Market Concentration and Co-Creation Effectiveness
•
1 like•733 views
Slides for my master thesis presentation. The study showed that regardless of the level of market concentration, co-creation as a positioning strategy was always superior to the traditional value creation mode. The results also provided evidence for the stability of the preference for co-creation across different levels of perceived freedom of choice. Furthermore, the effectiveness of co-creation as a positioning strategy has been unaffected by the ratings of product performance attributes, such as innovativeness and reliability, adding more weight to the argument about this strategy’s strength.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (10)
Similar to Market Concentration and Co-Creation Effectiveness
Similar to Market Concentration and Co-Creation Effectiveness (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Market Concentration and Co-Creation Effectiveness
- 1. Power to the People! Does market concentration play a role in the effectiveness of co-creation?
- 4. What makes co-creation effective? 3
- 15. Market concentration high concentration low concentration 14
- 16. Market control “ “ When cryptomonopoly is assumed it no longer follows that any of the old goals of social efficiency are realised. John K. Galbraith, American Capitalism (1952, p.43) 15
- 24. Research question Does market concentration play a role in the effectiveness of co-creation? 23
- 26. Effects of market concentration high concentration co-creation 26 25
- 27. Effects of market concentration low concentration co-creation 26
- 28. Hypotheses H0: Consumers prefer user-driven value creation strategies to company-driven ones. H1: Preference for a user-driven value creation strategy is associated with market concentration. 27
- 30. Methodology 29
- 31. Industry software for video editing 30
- 32. 2 × 2 between subjects design VS company-driven user-driven 31
- 33. 2 × 2 between subjects design VS high concentration VS low concentration 32
- 38. Which option will they choose? ? company-driven user-driven 37
- 39. 3.Findings. 38
- 40. Participants 600 invitations 162 usable responses No reward for participation 39
- 41. Participants 56% male 54% non-student Mean age: 27 years (SD = 7.90) 40
- 42. Manipulation and control checks 1.Type of value creation strategy 2.Level of market concentration 3.Differences in attribute rating ✔ 1.Involvement 2.Product knowledge 3.Expertise ✔ 41
- 43. So, did market concentration play a role? 42
- 44. Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy Choice shares by market concentration 100% 80% 28,2% 31,0% 71,8% 69,0% Low concentration Company-driven User-driven High concentration 60% 40% 20% 0% Company type choice by market concentration: χ2(1) = 0.49, p = .48 43
- 45. Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy Choice preference 7 User-driven Company-driven 6 5 4,72 4,83 4 3 3,05 3,28 2 1 0 Low concentration High concentration Company type preference by market concentration: F = 0.40, p = .53; measured on a seven-point Lykert type scale (1 = Company "A" and 7 = Company "B") 44
- 46. Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy Option “1” adoption likelihood 7 User-driven Company-driven 6 5,21 5 4,52 4 4,11 3,88 3 2 1 0 Low concentration High concentration Company type preference by market concentration: F = 3.13, p = .08; measured on a seven-point Lykert-type scale (1 = Very unlikely and 7 = Very likely) 45
- 47. Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy Option “2” adoption likelihood 7 User-driven Company-driven 6 5 4 5,03 3,87 4,85 4,15 3 2 1 0 Low concentration High concentration Company type preference by market concentration: F = 0.41, p = .84; measured on a seven-point Lykert-type scale (1 = Very unlikely and 7 = Very likely) 46
- 48. H1: Preference for a user-driven value creation strategy is associated with market concentration. 47
- 49. Value creation strategy and preference Frequency of choice 100% User-driven Company-driven 80% 60% 40% 20% 67,9% 32,1% 0% 48
- 50. Value creation strategy and preference Adoption likelihood 7 User-driven Company-driven 6 5 4 3 4,88 2 3,54 1 0 Company type adoption likelihood: t(161) = 3.90, p < .001; measured on a seven-point Lykert-type scale (1 = Very unlikely and 7 = Very likely) 49
- 51. Value creation strategy and preference Contriubtion to choice preference (R-statistic) 0,30 Company type description Functionality & Innovativeness 0,14 Reliability & Usability 0,16 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 Relative contribution of company type description and performance attribute ratings: χ2 = 32.10, p < .001. 50
- 52. Reasons for co-creation preference Frequency of reasoning behind preference Perceived customer orientation Perceived expertise 31% 23% Customer orientation Target segment Diversity Numbers Expertise 4% 4% 39% Perceived Innovation ability 51
- 53. Reasons for co-creation preference Frequency of reasoning behind preference Perceived customer orientation Perceived expertise 31% 23% Customer orientation Target segment Diversity Numbers Expertise 4% 4% 39% Perceived Innovation ability 52
- 54. H0: Consumers prefer user-driven value creation strategies to company-driven ones 53
- 57. Practice 1.Focus: A.Novice users B.Target segment 2.Avoid: A.Market structure B.Freedom of choice 56
- 58. Limitations “ “ Like the physical, the psychical is not necessarily in reality what it appears to us to be. Sigmund Freud, “The Unconscious” in The Freud Reader (1989, p.577) 57
- 59. Limitations 1.Student sample 2.Atypical product descriptions 3.Experimental design 4.Polar opposites 58
- 60. Future research 1.Wider demographic 2.More product categories 3.Different levels of empowerment 4.B2B 59
- 61. Conclusion 1.First study 2.Inconclusive evidence 3.Unsolved mysteries 4.More research needed 60
- 62. Thank you!