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) “ultimately, the power of social technologies hinges on the full and
enthusiastic participation … creating these conditions will be far more challenging
than implementing the technologies themselves”. Thus to acquire the full potential
value and impact of consumer empowerment brands must thus change their mindsets
and structures and become “extended networked enterprises” (McKinsey Global
Institute, 2012: 2).
Through these sections postmodernism has been elaborated on in order to understand
the contemporaries and contexts in which the research questions exist. Brands are
faced with changing consumer characteristics, bringing active interpretations to the
market in a constantly play with multiple identities. For the postmodern consumer, it is
not an ‘either/or’ relation but a ‘both/and’. Having attended to this overall framing,
complying the first part of milestone one, the following sections 3.2 and 3.3 will now
specify and explore the second part of the milestone; the developments within the
branding paradigm (section 1.3).
3.2 The transforming fields of branding
As depicted in the above sections, the postmodern phenomenon has provided key
implications for marketers who are deeply rooted in the traditional approach to
marketing and branding tools often tailored the modern consumer (e.g. marketing
management towards mass markets, pure product focus, one-way communication etc.).
To act in a present society, the guidelines of postmodernism should be introduced into
marketing research, and marketers should attempt to ‘walk-the-talk’ in adopting new

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) “the experience is the brand. The brand is co-created and evolves with
experiences”. Supporting this notion is an increased focus on brand experiences in
branding literature, e.g. Payne et al. (2009) use the term brand relationship experience
to describe the brand, underlining a relationship-based view of the brand with a focus
on continuous consumer experiences. The close relation to new technology and the
relationship that it enables (section 3.2.2) further indicates that co-creation is likely to
be central to the emerging knowledge society (Arvidsson, 2011; Ramaswamy, 2011), a
social and networked nature of consumption that the product-centric understandings of
consumer behavior do not recognize (Fisher & Smith, 2011). Brands are networks
wherein co-creation is assumed to generate value for consumers by having them realize
their potential to utilize consumption to share and demonstrate knowledge, and
construct and maintain their identity (Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). Thus,
brands are not ends themselves, but a means to experiences. The way this new age of
consumer engagement and empowerment recognizes a shift in corporate and
marketing thinking is specified in table 3.

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)

Co creation - a look around the corner of branding

Co creation - a look around the corner of branding

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Co creation - a look around the corner of branding

Similar to Co creation - a look around the corner of branding (20)

More from Tine Grarup

More from Tine Grarup (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Co creation - a look around the corner of branding