] Case 1: The first one is BMW, they have initiated this Co-creation Lab, it is a virtual meeting place on their website, you have to login to be a part of it, but here consumers and any of interest in car related topics can discuss new ideas to a certain product, their opinions, their experiences, not necessarily with the BMW brand, but with anything in this relation. All these discussion are also connected to different contests, idea creations, product developments and so forth. They are all shared and saved on the platform, and BMW then uses all the ideas and knowledge to be better and learn from the consumers.

(1)

62 [Moderator] Case 2: There is also LEGO, as you guys also mentioned. They have the Cuusoo project; this is also a platform for consumers. Here consumers can submit different ideas for products, they can make what ever they feel like out of LEGO bricks and then submit the design, the process how to build it, the pictures and everything on the website. Then other consumers and fans can go in and see the ideas and vote for them. When your idea has 10,000 supporters it will be reviewed by LEGO for a chance to become an official LEGO product. The statement down here is from the Senior Director of Technology & Open Innovation at LEGO, he states that LEGO "want to engage more deeply with our fans and users and listen more to their needs and wishes so that we can better deliver what they want”

(1)

63 [Moderator] Case 3: The last example is DANONE that have the Activia brand that has been well going for 10 years. But they wanted to keep the success, so they started an advisory board of 400 women, where they can co-create product developments and discuss marketing campaigns, all around the health issues and trends that are in this female society. So they have been going on for 5 month, and they have spend lots of hours in this community, and actually two new products have been created and they have also started new marketing campaigns from their ideas, that are actually increasing sales, even though the brand is 10 years old, and the market might have matured.

(1)

64 [Moderator] Having used these examples, the next question is, that when you know these brands and other brands are engaged in co-creation does it change the way you see the brand? Your view and opinion about the brand?


138/183

65 K: I think it changes my view, because I think that the companies that are willing to engage with consumers and go into dialogue with consumer son how to develop the brand they trust the consumers, and I think that trust gets mutual. Then the consumers trust the brand and the company to be interested in what the consumers want and not just having interest in earning money. Even though we all know that is the main point of having a business. But I think that it changes a lot of what I think of companies that they trust their customers. I think that pays back.

(1) (4): a, b

66 C: I agree actually, it seems like that the co-creating companies are really open and that you can get an access into the company as well somehow by creating something in the co-creation process. I think it adds value both to consumers, seeing it from the other side of the table, but also for the to brands, because they can then represent what the consumers actually want and need. It does actually change how I view the brands.

(1): e (2) (3): a, b (5): b

67 D: For me it depends on how well the co-creation ties in with the rest of how the business operates. Because we all know that the hidden agenda of this is merely their own profit and consumers image of the brand. So if it just a one off, like for example DANONE, I wouldn’t change my opinion about the brand. Also I don’t really know DANONE and I am not really familiar with what they do in terms of CSR and so on. But for LEGO I know that there is a lot of different initiatives that fit very well with the co-creation platform and they have loads of other different events that evolve around consumers and their interests, and jointly in a chain of events where consumers together with the LEGO group help, where the LEGO group gives them an assignment to build something that can help change the world for a better place. So the CUUSOO platform links very well in with the other brand initiatives and the brand missions of the company. That makes me think better of the brand.

(2): a, b (4): a (11): a, b, c

68 [Moderator] When you say you DANONE’s co-creation doesn’t affect you because you don’t know the company that well, would it then change anything if I said that they had many more co-creation initiatives?

69 D: I still depend on how well you know the brand. I think I need to know how they behave business wise. I mean it doesn’t really add any value to me that they co-create, when I do not know if they use child labor

(2): a (4): a (11): a, b, c


139/183

or are underpaying their employees, then the co-creation platforms doesn’t make any difference.

70 L: Actually in terms of the questions, co-creation for me can maybe devaluate the brand and my relationship to it. If there is no higher purpose with the co-creation process, I think it is irresponsible of brand to ask the consumers to co-create something with them. So in order for me… In order for the co-creation engagement to heighten my relationship with or the value of the brand, how I see it, I have to feel a clear purpose and an alignment between what ads value between the consumers and the brand. Because the brand can have one idea of what ads value and the consumer can have another idea. But the whole foundation on which the co-creation is build, if there is no purpose or no joint agenda for value for both, then for it just for me becomes something of a marketing stunt.

(1): e (2): b (3): c (4): a (5) (7): a, c

71 [Moderator] So what would be a clear purpose? (2): b

72 L: For example the DANONE example, I had a feeling that it was just a community, and a community for me is not a purpose of co-creation. If I say that we want to do something with green environment, as the example we talked about before in the city of Aarhus, that is purpose for doing co-creation. I wouldn’t just say that creating a community and getting all our fans to help us do something. Then you put the responsibility on consumers, even though consumers might want to engage and are interested in the brand. But somehow I want the company to tell me why they want me to co-create with them, and not just put a community up for discussion.

(2): b (3): c (5): a, b (11): b

73 D: I think it depends on you prior relationship to the brand. I am not going to go into a discussion forum with DANONE if I am not already buying their products or is interested in them, and the same with BMW. I mean if I don’t already have a BMW, I might go in there if I want to buy a new car and I am considering buying a BMW.

(2): a (4): a, b

74 L: But what I am saying is that I like the projects of co-creation where it is done for something, but these kind of big communities for co-creation, I just think gets kind of vague in the purpose of it.

(1): d (2): b

75 R: I also think that the execution of it means a lot for me. I am more into co-creation where the brand/company could not have done it without the consumers. For instance events like flash mobs, they would not exist without having people to engage in

(1): d (5): b (10): b


140/183

the idea. Of course it is maybe more related to the non-physical products, but for me that kind of co-creation with the consumers being vital, makes a bigger impact and is more interesting than what I assume is often profit related. I doesn’t’ necessarily have to be a higher purpose, but the idea that it doesn’t exist forever like a product, but is more of an event, and idea or movement.

76 [Moderator] So the experience in the process you think of as more value?

(10)

77 R: Yes for me the experience ads more value than the given product. If co-creation can give me a great experience, I would most likely feel more connected to the brand, and if that relationship is strengthened over time it could result in identification. But that again is due to the experience not the product itself.

(2) (3): c (10)

78 [Moderator] If you can think about how the co-creation processes, being the product or the experience, how they affect your brand relationship, your connection with the brand, the brand, value experience and so on?

79 D: This would depend, 1: on my prior knowledge on the brand and 2: if I were involved in the co-creation process or not. If I am not involved in the co-creation process it doesn’t strengthen my brand relationship, but it could potentially strengthen my brand evaluation. Whereas if it was a product I normally used, and that I would be eager to interact with, and I did take part of the co-creation process, than it would strengthen my brand relationship…

(2): a (3): c (4): a, b

80 L: But what if the co-creation was bad, and the whole experience around it too? That would for me devaluate the relationship and value of the brand.

(3) (7): a (10)

81 [Moderator] If you where involved that is?

82 L: Yes if I was involved in co-creation and it was poorly executed it would devaluate my brand experience and relationship, and would put a greater distance between the brand and myself.

(2) (3) (7): a (10)

83 D: Or if the co-creation outcome and promises was not acted upon afterwards…

(5): a (11): b, c

84 L: Yes exactly, if it was not acted upon afterwards, then it is just a waste of my time that would be even worse. Then both my relationship with the brand, the value of the brand and so forth would go way down. So I would say that it is a huge risk for a brand to go into co-creation.

(5): a (3) (4): a (7): a (11): a


141/183

85 R: I think that is why I like the idea of the experience itself. Because if the experience ads value, it doesn’t matter if the product changes or if a new product emerge from the co-creation process, as long as you had fun doing it or it changed your view or knowledge about something and got you involved. And in the moment of the experience you felt good about it. This would make me much more positive in my attitude, towards the brand, however the brand doesn't mean that much to me - the experience can stand alone.

(1): e (3): c (4): a (5): a, b (10): a, a

86 [Moderator] What if we take co-creation as an experience, not the one time event, but as something you obtain whenever you use the brand in your personal way, and create the meaning of the brand when you use it. Does that affect you in relation to your connection to the brand?

87 M: I think it might be easier to create a more intimate or holistic experience if you are involved in developing that experience. At the place I work we have lot about transformation, and I think that if you want to evolve as a person, I think generally it is easier if you are involved in the experience that will make you stronger connected to the other involved, that would make the experience stronger. Or at least it is easier to co-create in that way at least, when you are involved.

(1): d, e (3): c (10): b

88 D: I think it is hard if you look at it in that way, because then everything becomes co-creation even the way you use your mac computer, and then everything becomes co-creation. You would then position the brand in a situation where you would make other people perceive it depending on how they are interacting with the brand through the product.

(1): c, d (10)

89 [Moderator] So it very much also depend on how you see the concept of co-creation.

(1)

90 *nodding in agreement* (1)

91 D: Yes the type of co-creation would definitely affect the outcome and my view on the process.

(1): d (4): a

92 K: The form of co-creation would also be a part of how it for me affects the outcome, brand relationship, value and so on.

(1): d (3) (4): a

93 [Moderator] Are there any other comments on how co-creation affects how you see the brand - and the brand relationship, experience, and value?

94 D: I was just thinking if we could move away from products and take the travel industry?

95 [Moderator] Sure


142/183

96 D: Then we have Tripadvisor for example. You could maybe find that as being co-creation as well. There is so much value added if you get positive reviews to your brand and to the personal experience that you will have with that brand, but then it can just as well be negative if you get negative reviews. In that sense even if I had not been on the travel and I was reading these reviews, maybe that would also affect the brand experience I have from reading this and then also the brand value and evaluation. Because other people’s opinions would count.

(1): d, e (3): a (4): a, b (8): a, c (10): b, c

97 C: I think that co-creation can as we talked about will make me feel closer to the brand, and evaluate the brand more positive because I am involved in the experience. This will also make me feel more connected and maybe loyal.

(3): a, c (4): a (6): b (10)

98 R: I am not sure that co-creation always will make me stronger connected to the brand as such… Maybe more to the other participants involved.

(8): a, b

99 M: I think I agree with C that co-creation, if it is successful can make me more connected and wanting to identify with the brands, because it is a good brand, if you know what I mean. So the experience will also change my own identity that I show others. I will be more committed to the brand further on.

(2): c (3): c (4): a, b (6) (9): a

100 L: I think, in terms of engagement and how I see the brand, it also depends on maybe the media and the platform. These online platforms I see more as a communication way, if I engage in co-creation around a product as an event and it is not actively communicated to the rest of the consumers, then I feel like it is more unique, because then they actually want to use it in some kind of process for development. These co-creation platforms for me often just makes for communication on how good the brand is that it co-creates. If I feel that they are not publicly using my co-creation as a marketing stunt, then it ads more value to me and I evaluate the brand more positive.

(1): d, f (5): b (7): b, c

101 R: Yes you wan to feel unique or at least appreciated as a valuable participant

(5): a, b

102

103 Communication and motivations of co-creation 104 [Moderator] That leads us on to another area of the co-creation

process. What do you feel about the communication around co-creation? Does it affect you if brands communicate that they are co-creating? Should co-creation be communicated?

(1): f


143/183

105 K: It depends on whether they wish to communicate it to let other consumers know that they can also get involved, or if the brand communicate co-creation just to say ‘we have some lucky people co-creating for our brand’, then it just becomes like ‘so what’. Then I don’t really care If you don’t invite me in. Then it is just push marketing, and a way of marketing your organization and not about co-creation anymore.

(1): f (5): b (7): c

106 [Moderator] What about if they were communicating that a specific product was co-created?

107 K: Hmmm

108 R: I think it depends on who is communicating. If it is the company, I would not care – I would not care at all. But if it is someone close to me saying ’well I participated in something, a process, event or something else, and that was interesting’ and then it becomes interesting.

(1): f (5) (10)

109 L: Yes it becomes authentic the word-of-mouth. (8)

110 K: So much better.

111 [Moderator] So the third party endorsement attracts you? (1): f (8)

112 K: Yes! (8)

113 R: Yes that would work a whole lot better for me than the company communicating. I would actually prefer the company saying it half a year after the process, that they actually did the co-creation and the product came from a given co-creation process. I think that would work better for me.

(1): f (8)

114 K: If the co-creators became ambassadors for the process and the company. Then it would be different from just the company going out and saying ‘this has been co-created’. But if they told me in a commercial or whatever, that they made this product from co-creation and said that they would do it again… This is again the invite thing, and then I might think it would be ok to talk about past experiences with the co-creation.

(1): f (7): c (8)

115 D: I agree! I think it depends on the frequency of the co-creation, because, if we again take LEGO, the CUUSOO platform is only for co-creation and they I think they have many products launched. Here the co-creation has a theme on its own, so you know that it is an ongoing process, they kind of thing they keep being involved in. Whereas the DANONE one I don’t see the same way, because I don’t know if it is a one-off thing.

(1): d, f (2): a (7): c


144/183

116 R: But here it also makes perfect sense for LEGO. I mean the whole concept of building blocks, you cannot not co-create them, even if you follow the instruction you can make a hundred of different things, the product it self is one of the best products to co-create. But also in relation to previous questions, co-creation per se is not a good thing necessarily. For me it is the same thing as CSR, if you advertise your CSR very aggressively for me it doesn’t have any affect, but if I somehow hear from other sources that this company actually donates 10% of its profits, then it is a completely different story. Also actions speak louder than words!

(1) (2): a (4) (7): a, b (11): a, b

117 *nodding from the others*

118 [Moderator] If we go back to the relationship factor. You all agree that co-creation creates stronger relationship with a brand if you are involved in the process. But does co-creation makes you interested in the relationship with the brand it self or also the other consumers? What relationship/connection factor is important for you?

(3)

119 *Silence*

120 [Moderator] What if you think about the dialogue with the brand also in terms of the communication as we just discussed. Would you feel empowered because they invite you to co-create, or rather because you are a part of a community that co-creates?

(3)

121 D: I think it depends so much on the setup. Because you can have a community where it is everyone pushing in their opinions, and then you can also have a community where everyone is working together to solve a problem. I think in the first instance, it would be more concerning my relationship with the brand, to see how they responds to the reactions from the consumers. Whereas the second one would be more interested in the engagement with other consumers. Just like with the BMW, I think it is nice that they are hosting this platform, but I would be much more interested in hearing what the other consumers had to say, and take part in their discussion.

(1): d (3): a, c (8): a, c

122 [Moderator] So what I hear you say, correct me if I am wrong, the relationship with the brand depends very much on the feedback as well, on the dialogue you have with the brand, if it is the instance of everyone pushing in ideas. Then the value of your relationship depends on what the brands gives you back and that they listen.

(3) (5)

123 D: Yes *mm* (5)


145/183

124 L: I feel the same. Because sometimes these communities are too big, and if a brand ask me to co-create something I read the ‘co’ as meaning to-way, and if I feel that I have to keep contributing there has to be a balance. So somehow I have to see how it has value to me, does it ad value to me that they create a new product, maybe because I would like the product. But somehow it is more about the ongoing process, not only the end-outcome. In the ongoing process I would constantly have to feel that I ad value. It is just like if you have a conversation. If I feel that [D] is not listening *laughter*, then the relationship in that conversation goes down, because I don’t feel appreciated.

(1): e (3): a, c (5): a, c

125 [Moderator] So you want to be able to ad value but you also want to receive feedback?

(5): a

126 L: Yes and I also want to understand that what I am doing is being used.

(5): a

127 D: I think the more you feel that you ad value, the more you appreciate it. And…

(1): e (5): a

128 C: Yes so your contributions also become the motivation.

(5)

129 D: Not necessarily meaning that you get anything tangible out of it. But the more I feel appreciated…

(5)

130 L: Yes, also the knowledge I get and whatever interest I have in it. Because I probably engage because I have a high interest and high knowledge.

(5) (10): c

131 D: I was actually reading on a back of a milk carton the other day, I think it was Thise. They where saying that by 2015 five organic farmers has chosen to leave and be non-organic farmers, because it was too expensive or something. But then this milk company appealed for help, so if you knew any farmers that would like to become organic farmers, one could put the two in contact. That was interesting for me, because I like to drink organic milk. So I thought I want to help the under-dog here, even though I do not know any farmers.

(1): d, e (3): c (4): a, b (5): a (10)

132 L: But for me that again makes sense, because it goes back to my initial thought that co-creation should become a reflection of an attitude or a reason to exist. The brand has a clear attitude to organic farming and use co-creation as a purpose to fulfill that reason to be a brand.

(2): b (11): a

133 D: But that only makes sense because I like organic milk.

(2): c

134 [Moderator] So you feel connected because you actually identify with that brand?


146/183

135 D: Yes I feel connected with the brand because I identify with the brand’s values, and I want to help also because that there is a hidden personal agenda for me as much as the brands agenda. So I will value from it just as well as they do.

(2): a, c (5):

136 R: But it is interesting to see how it can change depending on product and purpose etc. I agree with if the setup gets too large, usually, then you don’t feel that you add value, and then you don’t get any gratification during the process. But you can find examples of the others. You can take Wikipedia for example that thrives from having as many users as possible and yet you still see people all the times updating, all the articles are user driven and you can see who edited what and you can enter discussions etc. so despite being a large forum you still have the dialogue. It is interesting to see that co-creation is not an umbrella term you can place on any given product or service, it really depends on the context.

(1): a, d, e (5) (8)

137 [Moderator] Interesting point.

138

139 The value of co-creation 140 [Moderator] If we again look at what co-creation is, what would

you say the value of co-creation is? For you as consumers first of all? I know it is a big question, but just to get some words on it.

141 K: I think that if you participate in co-creation, Like [L] said then you have some sort of interest or you are really good at something. That is why you want to participate, or you have a strong relationship with the brand. And then it ads value for you personally, because you then also get something out of it. Maybe it is having organic milk in five years, or maybe it is being heard as consumers. That it is value enough if you are interested enough in a brand. Being heard and having that dialogue. That also goes back to the relationship you have with the brand as we talked about before, if you have a relationship with the brand and you go into co-creation, then you want to be heard and you need the “co” in the co-creation. I think that is really important, otherwise it would be a whole lot of consumers just screaming at a brand with ideas. This mutual dialogue is really important and as consumers you can get a lot of value from the dialogue too.

(1) (2): a (3): a, b (5) (10): c


147/183

142 L: Also for me, if I am interested in a brand whatever it may be, and they invite me into this co-creation process then they not only give me the opportunity to grow in terms of interest and knowledge but they also put me in connection to likeminded. It is really hard to go out there and find people… For example to use LEGO again as an example, in the CUUSOO co-creation thing, it is people that are likeminded. You could not just go out on the street and find these people.

(5): c (8): a, b (10: c

143 R: I think you could here *smile*

144 K & D: *laughing*

145 L: Okay maybe I could for LEGO *smile*. But also if it is more a niche product and a small market, where it is not something that everyone has an interest in. Then co-creation can hook me up with likeminded people that I otherwise would not have come in contact with.

(8): a

146 [Moderator] So there is also value for the individual interactions? (8)

147 L: Yes but also with the brand as well as the other consumers around it. Maybe they do not only become part of this co-creation process, but I could maybe relate to them outside the co-creation process as well. The brand is actually offering me a way to find more likeminded that could result in new friends and network.

(5): c (8): a, b, c

148 C: I think the real value absolutely comes from the peers as well, but between the company and consumers the value comes from feedback and dialogue and the results of the co-creation. So if a new product comes on the market then people can also get real value from that, and the results can then lead to relationships to the brand. That’s what I think is the ultimate value of co-creation, the relationship that the consumers can gain from the engaging in co-creation with companies.

(3): a (5): a, c (8)

149 K: Also some sort of pride as consumers, if you do participate in co-creation and the product is, your idea, is put in production. That would be the best part of my CV *smile*, that would be really cool!

(5): b, c

150 L, R & M: *laughing and nodding in consensus*

151 K: That would be this pride in having participated in something that is actually our there in the stores for other consumers to buy, can be seen on YouTube or whatever. That is something that you would save inside of you and keep as a valuable memory.

(5) (10)

152 R: This pride thing, I think it is what McDonalds kind of does with their burgers, where they highlight the

(1): f (5)


148/183

person creating that particular burger.

153 [Moderator] That is again communication of the co-creation. Is that ok communication then? Communicating that this person has created this type of burger.

154 R: For me it doesn’t make any difference. For all I know they could just be making it up. I like the burger anyway but if it Jens from Roskilde who come up with the idea, I don’t care.

(7): c

155 [Moderator] So you think that the value here is for that one person, that he created that product?

156 R: Yes it would be valuable for him, that the brand communicate that he helped design that product.

157 [Moderator] But you don’t see any value for you as an ‘outside’ consumer, that Jens co-created the design of this particular burger?

158 R: No (7)

159 M: Me either… (7)

160 R: I think there are other examples where I find the co-creation more interesting. For instance if you take a brand like Harley Davidson, they do not only have the actual bike, but they have a whole community and a way of life created around having the Harley bike. They have all these gatherings and trip across the country. That ads a whole different level of value than just saying, like McDonalds, ‘now we introduced a new burger with a second beef. The Harley community doesn’t really have that much to do with the bike it self, but the perception of the brand and the value of the brand is totally different and much stronger. If you asked any one of them if they would ever consider a Kawasaki, they would probably beat you *smile*. I think that says a lot about it.

(3): c (4): b (5) (7) (8) (10): b

161 [Moderator] So it is again the value around the experience around the brand?

162 R: Yes it is about the experience and the relations that they have with the brand and each other. They can go up to any person with a Harley Davidson and know instantly that they have something in common.

(3) (8) (10): b

163 C: That is also ?about the consumers connection and loyalty to the brand? If you can be in a community like that, you come closer to the brand and more loyal.

(3) (6)

164 [Moderator] So would you say that co-creating would make you more connected and more loyal to a brand?

165 C: Yes I think so, if you participate in a co-creation process and if you get the feedback and dialogue between the company and consumers. Yes then I

(3): a (5): a (6): b


149/183

think you become more loyal. 166 R: As long as the brand is loyal to you as well. That is

again the ‘co’ part of co-creation. And sometimes I think that brands forget that, it has to work both ways.

(3): a (6) (11): c

167 [Moderator] But would you call that loyalty or are you just stronger connected with a stronger relationship?

168 L: It depends on if the brand also give me some value in the co-creation process. That I would not have without the co-creation, if it was taken away from me then… for example I know, which is more the network part of it, I think it is Unilever in San Francisco or New York that have this huge loft where they have people in and invite them to participate in idea generation and discussions, and if I am not then a part of this co-creation process, they then take that social balance away from me. The value of the likeminded again. Because for me if I have an interest in some sort of product or brand and I co-create around it, I talk to others who have the same interest, and if I am not in that co-creation process, I am kind of cut away from the social element.

(1): e (5) (8)

169 D: I think it depends on how I identify with the brand and my relationship with the brand and previous experience. I could easily take part in the DANONE discussion and never ever buy a DANONE product, whereas you can take Nike for example, they do these running courses together with consumers. That for me would make me much more loyal to Nike, because I am already in favor of Nike as a brand, and if they do social events which helps me do an activity which I like (running), they somehow makes me come closer to the brand and that would help improve my loyalty.

(2): a (3) (4): a, b (6): a, b

170 [Moderator] So the previous relationship and knowledge with the brand strengthens the future relationship through co-creation?

(2): a (3)

171 D: Yes if I have a history with the brand, co-creation would definitely be more likely to strengthen the brand relationship and value. It also again depends on the business conduct. Because I am not just going to buy DANONE because I have taken part in some co-creation activity, if I don’t like the rest of their business values.

(2): a (3) (6): b (11): a


150/183

172 L: I think it is cool to use a metaphor of people relationships. Like if didn’t know you, you would never ask me to co-create something with you without having the prior relationship. So co-creation also needs to come as a natural consequence to a relationship that already exists with the brand. In the beginning, when I might only be slightly familiar with the brand, co-creation will not make sense, because we don’t have the foundation to build it on. Loyalty can increase due to co-creation, but the co-creation has to come at a natural point where I am already having a relationship with a brand. I cannot co-create without having a relationship.

(2): a (3) (6) (10)

173 C: I agree with that, I don’t think you would participate in a co-creation process if you didn’t have the relationship in the first place. I wouldn’t engage with DANONE either because I don’t have a relationship with them, but I might engage in some other co-creation process where I already have a relationship with the brand. Then, when this prior relationship exists, co-creation can add value to me and how I see and identify with the brand and maybe also lead to loyalty.

(2): a (3) (5)

174 L: I agree (2): a

175 D: Yes. So it is kind of like dating *smile*, going from the dating-stage into a relationship.

(2): a

176 K: *laugh* Yes you wouldn’t be engaged to someone you don’t already have a relationship with.

(2): a

177 M: Exactly *smiling* (2): a

178 L: *laughing*

179 R: And you wouldn’t start talking about children in the first stages.

(2): a

180

181 The co-creation value for businesses and brands 182 [Moderator] What if we see the value from the business and the

brands point of view? (5): d

183 K: One of the values for brands lies in the fact that it is always better to have 100 minds thinking and evaluating each others ideas and supporting each other ideas, instead of to people in marketing just to come up with an idea. For the business there is a lot more value in asking a 100 people.

(5)

184 [Moderator] Couldn’t’ they just send out spreadsheets then and not co-create?

185 K: It is also about the discussion. It may not be one person that comes up with this one great idea, but it all comes from discussion and if someone says something and then *snap* another get the idea, that

(3): a (5): d (8)


151/183

might be something totally different. But that just makes sense, and you can then build on someone else’s idea. I think that is the value for businesses that people just develop on each other’s ideas and also shoot down each other’s ideas.

186 D: Yes there is obviously the knowledge sharing part of it for brands. But then I also think that there is some kind of insurance bank in the co-creation, if something goes wrong or if they don’t do well, or if they get criticized, they can always say that this came from a co-creation process. They are not completely responsible, well they are, but they can sort of present it in a way that make them seem less responsible in the eyes of other consumers, if it doesn’t turn out as it should. And then people wouldn’t point fingers at them as if it was just their name.

(5) (7): b (10): c (11): c

187 M: You cannot trust them… (7) (11)

188 L: Yes. But I also think, no matter the intention of the co-creation process, it communicates some sort of innovation or value of the company to do it. So I would say for brands or companies that want to communicate part of their values as being very innovative or something in that direction. I think co-creation can help position a brand as being creative or innovative, or something like that.

189 D: But it also depends on how they communicate. I mean if a tobacco company went out and said ‘help us co-create a new product’.

(1): f (11): a, b, c

190 L: Yes it just falls between the chairs. (11)

191 D: Yes that would be ridiculous that would not make sense.

(7) (11)

192 L: But I think for brands, that in their value set wants to be perceived as creative and innovative or something like that, co-creation can be a way to strengthen people’s perception of that.

(2) (4)

193 D: If it links to their other actions. (11): a

194 L: Yes obviously McDonalds does that because it is in their values…

(4) (11)

195 D: Hopefully…

196 L: Yes hopefully *smile*

197 D: But I think again that honesty is very strong, so you could be a non-innovative company and wanting to move in an innovative direction.

(11)

198 L: Yes exactly.

199 D: They could go out an say ‘we need more ideas, we haven’t been successful in this previously, we need help can you please…’

(11)


152/183

200 K: Yes agree.

201 L: Agree! Yes that is very humble. ‘We suck, please help us’.

(11)

202 R: Yes more of that please *smile* (11)

203 M: Yes *small laughter*

204 [Moderator] Good point

205 R: But it is interesting, because sometimes you also expect certain companies, because their tradition positions them in that sort of position, that they sort of dictate the new thing. And if those companies started co-creating, they would loose that power. Imaging Apple doing that with the next iPhone, then the whole expectancy of that brand would disappear. The same goes for a number of brands, where you expect them to set certain standards. I mean that are probably capable of doing that, because if you co-create between 1000 of people, you would see certain groupthink and people thinking in certain ways that might not be able to push the limits for a certain department or a certain company.

(1)

206 L: I also think that some brands can’t really use co-creation as well. Maybe within the food industry, because then they have to put the recipes out, you know for me to get the value. I could say that I want strawberry flavors or vanilla, but if it is really in terms of developing a new product then there is also a lot of business secrets that would have to be shared. So I think there are some companies that from the beginning that are not meant to be co-creating.

(1): d (7): a

207 [Moderator] That then involves the opening up and the transparency of the business, the honesty you talked about.

(11)

208 L: Yes true!

209 [Moderator] Because DANONE actually created new products based on that, and they are a food company.

210 R: Also it opens up for who’s idea was it? If you were to pattern anything or take credit for something. What then happens to that in such a co-creation process? That is tricky for the businesses, and yes also the consumers.

211 D: There is also a lot of different ways that companies can create value. Take Kit Kat for example. They launched a couple of years ago four different products, and then people had to vote for the one with the flavor that they preferred, and Kit Kat would take the other three of the market. In that way they sort of assured that the product that they would

(1): a, d, e (10): a, b (4)


153/183

eventually keep in the market, is the one that is going to sell best. But still they got everyone involved in the process and the brand. It was actually a big hype! *talking positive an enthusiastic*

212 L: I actually prefer customization, co-creation in that kind of way, because it is nicer *pause*. At least I know that the brand also from the beginning put a really great effort into it, and then when you are in the final process they engage me in the co-creation of it, or the decision. If I am… At least if it is something I don’t have a huge huge passion for.

(1): b, d

213 [Moderator] Ok

214 L: If I should want to participate in a co-creation process with a brand that is not like my heart and soul, then the customization way is just easier for me. It doesn’t take as much effort.

(1): b

215 D: I think it is for me personally, it is a more fun way of doing it as well. Because, even though I couldn’t really care less about what Kit Kat products are like *smile*, they made me go to the shop and buy one just to taste it, because the flavors were so ridiculous that I just had to taste them. And then I just kind of went into a battle with everyone else on the Facebook page, because I wanted the peanut butter one to win. So it sort of became a personal competition as well.

(1): b (9): a, b (10): a

216 R: Maybe that is also the downside of having democracy based product development like that, if 40% likes one of them and 60% likes the one that won and became the new flavor, then the 40% would be disappointed.

(1): a, b, d

217 D: I don’t’ think that.. I wasn’t disappointed; I don’t think the peanut butter won, but that whole feeling and that whole competition just made it so much fun to be involved in. It was a fun thing even though you might not ever buy that Kit Kat.

(1): a, b, d (5)

218 [Moderator] So you liked the empowerment, did you feel empowered from the brand even though your opinion didn’t win?

219 D: Yeah I felt empowered and heard and even though it was so obvious that it was beneficial for the company to do it.

(5): a

220 L: But there the purpose of the co-creation was not to make a new product, but to make you have fun.

(10): a

221 D: Yes

222 L: So it was more the communication of it around the event.

(1): f

223 C: The experience (10)


154/183

224 L: Yes it was then the experience again that was to good and valuable part of it.

(10)

225 K: And maybe that whole experience and how fun it was would also make you choose Kit Kat the next time you want a chocolate bar. Just because that would be a happy memory and if they engage a lot of people in that way, then..

(10): a (8)

226 L: Yeah

227 K: And maybe that would work for the company in that way.

(5): d

228 D: I think Ben & Jerry’s does the same with their flavors. (1): b

229 C: Innocent juice does it as well. (1): b

230 [Moderator] Before we finish. Do you have some things to add in relation to how the whole co-creation concept and your brand identification, evaluation etc. correspond?

231 R: It is easy to find all the examples, but to be honest I don’t know how much it affects me. On a continues level I don’t think it affects me at all, on a subconscious level perhaps. But I don’t think you will be able to see a difference in my bank receipts or the way I spend my money to be honest. It really need to have me be involved in a long period of time before I make any big changes. It might be different for other people, but for me it is more hyped than actual value.

(2) (7)

232 [Moderator] So again the ongoing dialogue or the ongoing commitment is important?

233 R: It might be different if you have children, that are in love with LEGO and you will look at that in a different way. But for me personally I can’t come up with an example where I just have to have this particular brand due to co-creations.

234 D: I think for me, when I lived in England, there were so many different supermarkets that tried to communicate their CSR standpoint. But one of them Waitrose, and actually some Danish supermarkets have adopted this now, but you get a coin after you have purchased something in the supermarket, and they have then already chosen three different courses that they will donate money to, and to which they have already set a side a certain amount of money. But the cause that receives the most amount of coins from the customers, will also receive the most amount of the money sum. That for me made me feel that I had something to say in regards to how the supermarket that I put my money in, how they help the local community. That made me go to that supermarket instead of other supermarkets, because I felt heard and it also tied into their overall values

(2): a, b (3): c (5): a (10): b (11): b


155/183

and other actions that they pursued. 235 L: For me it is either that the brands have to add the

value in the network around it or then if I chose to engage in co-creation it is also a way to express some part of my own identity. I maybe don’t use the co-creation process to build a relationship, but maybe just take advantage of the opportunity to co-create to show my self in a certain way, maybe.

(2): c (3): c (5): c (9): a

236 M: Yes

237 L: Then it also ads value to me, because thought the co-creation process and being part of it, and being able to communicate that I am part of it, will somehow profile my own identity. So I might do it for that game.

(5): b (9): a, b

238 D: But I think I would only do that I am deeply involved in a co-creation.

(3): c

239 L: What to do you mean?

240 D: Like if there are 5 or 8 people that have been sit together in a group to develop something really specific for the company, then I would use that for my personal branding. Otherwise I wouldn’t.

(4) (5)

241 L: I think that if you from the beginning think it is a very cool brand and they approach me somehow saying that it is possible to co-create with them, I see either I am interested in the field and theme of the co-creation and want to become more knowledgeable and gain likeminded feedback in the process. Or I take the other route and say ok you are a cool brand, co-crating with you allows me to profile my self one social media in a certain way.

(5) (8) (10): c

242 M: So if you co-create with a cool brand it makes you cool.

(2): c (9): a, b

243 L: Yes exactly. It would be either for the inside personal gain or for the outside perception of me.

(5): c (9): a, b

244 D: But it would again for me depend on how deeply involved I am and the brand makes me. If I am just one out of a 1000 I wouldn’t use that to brand my self,

(3): c

245 L: I think that…

246 D: But if I am one among 5 people I would.

247 L: I think I see it differently; I will maybe make my decision before even going into the co-creation.

(5)

248 R: Here we are talking about the purpose again… (2): b

249 L: Yes the purpose. I see it. When I am in the process of course what I gain from it is of course depending on the feedback and the process it self. But I think before even stepping in to the co-creation process. I would evaluate if it were something I would do for

(2): b (5): a (4): a


156/183

me to grow and to become more knowledgeable, or have an interest in whatever the product is. Or if I do it because I want to use in actively communicating who I am. And I make the decision before I enter the process.

250 D: I think it is very rational and very non-likely.

251 L, R & M: *laughing*

252 D: Unless it is a product that you have made a lot of considerations about. If it is just fast-moving consumer goods I don’t think that you would ever be that rational.

(2): a (3): c

253 L: But lets say a brand like BMW. I really identify with that brand and really want to attain the personality that is around BMW, in seeing that as my personality as well. And maybe I can’t afford driving a BMW and in that way portray that I am the same brand. Co-creating with the BMW brand, and maybe sharing it on my Facebook, would allow me to also take advantage of the brand and positioning my self with their values. It is easier for me to get to there than to buy the BMW.

(2) (9): a, b

254 D: But then again it would depend on what you are developing and what you are co-creating with them. If you are creating a product, yes that is pretty cool to communicate, are you voting on four different types on Kit Kat products, not so cool to communicate.

(9): a, b

255 K: *laughing*

256 L: But that is also for me more customization than co-creation, because I would relate co-creation to the product.

(1): b

257 [Moderator] It depends if you feel that Kit Kat is cool, than that co-creation might also be valuable to communicate?

258 R: Yes and maybe if you manage to create your own Facebook page and raise 150,000 members to vote. Something where you put some more into it, where you have actually done some more besides clicking to a flavor.

(5) (8) (9): a, b

259 D: Yeah 100%

260 L: Yeah

261 R: Then you are really engaged and can sort of proof that to your surroundings.

(9): a, b

262 D: But again I think that the product groups differentiate as well, for fast-moving consumer goods I think it is quite different, cars for instance.

(1): d

263 L: But maybe if you are a health freak fast-moving goods are important.


157/183

264 R: But sometimes you also see these types of campaigns or processes taking a life of their own, where you see these movements starting to develop. I remember a this product called Marmite or something like that, that you either like r really hate, you see these two fraction develop. What the company did, was actually to adjust their website, so when you entered you could chose to go to the official fan page, or to the enemy camp, and they invite you to go to the enemy camp. And the enemy camp really just has a lot of recopies on how screw up your meal with Marmite. That was very interesting to see.

(8)

265

266 Sum-up 267 [Moderator] Good. What I hear you all say is basically that co-

creation is very much depended on personal values and opinions on what you think and feel your self. And it doesn’t really change how you see the brand or your relationship with the brand, unless you are deeply related to the brand already.

268 D: I think one dimension that you could ad to the different words we have been discussing; relationship experience and value etc. could be purchase intention. Co-creation might not necessarily make me loyal, but as you said [K] because you have been involved in something fun you might because of your heuristics that might be the product that you purchase. If you are faced with having to choose between different products.

(4): b (6): a

269 [Moderator] Yes.

270 [Moderator] Do you have anything you want to ad?

271 K: I think one aspect that is important in relation to what we discussed earlier is when you choose to co-create you also choose to spend some time on co-creation, and I think that is also a factor which is important, because you need to get something back for the time you put into the co-creation process. And whether that is the ability to see a finished product, or engage in dialogue, time is also a really important matter, because that is not something that many people don’t have a lot of. Co-creation can then maybe seem a bit irrational to go into, if you don’t have a lot of time. I don’t think you go into co-creation just to see what it is, you do it if you really want to co-create, and then you should really also wan to spend your time doing it. That might also make you more loyal afterwards, because you spend a lot of time trying to be heard, or take part. That is

(5) (3): a


158/183

my final comment *smile*. 272 L: Good luck to the brand that co-creates!

273 R: Definitely!

274 L: Have their house in order or company. (11)

275 R: Think it through.

276 L: Think it through yes.

277 R: As I see it there are just as many opportunities as there are pitfalls.

278 [Moderator] Any thing else pending?

279 *silence* *shaking heads*

280 [Moderator] Good, thank you for participating! That concludes the focus group. Thank you so much for coming and sharing your thoughts and opinions with me. If you have additional information that you did not get to say in the focus group, please feel free to contact me. If there are things that need further elaboration, I might contact some of you for a short enlarging interview, if you have the time of course.


159/183

Appendix 13: Transcription of interview with K

Dates Wednesday April 9th, 2014

Respondent K (see selection of respondents in section 4.1.1)

Transcription of Interview with K

Introduction 1 [Moderator] Welcome to this Interview. My name is Tine Grarup

and I will be interviewing you today. This interview is conducted to collect data for my thesis.

2 [Moderator] The purpose of this interview is to further explore the findings from the focus group that you also participated in. I will thus be asking your opinions and further elaborations on subjects that you might have already discussed in the focus group.

3 [Moderator] Do you have any questions before we begin?

4 K No

5

6 Interview Code 7 [Moderator] First I would like to talk about brand identification in

relation to co-creation. In the focus group, you all to some extend agreed that co-creation sometimes could lead to brand identification.

(2)

8 K Yes we did.

9 [Moderator] Could you maybe elaborate on how you see that co-creation could lead to brand identification?

10 K I think that when you get the opportunity to co-create with a brand, you agree to put part of yourself into the brand. So.. By doing that you also begin to identify with the brand. So when you begin a co-creating process, really what you want to do is to identify with the brand I think. Because you choose to put your time and energy in to this co-creation, you wish to explore the brand, and to extend the brand in a way. With your own personality. To extend the relationship you have with the brand. If that makes sense?

(1): c, e (2): c (3): b (5): c

11 [Moderator] Yes


160/183

12 K So I think, the fact that you put part of yourself into the brand also means that you want to identify with it. In that way it becomes this co-creation between the brand and you, as consumer and as a person and *pause* and it strengthens the relationship between you and the brand.

(2) (3): a, b, c

13 [Moderator] So you say that co-creation, the dialogue and the relationship in the co-creation, that makes you want to identify.

14 K Yes definitely, the co-creation is kind of the door into the brand and it opens up for this relationship where you can go into dialogue with the brand and affect the brand in a way.

(1): c, e (3): b, c

15 [Moderator] So you say that co-creation affects your relationship with the brand?

16 K Yes definitely

17 [Moderator] So what do you as a consumer then get out of this stronger relationship with the brand?

18 K *hmm* I think that being part of something bigger is often something that means a lot to people, not only as consumers, but as a person that you are part of something bigger. But in relation to brands, I think the fact that you can identify some of your own personal values in a brand for example that means that you might be more... that you might prefer one brand over the other. If you share values with a brand and in that way identify with a brand. I think that is really important when you choose between brands in your everyday life and you do that all the time. So I think, yes.

(2): c (3): c (4): a, b (8): b

19 [Moderator] So if you think of engaging in co-creation with a brand or co-creation in general, is that the brand you are interested in a relationship with, or is it the process itself or the other consumers?

20 K I think you would never engage in a co-creation process if you weren't interested in a brand. Or I wouldn’t.

(2): a (3)

21 [Moderator] Ok

22 K I think that for me to co-create with a brand, I would really be interested in the brand in the first place. So the brand would mean something to me, or have a certain value, or I would share values with the brand, in order to even begin to think about co-creating with it. And then in order to do that, I think... I would have to feel that I would gain something from it, and be able to influence something in relation to this brand and in relation to other consumers. If I had a great idea, I would be able to tell other consumers about this idea, and thereby be able to influence something in the

(2): a, c (3) (4) (5): c (8): c


161/183

brand or in other consumers. 23 [Moderator] So co-creation also affects your relationship with

other consumers?

24 K Yes it would. Because it wouldn't just be a co-creation between me and the brand, other people would be invited into this co-creation to, and I would co-create with them. I think that is also what creates real value for consumers and for the brand. That it is not a process between two people or I mean a process between one consumer and a brand, but it is a process between a lot of consumers that can affect each other’s and then the brand.

(3): a (8): a, b, c

25 [Moderator] What is it that you get out of that?

26 K I think that you can learn a lot, I think that you can… If you have an idea about something you get it tested. If I had an idea for a brand or for the co-creation of a brand I would get some feedback from other customers, and feedback from the brand. And I would.. *hmm* what would I get... I think the process would be exiting, seeing whether your idea holds or if it is a stupid idea that you have, that nobody else think anything of *smile*.

(5): a (10): a, c

27 [Moderator] So the co-creation process or the initiative itself would still affect how you evaluate the brand?

28 K I think I also mentioned something like this in the focus group. I think the fact that a brand opens up for co-creation that would mean something for me personally. Because, as we also discussed back then, it can be?? Personally I would mostly regard the brand more positively if it opened up for co-creation, because for me that says something about the brands willingness to hear consumers and to hear society, in a way. And to adapt to consumers' demands and whishes.

(3): a, c (4): a, b (11): a, c

29 [Moderator] Now all these factors that you just discussed around the brand, the value, the positive opinion, and the relationship. Do you see all these as a result of co-creation and a way towards brand identification?

30 K Yes I see them as part of co-creation, as an important part of co-creation, as to why you would engage in co-creation - they are the benefits. I definitely see the brand factors as a part of brand identification because they are all positive things, and to engage with and identify with a brand I think you need to identify positive with the brand. So they are important to get this positive brand identification.

(2) (5)

31 [Moderator] Yes

32 K I think we engage a lot in brands that we se something (2): c


162/183

of ourselves in, or that we wish to see something of ourselves in. For me personally I wouldn't engage in a brand that wouldn't think would say something positive about me. I can't think of any example right now...

(9)

33 [Moderator] That is ok *smile*

34 [Moderator] When you talk about identification and you also talk about the other consumer’s connections. Do you then see that you can both gain stronger relations with other consumers, and still identify with the brand? Or do you see then as more separately?

35 K I am not sure what you mean?

36 [Moderator] Ok, you say that the social connections and relationship with other consumers is something that you gain from co-creation, but is that something that also leads to brand identification, or is that a separate outcome, as it is not the relationship with the brand that you strengthen?

37 K I think the social connections are part of co-creation, and are unavoidable, or that sounded negatively, it wasn't. But the social connections and relationship with others is definitely a part of co-creation and something that I would gain value from personally. I don't think it has to do directly with brand identification, but you can never be able to take it out of the co-creation processes. So in that way it might also affect brand identification, but kind of isolated.

(2) (8) (10): b

38 [Moderator] In the focus group I mentioned some examples of co-creation.

39 K Yes

40 [Moderator] I also talked about the whole co-creation of experience, where you guys where a bit confused on how co-creation of experience can be present around the brand. Because then you said that we then do co-creation all the time. So I just want to show you an example. It is the Nike+ concept, do you know it?

(1): d

41 K No not really

42 [Moderator] I got some pictures here of the concept. You get a device to put in your Nike running shoe and then you have a connected device, such as an iPod or Nike Fuelband, and the Nike+ website and community.

43 K Oh, yes I heard about that.

44 [Moderator] Here the product and ideas are already there, so here the co-creation is the experience - the experience is where the consumers come in. The co-creation part lies in how you use the products.

45 K Yes I see that *very interested*


163/183

46 [Moderator] So every time you put on your Nike shoes and use the Nike+ system, or every time you go into the community website and enter your running distance, time etc. you are co-creating the experience.

47 K Ahh so the co-creation is what you do when you engage with the brand.

(1): d

48 [Moderator] Yes, does that change the way you see co-creation and the experience around it?

49 K *hmmm* I think that is kind of a different form of co-creation that what I first think of, because you are not part of creating a physical thing, but you are… Nike they make you able to meet with other consumers, so they enable you as consumer to meet or find peers that also like to run for example, and you can discuss your results I guess, and connect over this co-creation experience that you create separately. I think that... I kind of like the idea of that actually.

(1): d (8) (10)

50 [Moderator] *mmm*

51 K Also because it doesn't… Because I think that one of the problems in co-creation I think is that you should really want to spend the time doing it, and this is just part of your most peoples everyday life, being active in some way, running or… And I can see that happen, I could really see that happening.

(5) (1): d

52 [Moderator] Ok. How does this then change your view on brand identification?

53 K *hmm*

54 [Moderator] The type of co-creation, does it affect your brand identification?

(1): d (2)

55 K I think in this type of co-creation I am not affecting the brand, I am supporting the brand. Nike enables me to really just support them in a way because I use Nike's products and then I go into dialogue, not about Nike perse, it could be, but more about what experience I had. So in that way I would think positively about Nike and still identify with Nike, but I wouldn't think that I am co-creating the brand as such.

(1): d (2) (8): a

56 [Moderator] So you say that you, through the product, services, processes in co-creation, more strongly identify with the brand?

57 K I think so yes, more strongly yes.

58 [Moderator] Also now that Nike is a really popular brand, does that affect how you value their co-creation?

59 K I think… Yes I think that because Nike is really popular, that I would be more intrigued to go into co-creation with them. I use Endomondo myself for when I run, and I would never go into this, they have a community too, and I have never even updated how I

(2): a (4): a, b (8)


164/183

run or... that would just be embarrassing *smile* but I have never done that, because I don't see any point in it. But whereas I presume that Nike would facilitate this community in some way that is professional, and I would then engage more because I see Nike as a professional company.

60 [Moderator] Ok

61 K And that leads me back to this brand identification, I wouldn't engage with Nike if I didn't find them professional.

(2): a

62 [Moderator] Yes ok. The last thing I want to talk about is again the brand identification, but more the values that you gain from the identification. You and the others all talked about brand identification through co-creation, but what value do you then get out of the brand identification in the more long term?

63 K *hmm* I think when you use brands… to show… it sounds really superficial, but to show the world around us who we are, you would never choose a brand that you didn't think would somehow mirror who you are as a person. I choose to have a MacBook, not because I am a graphic designer, but because I think it is innovative and cool, and really nice design. So I think that should mirror some value sets that I hold. And in that way... In the longer run I think you want to identify with the brand that says something about you as a person, and you kind of build your... or no you don't build your life around them, but you use them in your everyday life to show the world around you who you are. In a way...

(2): a, c (3): b (9): a, b

64 [Moderator] So to express yourself?

65 K Yes definitely that is the right word, you use brands to express yourself. To yourself and to others. When you are at school for example or work, brands definitely helps us in expressing who we are as people, whether we are.. Take the computer example, whether I am really nerdy and playing a lot of games on the computer, then I wouldn't be carrying around a MacBook air, then I would be having something bigger, I don't even what... But that says something about how I identify myself and I do that through brands. I would never go into that whole... I would never think of it if I didn't have an opinion on the brand itself, and the identity of the brand. Which could be affected by co-creation.

(2): c (4) (9): a, b

66 [Moderator] Ok, good. Lastly if you think of being engaged in a co-creation process and that co-creation process made you identify, or wanting to identify with the brand, how would that in the long term affect your


165/183

relationship with the brand? 67 K I think that… I actually thought about that earlier… I

think I would be more loyal to a brand that I had co-created with; if it… of course it is given that it had to be a positive experience and all. But if we say that it was a positive experience to co-create with a brand, then I would be more loyal. On the other hand, if it was a negative experience and I felt that the brand was only trying to use me as a PR stunt for example, then I would think less of the brand. But in general terms, I think that I would be more loyal to brands that I felt I had a connection with, through co-creation.

(3): a (6): a, b (7): c (10)

68 [Moderator] Ok. So you are still actually able to be loyal to brands, even though that we have thousand of brands in our lives trying to affect us all the time?

69 K I think so yes. I think you choose some brands throughout your life that you are more related to than others. I think that it also depend on what kind of brand it is. If it is a low involvement product, like milk for example, I think it is more difficult to be loyal to a brand, because a lot of other factors like price are influencing you more. But in more high-involvement, you definitely choose some brands and you stay loyal. That might shift after five years, but I think that some loyalty still exist, despite the fact that we are surrounded by brands and everyone wants to be a brand, even though it might just be a product.

(4): a, b (6): a, b

70 [Moderator] Ok, and the co-creation process strengthen that?

71 K Definitely, I think... The co-creation and the relationship you get out of it strengthen that loyalty.

(1) (6)

72 [Moderator] Good. I think that was it. Do you have anything else?

73 K No I don't think so.

74 [Moderator] Just briefly. You talked about trusting the brand in the focus group.

75 K Yes

76 [Moderator] Where do you see that coming in in the process? Do you have to trust the brand before or…

77 K I think you have to have some sort of trust in the brand to even go into consider co-creating with the brand, and you would have to trust the brand facilitating this co-creation properly, and you will have to trust the brand to not just exploit you as a consumer in this PR stunt or whatever it is. The brand trust I think is really important to even consider going into co-creation with the brand.

(7): b (11): c

78 [Moderator] Ok, thank you. I think that is. Thank you for participating.

79 K You are welcome.


166/183

Appendix 14: Transcription of interview with R

Dates Saturday April 12th, 2014

Respondent R (see selection of respondents in section 4.1.1)

Transcription of Interview with R

Introduction 1 [Moderator] Welcome to this Interview. My name is Tine Grarup



3 [Moderator] I have invited you to this interview, as I would like elaborations on some of the findings from the focus group that you participated in. And again you represent the consumer, so I just want your opinion.


5 [R] No

6

7 Interview Code 8 [Moderator] First I would like to talk about brand identification in

relation to co-creation. In the focus group, you all to some extend agreed that co-creation sometimes could lead to brand identification.

(2)

9 [R] *Mmm*

10 [Moderator] Can you maybe elaborate on how, and if you see co-creation leading to brand identification?

11 [R] I’m not part of many co-creation processes, so it might be more of a thought experience, but…

12 [Moderator] *Mmm*

13 [R] I would imagine that… to the reason why… and the process towards identification is that you invest time as well, it is not about consuming, it is about being a part of creating. I think that is the biggest difference. You are not consuming a message, a product or way of life. You are actively creating both the messages,

(1): e (5)


167/183

the product and the way forward. 14 [Moderator] Yes

15 [R] I would also look at it the other way around, if you can't identify with the brand, how can you co-create it, why would you co-create? If… At some point in the co-creation process you will have to identify to a certain extend. Otherwise, how can it make sense? Unless the co-creation process is so detached from the company, that you don't realize the brand, ?and what it is for? So I think it is just a part of the process. I find it hard to differentiate the two.

(1) (2) (3)

16 [Moderator] So are there any specific brand factors or relations that make you say or believe that co-creation leads to identification?

17 [R] Can you maybe give an example?

18 [Moderator] For instance you talked about that co-creation affected the relationship with the brand. Is that a factor that leads to identification? And are there other factors that would strengthen this identification process through co-creation?

19 [R] Definitely, if you take co-creation that is not attached to a company, if you just co-create something with at friend or someone you don't know. Then you will actually develop some sort of relationship; otherwise you can't collaborate, if that is the challenge. Trust, I suppose also is important to a certain extend. It depends on how you facilitate it. But again you could look at it the other way around. How can you not have some sort of relationship when you co-creation.

(3) (8) (11): c


21 [R] If you are not collaborating, then you are at least cooperating, and you need to know what is going on with the other partners, being it the company or other people. So the relationship aspect definitely has an impact on the co-creation outcome. And the brand will naturally be a part of it if they orchestra the co-creation. So you could actually say that the perspective of a brand as a person, as we talked about in the focus group, is an entity in co-creation, and in that sense you would also include that in the relationship. Again it is too detached form the process, then it doesn't make sense to...

(3): c (8)

22 [Moderator] So what I hear you say, is that the co-creation affects your relationship and the connection you have with the brand?


168/183

23 [R] Yes and also affects how you… I suppose… value the brand. Because if it is a good experience or a bad experience, if they provide you the environment, the scenario, the purpose of the co-creation that makes sense to you. That you actually feel that you are either developing something, you feel good about it, meeting new people, what ever your outcome is. If you are heightening some of these aspects I suppose that the brand value will also follow along. Maybe not to the same extend, but if you could make the connection between being part of the positive co-creation process, and this is the brand/company that facilitates it. Then they are a part of the reason that I feel good about it, and my perception of the value that it creates for me. That should also be pretty high.

(4): a, b (5): a, c (8) (10)

24 [Moderator] So brand value is strengthened? And if that is positive that leads to identification or?

25 [R] Definitely!

26 [Moderator] They you also mentioned other people, the social connections. Is that also something that you would label a co-creation outcome that leads to brand identification?

27 [R] I think so yes. The social connections are a valuable outcome, in the sense that other people also affect the way I perceive the brand. They will provide me with their understanding, their identification with the brand, or I would at least get an idea of where they are going or the way they see it. And I suppose that it is only natural to adopt some of these perceptions or reject them. If you reject them that affect. That will then just be a sign of how you identify with the brand. For example if they say 'I live the brand', then arg that is not exactly me, and then that affects the way I think of and perceive the brand. I also perhaps will be reminded to think about a brand based on what other people say about it. For instance with LEGO, if you see someone who has LEGO all over his house, and wear the t-shirt and talks like... I don't know... a LEGO figure or whatever, then you can sort of measure your own perception of the brand and your own inclusion of the brand in relation to this and your own identity, up against that person. If you didn't have that as a backdrop then you wouldn't have the brand to relate to, and you wouldn't necessarily think about it, develop the identification or feel more or less connected to the brand. But seeing what other people do, and the way they react, that will initiate those processes. Not by

(4); a, b (5): c (8): a, b, c (1): f


169/183

asking directly but reading their signals on how they identify with the brand, and that makes you think about it as well. So you can sort of benchmark your own feeling of brand identity towards other peoples. I don't think you are able to do that to the same extend in a context where it is not about co-creation. You should be, depending on how you facilitate it, closer to these people, than in ordinary branding situations.

28 [Moderator] And that is something that you as a consumer and as a person gets value of?

29 [R] Definitely, and also you can maybe get some of the same feelings if you look at social media, and how people adopt brands in different ways. But you will know that it is detached from the real worlds. I think if you are meeting people in the real world, it is much stronger signals and much stronger relations that you are facing. In the real world of co-creation you are much more engaged and actively thinking about what you do and what other people do, of course and think about of who is the reason why I am here to being with, being the brand.

(8): a, b, c (9): b

30 [Moderator] So that is the process of co-creation that also helps you express who you are?

31 [R] Yeas I mean, you also, if you have an interest in showing how you consume the brand to the other participants, and maybe even to the brand itself. I think you will be more inclined to do that in a co-creation scenario, than for instance on social media. Another aspect here are people that are not as focused on products, then it is much more legitimate to be more involved with a brand in co-creation. Again if I use LEGO as an example, if you are an ambassador, and are in the environment of other ambassadors, I would assume that you would behave quite differently. It is then more legitimate to be hardcore LEGO supporter, or live the brand. Whereas if you take that ambassador aspect and just put it in a regular social media context, then you have a completely different audience.

(4): a, b (8): c (9): a, b (10): b

32 [Moderator] Yes

33 [R] And also the company might not even notice you, so the engagement doesn't make sense to the same extend. You might even be… you will not be able to live or identify as much with the brand, or as strongly and communicate that much about it, if you are not in a co-creation situation, because you will be more of a nutcase, to be honest *laugh*

(7): c


170/183

34 [Moderator] *laugh*

35 [R] Whereas in this small environment of co-creation or a community you are much more open towards really living the brand or identifying to the full extend. Because there are no limitations on what you are allowed to do, I don't think you can be too much of a LEGO fan in a LEGO fan community. And the same goes for I suppose sports. If you are a supporter, and walk into the wrong bar, then you won't live the brand as much as if you were in the local fan club. Than you also is co-creating the experience.

(8): a, b, c (10): b

36 [Moderator] So the whole co-creation setting, the brand value and the connections that it gives you also provides you ways and opportunities to express who you are?

37 [R] Yes it should be a more free environment that is the purpose of it. That you bring in everything you know about the brand, and your ideas. It is about co-creating at it usually follows with some sort of value, for the company, for yourself and for the others. It is a common goal and not influenced by people that are not into the brand.

(3): a, c (4): a, b (5): a, d (8)

38 [Moderator] So what I hear you say is that it gives you a connection both to the brand and to the other consumers.

(5)

39 [R] Yes

40 [Moderator] It is a mutual social connection

41 [R] There is definitely a sort of synergy between these three parties, each bring their own perception to the table, the brand might want something out of it, or the company or what ever, and thus give a lot. But you never know what other people bring into it, some might just be there for the interest, and someone might really invest a lot of time and... You never know that. That itself is interesting I think, that gives value. Maybe not directly related to the band, but then as a person, you get inspiration, you get appreciation, involvement and you know that you make a difference, all these aspect. All of these that provide value for you personally, whether you relate that to the brand are really up to you. It could also be related more to the other people, or to yourself. But I don't think it really matter, if you in the end can say, unless the brand was involved... or I mean the brand being involved determine whether I get this value or not... If they facilitate it or initiate the process, then you sort of owe those feelings and personal values to the brand, if they weren't here I might not have

(3): a, c (4) (5): a, d (7) (8)


171/183

experienced the same thing. 42 [Moderator] So what about after the co-creation process, and the

experience you have. Does these feelings last?

43 [R] No I don't think it lasts. Because you.. I don't think that we are hardwired to remember things, unless they really make an impression. *hmm* a very strong impression. If you suppose it is a long demanding process you would probably remember it longer. But giving the branding and communication environment right now, we are just bombarded with new perspectives all the time, so I don't think the value would last that long. The more involved you are, the more you have at risk for instance, the more you stood to gain, the more you gained, the longer the effect of the value. But you would be competing against a lot of other co-creation aspects. You are co-creating the concept of your family, your daily work life, and a lot of others. So you would be competing against a lot other environments. So that one isolated process of co-creation might not be very special, and will not last. Unless you return to it. Some of these other co-creation scenarios, they don't end in the same way, the concept of a family, we are all in it. It happens all the time. Whereas the co-creation with a brand would maybe be more isolated, at least in terms of time. So it has a certain expiration date.

(6) (7): a, c (8): c

44 [Moderator] So what you say is, if you as a consumer should gain this identification with the brand and the value, if you want this to last, then the co-creation should be continuous.

45 [R] That would ensure it, in a way. You will be able to recall it, it is a matter of, I suppose what you call mindshare, how much of an impact… But if you continue to make more impact, or if you continue to have an impact on the brand or process, then of course it would never expire. I think the LEGO fan group is a good example, because that becomes a permanent part of you, as long as you wishes to be an ambassador, you are co-creating. And that doesn't end unless you decide to. But not all processes can be geared to this.

(1): d (2): a, b (11): a, c

46 [Moderator] No

47 [R] I suppose if you make similar co-creation events or processes that are sort of annually or something, then you have… then it would be easier for me to recall it. And you would also as a consumer see if it works positively or negatively. If you go back to something.

(1) (3): c (5): a

48 [Moderator] So you get the feedback? (5): a


172/183

49 [R] Yes and find out if you can do better, be more involved, step up the process or… But the ongoing aspects is the same as all other branding situations, if you don't continue it, then the mindshare for you as a consumer will slowly decrease.

(5): a (10)

50 [Moderator] In the focus group some of you also touched upon the term loyalty.

51 [R] Yes

52 [Moderator] How do you see that in this relation, do you believe that it is possible to be loyal to a brand? And does co-creation affect this?

53 [R] I think loyalty nowadays is much more parallel to being a fan or even a fanatic. If you go back before the internet loyalty was different because there wasn’t many options on show you should be loyal to and many conflicts of interest. Whereas now I could start mentioning brands from now and until I die...

(6)

54 [Moderator] *Mmmm*

55 [R] There is so much to choose from, there are so many brands that might not be able to co-exist. God forbid that you drink a coca cola and a Pepsi on the same night *smiling sarcastic*. You are influenced a lot on what other people are loyal to, you know what they are loyal to, because you can see it on social media. Usually it is that you are not loyal at all to any products, or you are extremely loyal towards a few. That is what I mean about being fanatic. A classic example is Apple. There is Apple people and the rest. But loyalty, I mean...

(6)

56 [Moderator] So co-creation will not affect loyalty, but maybe just the connection to the brand?

(6)

57 [R] If the co-creation was continuous maybe… I think it is extremely hard to go for a strategy where the company needs to build loyalty, I think it might be mission impossible to a large extend. I think that co-creation, if we don't focus on loyalty, and just create value in a certain period, that in itself should be criteria for success. Not loyalty perse. I mean we can't even stay loyal to the people we are married to *smile*. If that is the case, how should companies expect people to be loyal to one brand? There is just a lot of pressure on the brand itself to continuously keep delivering each year, and to maintain loyalty. Because loyalty is not something that you can turn on or off. It is either or. So I think it is... Given the complexity and the loyalty, and the different choices we have. I think loyalty is just not something that companies should spend money on; it will not be a liable strategy.

(3): a, c (10): b


173/183

58 [Moderator] Ok. So for you as a consumer, what you say is that the unique feeling of connection or the relationship is just of as much value as the loyalty would be for you.

59 [R] Yes. I think we as consumers are hardwired to just feel something in the moment and not… The same thing with our job situation, now one is fulltime employed with the same company anymore, if you go back 20 years. That was the case. So things change. Everything we do, becomes a matter of consumer for a shorter period of time. The same with communication and a lot of things. So the whole notion of loyalty is... something that really stands out now. If you hear about that this person has been with his wife for 60 years that is a new story now. Whereas 60 years ago that was an 'of course', and would be a new story if you weren't. So it is nice to highlight those that are loyal, but for be it is more being fanatic.

(5): b (6): b

60 [Moderator] Yes. In the focus group we also talked about that the whole prior relationship and prior knowledge about a brand affected co-creation as well.

61 [R] It certainly can

62 [Moderator] Would you say that you have to know the brand as a prerequisite for co-creation?

63 [R] I don't think so. For me it doesn't matter if I know the brand. I tend to follow… I am not loyal at all. I tend to follow what is interesting, and the ones that stand out. And maybe even stating that they don't care about loyal customers. We just care about creating value for as many people as we can right now. We can't promise that we will create value for you next year, or the year after that. We might even not exist next year. I like that kind of honesty... and the ones that are trying to go against standard ways of branding. I think if they handle co-creation with that in mind it doesn't really matter if I know the brand. If they can find value in inviting me in the process, and that I find it interesting, it will make sense. I don't care about the brand, to be honest. Of course if I found out that they were just in it for the profit, if they were not a genuine company, or did something illegal. Then it would just ad a negative effect, if I was aware of that. But assuming it is a legit company, I don't care about what they do really.

(2) (3): a, c (5): (6) (7): a, b, c (11): a, c

64 [Moderator] So the trust and the honesty is a prerequisite rather than the prior knowledge.


174/183

65 [R] It is the same thing with your relationship with other people. I don't care about what they do, if they are a good person, and then we can get something out of having a relationship. Of course if I found out that they were murders, or criminals or trying to rob me, that is a different scenario. But I would assume that they are good people. It doesn't matter what their background is necessarily.

(3) (11): a, b

66 [Moderator] So the co-creation process and the whole outcome of it. Where do you see trust in it?

67 [R] You could say that if there is distrust, there is not going to be any co-creation or relationship. It has at least to be neutral, but if it is neutral, then it is because you don't know the company. If you have some sort of experience with the company or brand you would be able to measure either trust or distrust, to a certain extend. If you don't know the company, how can you trust them and how can you say that they are dishonest? And then again through the co-creation process then you will get that experience, and maybe say that there is nothing to indicate that I shouldn't trust them. It is either neutral or positive... Or... It was certainly not what I expected, something different, I didn't get anything out of it that would maybe be closer to distrust.

(2): b (11): c

68 [Moderator] When we talked about the different examples of co-creation in the focus group, when we talked about co-creation of experiences, you all had some difficulties thinking of an example of that. So I would like to give you an example and se if your opinion then changes.

(1): d

69 [R] Ok…

70 [Moderator] Do you know the Nike+ concept?

71 [R] No I don't think so…

72 [Moderator] I got some pictures here of the concept. You get a device to put in your Nike running shoe and then you have a connected device, such as an iPod or Nike Fuelband, and the Nike+ website and community. Here the product and ideas are already there, so here the co-creation is the experience - the experience is where the consumers come in. The co-creation part lies in how you use the products.

73 [R] Oh, yes I heard about that. (1)

74 [Moderator] If you look at that kind of example of co-creation, where the co-creation is the experience when you as a consumer use the product. Does that change your opinion on the co-creation in terms of brand identification, relationship, or…


175/183

75 [R] Not really. Exactly because it is so product oriented. I could still have the same experience with another product. I mean… I have a Garmin running watch that does the same thing. So it would not be the product itself or the Brand behind that makes the difference.

(1): a, d (7)

76 [Moderator] So you don't feel that connected?

77 [R] No because I own the experience that is co-created. So it per definition might be co-created, but I would feel a lot more that it is my fault alone that I get this experience, not necessarily the device itself, or that they facilitate it or that I can see some numbers online. It is not an important thing for me.

(7) (8): c

78 [Moderator] Ok, not even in the community that you will be a part of.

79 [R] No not really. It would be different if it was some sort of competition, where we were a 100 runners competing over a period time of teams, not necessarily a product, but then it ads that element that it is not me owning the experience, but it is owned by all of us. Then the product just facilitates it. It is the same this I would say with the gopro cameras, it is a really cool product, but it is only when you film something that it is awesome, when you create it yourself. And when you use it in the right way.

(1): a, d (7) (10)

80 [Moderator] But don't you do that with running, you can put on a pair of Nike shoes and create your own experience on how you run, how long you run and so forth?

81 [R] I think I would feel that I could have that experience of running and the community without Nike as well.

(10)

82 [Moderator] So you don't feel a stronger connection to the brand in that way?

83 [R] Not in that case no. The co-creation needs an element where I can say 'without Nike I wouldn't have had this experience', and in that case will ?value the experience and the brand?.

(1): c (3): c (5): b (7)

84 [Moderator] So when talking about co-creation and experience you see it more in relation to the actual co-creation process?


176/183

85 [R] Yes. It would have to do something, where the electronic device or something guided me to something new 'if you run this way, you get another experience, nice view or whatever'. Then I probably would have gone that way. So again it is the product that is differentiating. Where the brand is ?when you chose to do it? As long as it is me making the difference, I will also own the experience, and it would not affect my connection to the brand. Or I have gratitude towards Nike because I spend a lot of money on the system and so, but for something that I can do myself. So I think it has to add value, that is the brand value, where is the real value?

(1): a, d (3): c (5): a

86 [Moderator] Because you feel that you create the value yourself?

87 [R] Yes, I am doing this without the brand. (7)

88 [Moderator] Good, I think I have the things I wanted to get elaborated. Do you have anything you would like to ad?

89 [R] *Hmm* Co-creation is always interesting to talk about, but I think it ads an extra layer of fuzziness to branding. Branding without co-creation is much more… I suppose my understanding of it is more straightforward. There is a lot of brands competing and a lot of noise, but it is much more approachable. You can more actively say yes or no. When you ad an element of co-creation, you sometime is lured into it, and sometimes you realize that 'I have just been a part of a co-creation process without even knowing it'. That can be good or bad.

(1): e (2) (7)

90 [Moderator] So it is really complex?

91 [R] Yes. I think that is the risk in co-creation. You risk that some people are interpreting the scenario in a negative way. Because if you cannot control what you are doing, and you feel that you are adding value to a product, without even knowing it. What do I then get out of it? Because the way you consume is much more blurry.

(7): a

92 [Moderator] Does this complexity also lead to skepticism?

93 [R] Yes. If you taking away the active decision part of the consumers about being involved or not, then I think you are risking something. It is also interesting, because it can also give that positive feedback, but you never know. And if you get the negative feedback as a company, you will be sure that you hear about it. On social media or something.

(5): a (7) (10): a, b

94 [Moderator] Yes


177/183

95 [R] Other consumers might even convince me having a neutral feeling of the brand, to feel more negatively about it. Because they invite and tell about an element that I didn't think about. If you buy a product you can choose not to, but if you are involved in an experience you do not always have the decision position as a consumer... That is a boundary you need to be aware of as a company. You cannot be safe, but I think that you need to consider all aspects.

(7): c (8): c (11)

96 [Moderator] So what you say, is that for you not to feel too high a risk in engaging in co-creation you would have to have some frames around it, so that you are aware that you are a part of co-creation, so that you have a chance to say no?

97 [R] Yes, I think so. I think Facebook is an example where it went bad. It was not until you had used your account for a couple of years, that we realized that all the data we had entered, was a part of their commercial interest. You can't take that back, that it is a way of being lured into the Facebook... I know it is a good thing, because it is still free. I'm still getting a service, but I was not aware of the consequences to begin with. It was not until afterwards that you got that negative feeling, when you found out that you were used for something else that you thought.

(7): a (11): c

98 [Moderator] So the trust factor is important here.

99 [R] I think that people that trusted Facebook to begin with made a mistake. But now it is really explicit. Even though they try to say that it is a good thing, that you don't have to pay, but they still use my personal data… It is much more valuable for them than it is for me.

(7): a (11): c


101 [R] You need to think ahead as a company and educate your consumer about what is about to happen, and for how long. What are the consequences and what is the purpose of it also in terms of the commercial ones. Being honest is important. They should say that they will be making money on this process in one way or another, so we know as consumers. Then we can't point fingers of them afterwards, because we knew beforehand. They you can also say no.

(7): a (11): a, c

102 [Moderator] Good, I think that is it. Thanks you!


178/183

Appendix 15: Transcription of interview with D

Dates Saturday April 12th, 2014

Respondent D (see selection of respondents in section 4.1.1)

Transcription of Interview with D

Introduction Code(s) 1 [Moderator] Welcome to this Interview. My name is Tine Grarup




5 D No

6

7 Brand identification through co-creation Code(s) 8 [Moderator] First I would like to talk about brand identification in

relation to co-creation. In the focus group, you all to some extend agreed that co-creation sometimes could lead to brand identification. Can you maybe elaborate on how, and if you see co-creation leading to brand identification?

(2)

9 D *Mmm* I think that the fact that I can get to influence the brand's decisions would make me to identify stronger with the brand. If they… If I can see that they react on my participation but it can obviously go both ways. So if I see that they don't react on my participation then it could have a negative influence on by brand identification. So them I would probably pull myself further away from the brand. *Hmmm* So yes I think that the co-creative process of involving consumers and taking their ideas into account in developing something for your brand, the product or service or... Obviously it has a hidden agenda from the company's point of view or the brand, but I think it could also, if it is done correctly it also goes to show that the brand wants to do, what is core customers want it to do... *Hmmm* To kind of

(1): c (2) (3): c (4): a, b (5): a, b, d


179/183

make that bond stronger, so it is not just a one way brand, but a negotiated brand.

10 [Moderator] So you say that the connection and the brand relationship is part of strengthening the brand identification?

11 D Yes I would say so. (2) (3)

12 [Moderator] Ok, is there any other brand factors that would be an outcome of co-creation, or a part of co-creation that strengthens brand identification?

13 D I would maybe say brand awareness, and perhaps brand loyalty as well. If it has been a positive experience for me to engage in a co-creation process. I would assume that it functions as a strong heuristics for me, and then I would probably stick to that brand or chose the brand over another brand, if I saw it in the shop or...

(4): b (6): a

14 [Moderator] So the relationship you have with the brand through a co-creation process, what value does that give you as a consumer?

15 D I think it… *hmmm*

16 [Moderator] Do you feel more connected or more empowered?

17 D I think I would definitely feel more… maybe not so much empowered, but more involved and appreciated by the brand. Because I know that by the end of the day, they will still be the decision makers. But I think… Yes it sort of reflects the two-way communication than a one-way communication, that they are willing to take consumers opinions onboard. It would probably also depend on what kind of product we are talking about. If it is a product that... Or if it is a brand that I own several products from, then I would probably feel more satisfied of owning those products already, and when purchasing new products from the same brand. But if it is a brand, which I would rarely purchase, then it is hard to say how it would really affect my relationship with the brand. I would probably still have a more positive perception of the brand but I would not necessarily react on that feeling purchase wise.

(2): a (3): a, c (4): a, b (5): a, b (6): a

18 [Moderator] If you think of the co-creation process and the experience around co-creation, would that affect your relationship with the brand or your relationship with other consumers, or both?

(3) (8)

19 D *Hmmm* For me it is more the relationship with the brand.

(3)

20 [Moderator] Ok

21 D Unless you are set in a group in a co-creation project, and set a charge that has to be filled out by the whole

(3): a, c (5)


180/183

group. Then it would be both I think. But again I wouldn't engage in a co-creation process for a brand for which I… Which I would have a negative perception towards in the first place. So it would still... The brand and my personal relationship would still be my core driver, when engaging in a co-creation process.

(8): a

22 [Moderator] And also for the outcome in the end?

23 D Yes I think it would probably be interesting to solve a problem task with other people, but I wouldn't be interested in doing that if it was for a product or service, which I couldn't relate to in the first place.

(1): a (2): a, c

24 [Moderator] Ok. You talked about loyalty just before. Do you see that brand identification and if you have a good co-creation experience, and you then identify with that brand, does that lead to loyalty?

(2) (6)

25 D I would think so yes. I think if you have a strong personal experience with a brand in that sense, rather than just being satisfied with a product, it could… yeah it would strengthens my relationship with the brand and function as a stronger foundation for purchasing that same product again.

(3): a (5) (6): a, b (10): b

26 [Moderator] It is a stronger connection or actually loyalty, how do you see it?

27 D Loyalty for me is… If I choose... Say Coca Cola every time or buy a certain moisturizer over another moisturizer. Maybe they are both the same quality and maybe the other one is slightly cheaper than the one I choose, but because I have been in a satisfying relationship or involved in a co-creation process with that brand, or something like that I would continue to go back to that product unless something new, a new product which I have a better experience with comes up.

(3): a, c (6) (10): a, b

28 [Moderator] *Hmmm* If we then think that you have had this experience of co-creation and you then identified with that brand, how does that identification affect you on the more long term? What does it give you as a result?

29 D If I was??

30 [Moderator] If you had co-created with the brand and gained the stronger relationship you mentioned

31 D Probably it makes me more curious towards the brand. It would make me feel more educated about the brand probably both during the co-creation project but also I would assume that it would start my interest for further researching and continuously following up with the brand. *Hmmm* So it would

(2) (3): b


181/183

broaden my horizon about that brand and it would... What else... *Hmmm*

32 [Moderator] Would it affect how you position yourselves compared to your social connections?

33 D Maybe it would, because I don't think I would identify… Or obviously I wouldn’t identify with a brand… If I learned about a brand I wouldn't identify with it if I were… If I didn't agree with the way they do business. Then I would probably be proud, or what is the word... I would probably feel more comfortable if I knew that I had been involved in a co-creation project.. *hmm* I am not sure what the word is... I would maybe talk more positively about the brand to others than I would with other brands.

(2): c (8) (9): a, b (11): a, b

34 [Moderator] So that stronger connection between you and the brand will also make you more positive about it when you talk to other people and express yourself?

35 D Yes I would definitely think so. I definitely think that the word-of-mouth would be affected positively. But again I think it is easier for my to see what I would give for the brand that I would get out of it personally, rather than an interesting experience and a product that I would maybe... or a brand that I would feel more comfortable supporting. I think for me it is more the curiosity in learning about the brand than what I would get out of it in the long run.

(3): b, c (8): c (10): b, c

36 [Moderator] Ok. In the focus group we talked about different examples of co-creation. And when I talked about co-creation of experiences you guys were a bit confused, because then you said that then everything is co-creation. So I would like to mention another example. It is Nike+ do you know it?

(1): d

37 D Yes I know it

38 [Moderator] I got some pictures here of the concept. You get a device to put in your Nike running shoe and then you have a connected device, such as an iPod or Nike Fuelband, and the Nike+ website and community. Here the product and the ideas are already created, and the co-creation part is how you use the brand to create your own experience. Does that change how you see co-creation or how you see it affects the brand.

39 D I think… Because personally I actually use Nike+ (2): a

40 [Moderator] Ok

41 D Because it is really useful to keep track of your runs and… I don't use the social community part online, I have some friends that also use the product, where I can go in and see how fast they run and so… In terms

(1): a (2): a (4): a, b


182/183

of brand identification I think… Because it is such a great product it strengthens my perception of the Nike brand, and because they give me so much which is free of charge, then I think it just ads up, it is all positive.

42 [Moderator] Do you feel a stronger connection because you can actually modify this experience just the way you want it to?

43 D I am not sure I see it as co-creation, maybe more of a service.

(1): d

44 [Moderator] They would say that they co-create, in providing this platform and this product for you as consumers to co-create your own experience.

45 D I think I would rather see it as they provide a service for me. And by engaging in the community of runners, me and all the other people that are using Nike+ are co-creating a larger experience. Because without the users there wouldn't be the network or the experience. Just like social media as Facebook and Twitter.

(1): d (8): a (10)

46 [Moderator] Do you feel stronger about the Nike brand because of this process and the Nike+?

47 D I think it definitely strengthens my perception of the Nike brand, and also because I already have a positive perception and some positive experiences with Nike, I feel probably more satisfied with buying Nike products.

(4): a, b (6): a

48 [Moderator] So the prior relationships as you also talked about in the focus group?

49 D Yes If I didn't know Nike beforehand, then I am not sure that I would make me go out and buy Nike products, if was just some random brand that had just published this kind of service.

(2): a

50 [Moderator] So does it has an impact that Nike is also a popular brand that you have already feel connected to.

51 D Not that it is a popular brand as such, but because it is a brand that I can identify with, I think they make some cool product, that last really long, so the quality is really high. Together with other things that you have heard about the brand, I know that they do other runs all around the world for people. I think that just again show their engagement, and what they stand for instead of just spreading things out and moving against an area that has nothing to do with sport. I think Nike+ is really a good platform that corresponds with their core products, and strengthens what they stand for.

(2): a, b, c (4): a, b (6): a, b (11): a, c


183/183

52 [Moderator] Ok, just one last thing. You also talked about trust and honesty in the focus group.

(11)

53 D Yes

54 [Moderator] Where do you see that if you think of the co-creation process and the brand identification?

55 D Well for me the brand would have to be trustworthy and honest in everything they do, I think personally I would be quite annoyed if I had spent even just half an hour, to a week, to three months in co-creating something with the brand and I found out that they had been completely untrustworthy or *hmmm* and about something else, if they had misbehaved or not followed their code of conduct. I mean that would make me feel like I had wasted my time, because then I would no longer be a brand that I could identify with. Then it wouldn't really have people in to for instance product develop some of their stuff if they then are using child labor or if they have treated suppliers unethically.

(11): a, b, c

56 [Moderator] So you will have to trust that they stick to their core values and that they do what they actually say they do?

57 D Yes exactly… And again for trust, showing how they have reacted on people’s involvement in the co-creation process is paramount in being successful and really showing me that our opinions have counted. The more they can show me that the more credit I would give towards the brand in the whole co-creation process. And the less they can show me... yes then the opposite...

(4): am b (5): a (11): a, b, c

58 [Moderator] Ok, do you have anything else you would like to ad?

59 D No I don't think so