Skip to main content

Brand-embedded interaction: a dynamic and personalized interaction for co-creation

Abstract

Recognizing the importance of timely access to market knowledge for successful new product development (NPD), extant research has theoretically argued and empirically shown the value of consumer co-creation during the NPD process. While most research views consumer-generated content as definite or fixed, this paper reveals how firms can enhance the value of consumer-generated ideas by facilitating the exchange of relevant information during co-creation. The authors introduce brand-embedded interaction as a process that enables consumers to generate new product ideas that not only reflect user needs but also align with the brand’s goals and capabilities. Results from two quasi-field experiments using Twitter show that a higher degree of dynamic interaction and personalization during co-creation enables consumers to generate more constructive new product ideas or ideas that are valuable to both consumers and firms. Results offer important implications for both theory and practice regarding co-creation and new product development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Although the actual Twitter platform was used, a fictitious Twitter account was created. Each participant was asked to use a designated, private Twitter account specifically created for the study. At the end of the study, all participants were debriefed that the brand information, Twitter account, and representative were not associated with Starbucks.

  2. As of January 2014 (http://www.statisticbrain.com/twitter-statistics).

  3. Scales used for variable measurement are available by request.

  4. As robustness checks, we also measured constructive new product ideas using (1) the average (rather than sum) of the two sources of ratings, and (2) all three expert ratings (creativity, value, and feasibility). In both situations, results reveal similar effects.

  5. Coffee Bean & Tea; same product evaluation procedure (and the Starbucks brand was masked if used in the idea) and $50 gift card was provided as compensation.

References

  • Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008). Finding high-quality content in social media. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, 183–193

  • Alba, J., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K., & Fox, M. A. (1998). Relationship marketing effectiveness: the role of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D. J., Gengler, C., & Jain, A. (1995). What’s in a name? A complimentary means of persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 200–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 542–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the creative potential among users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, P. R. (2009). Exploring the contributions of involving ordinary users in ideation of technology-based services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 578–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNaughton, M. (2011). “77% of Fortune Global 100 Companies Use Twitter,” http://therealtimereport.com, March 18, 2011.

  • Melcher, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (1996). The misremembrance of wines past: verbal and perceptual expertise differentially mediate verbal overshadowing of taste memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2009). Brand portfolio strategy and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 73, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 96–104

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa, S., & Piller, F. T. (2006). Reducing the risks of new product development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1993). The one to one future: building relationships one customer at a time. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prügl, R., & Schreier, M. (2006). Learning from leading‐edge customers at The Sims: opening up the innovation process using toolkits. R&D Management, 36, 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirunillai, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2012). Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated content and stock performance. Marketing Science, 31, 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toset, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. N. (2011). The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review. Management Learning

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48, 821–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, P., Brown, C. L., & Hoch, S. J. (1996). Consumption vocabulary and preference formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 120–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuna Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, Y., Slotegraaf, R.J. Brand-embedded interaction: a dynamic and personalized interaction for co-creation. Mark Lett 27, 183–193 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9361-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9361-2

Keywords

  • Co-creation
  • Interaction
  • Knowledge integration
  • Idea generation