Title:

Author(s):
Source:
Issue:

Co-creation with consumers: who has the competence and wants to cooperate?
Eric Vernette and Linda Hamdi-Kidar
International Journal of Market Research
Vol. 55, No. 4, 2013

Co-creation with consumers: who has the competence and wants

to cooperate?
Eric Vernette and Linda Hamdi-Kidar
University of Toulouse I Capitole
Introduction
Co-creating products and services with customers and/or consumers is a major challenge for marketing managers (Roberts
etal. 2005; Maklan etal. 2007; Roberts & Adams 2010). The massive use of the internet, and the development of online
communities, interactive platforms and toolkits offer the potential to co-create with a large number of customers or consumers
(Prahalad&Ramaswamy2004Piller&Walcher2006Fller2010).Thelargestcompanies,suchasApple,SAP,Nestl,
Lego and Orange, have developed such strategies successfully (Ramaswamy & Gouillart 2010). This strategy of value cocreation may take place upstream and/or downstream of the new product/services launch on the market. Upstream cocreation concerns the consumers innovating potential during the new product/service development; it comprises programmes
such as Dells Idea Storm. Downstream co-creation concentrates rather on the consumers personal consumption/brand
experience; this is the case, for example, with Starbucks when it asks its clients: Share your story.
Co-creation presupposes that customers (i.e. those who buy the product/service) and/or consumers (i.e. those who use the
product/service) are accepting of this engagement and interaction with the company. Creating a brand community or launching
a call for co-creation is not enough to ensure consumersparticipation. Value co-creation in a virtual environment depends on
the benefits perceived by those participating. Such benefits may be cognitive, hedonic, social integrative and personal
integrative. If these benefits are perceived to be insubstantial, participation will decrease accordingly (Nambisan & Baron
2009). Finally, even if consumers are ready to become engaged, it does not mean that they possess the necessary
competence to co-create fruitfully (i.e. with added value). From their standpoint, market research companies have noticed a
decrease in the number of consumers willing to participate in surveys. Again, the participation rate and the quality of the
results depend more on respondentsindividualinternalmotivationthanonthelevelofexternalincentives(Brggenetal.
2011).
Efficient co-creationsupposesthatmarketingmanagerscanrespondtotwopriorquestions:(1)Who are the most competent
consumers?and(2)Is this target prepared to co-create?Marketing literature suggests exploiting the innovation potential of
two actors: lead users and emergent nature consumers. The former are ahead of the trends, meaning that they anticipate
needs that will become general in the marketplace months or years later. In addition, they expect high benefits from a solution
Downloaded from warc.com

to their advanced needs, which leads them to have specific ideas on solutions to a particular problem (Von Hippel 1986). The
latter imagine and visualise new product concepts in line with future market trends. Emergent nature consumers find it easy to
imagine original applications for existing products or services; this type of consumer is different from the creative type who
imagines and conceives original products or situations without necessarily worrying about their feasibility (Hoffman etal.
2010). However, even if these two targets are potentially attractive for marketing co-creation, will they be ready to become
engaged?
This article aims to evaluate the competence and engagement in co-creation of lead users and emergent nature consumers by
comparing them to ordinary consumers. In addition, to facilitate managersidentification of these two targets, we also propose
thresholds of selection based on the distribution of scores from the scales used in the study. In order to do this, we collected
data in an online survey carried out with a representative sample of the French population (n = 995). In the first part of the
article we examine the concepts of co-creation, lead user and emergent nature; we then present our methodology and results.
Finally, we discuss managerial perspectives.
Background
The present literature review is organised as follows. Our initial analysis of previous research describes the differences
between upstream and downstream co-creation two types of co-creation that companies can implement with
clients/consumers. Next, on the basis of their skills, we justify the interest of targeting lead users and emergent nature
consumers for co-creation. Finally, we discuss their involvement in upstream and downstream co-creation within collaborative
platforms.
Types of co-creation
More than 30 years ago, the marketing of services highlighted the need to co-create value with customers (Eiglier etal. 1977).
One characteristic of services compared to products is that the former require a more or less strong degree of customer
participation if consumption is to be perceived as a source of value. The company co-produces the service through its
personnel and through a degree of customer participation. For example, clients of fitness centres co-produce their experience
through their coaches and the physical effort they are prepared to make. Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008) extend this logic to
product consumption, arguing that S-D (Service-Dominant) has replaced G-D (Good-Dominant). The product is a value
proposition.
An increasing number of firms are getting consumers to participate in downstream co-creation that is, after the product
launch to have better feedback on consumption experiences. One example is Legos LUGNET site, which takes consumers
beyond the product by offering them a highly personalised experience thanks to co-creation tools. Customers assess whether
this potential value satisfies their own needs, and if they have the specific knowledge and skills to commit to co-creation. In the
same perspective, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2004) see product (or service) consumption as an opportunity for
privileged interaction: the consumer co-creates a personalised experience with the brand throughout the products lifetime. For
example, the Starbucks programme The red cups are here Share your storysets up a continuous dialogue about personal
stories experienced while consuming the products during the summer holidays. This example clearly illustrates firms
increasing willingness to pay attention to the value created by consumers when using the product. This downstream cocreation relies on customersobservations in their everyday consumption cycle, that is, the way they use the product on an
everyday basis to get the job done(Christensen etal. 2005). The manager may also concentrate on extraordinary
Downloaded from warc.com

experiences to discover unforeseen or extreme uses of the product. It is a matter of determining what makes sense in the
consumption of the product or service (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2000, 2004; Ramaswamy & Gouillart 2010). Interactive
platforms on internet and online communities offer the potential to discover new uses and future consumption trends. Such
sites offer a formidable stock of raw material for observing, testing and developing new value propositions with customers
(Prahalad&Ramaswamy2000,2004Fller2010).Forexample,theNike+platformmakesitpossibleforcustomerstococreate services that add value to Nikes product offer (Ramaswamy & Gouillart 2010). With this approach the company keeps
control of the product upstream, and co-creation with the customer takes place only downstream.
It is also possible to get the consumer to participate in co-creation upstream: from the product idea to its conception, through
its test phases and even as far as the advertising campaign. Toolkits integrated into interactive platforms make it possible to
conceive new designs or even to create truly new products (Von Hippel 2001; Von Hippel & Katz 2002). This co-creation is
relevant to the search for new product or service ideas with customers (at the front-end stages of the innovation process), but
also at the final stages, by creating messages or advertising videos. Brands and companies like Nivea, Orange, SFR,
Microsoft and Procter & Gamble have invested in such upstream co-creation. Specialised marketing institutes such as
Innocentive, e-Yeka and Hyve manage and organise these companiescalls for contributions, also called challenges. Figure
1 illustrates these two types of co-creation. Previous research has highlighted the important role of two types of consumer for
co-creation. We develop this in the next section.

The competence of lead users and emergent nature consumers for co-creation
The lead user is a natural and efficient target for upstream co-creation (Thomke & Von Hippel 2002): The best prospects are
customers that have a strong need for developing custom products quickly and frequently.Co-creation with lead users is
profitableforthecompany.Forexample,3Mestimatesinternallythatideasfromgroupsofleadusersareworth$146million,
equivalent to eight times the sum expected from the forecast sales resulting from traditional working groups (Lilien etal. 2002).
Similarly, Herstatt and Von Hippel (1992) have shown that using the lead user method within Hilti (a manufacturer of
components used in construction) was found to be not only almost twice as fast, but also less costly than using traditional
ways to identify new product concepts. In the Cinet company, lead user sessions resulted directly in a total of seven ideas for
Symfoni software and 22 ideas for the desktop PC category being added to the products (Olson & Bakke 2001). Other studies
show that lead users are more efficient for upstream co-creation (ideas and developing new products) than ordinary
consumers (e.g. Franke etal.2006Schreier&Prgl2008Jeppesen&Laursen2009Magnusson2009Hoffmanetal.
Downloaded from warc.com

2010). However, lead users are also potentially interesting for downstream co-creation, for they have sticky information
related to their repeated product use (Von Hippel 1986).
The emergent nature consumer is attractive for co-creation both upstream and downstream, because he or she imagines or
envisions how concepts might be further developed so that they will be successful in the mainstream marketplace. The
concepts developed by these actors are more effective for marketing than those imagined by creative consumers, ordinary
consumers or even lead users (Hoffman etal. 2010). Emergent nature profiles can be just as valued for downstream cocreation, because their open-mindedness and visionary capabilities should make it easy for them to imagine original
experiences in the sense intended by Vargo and Lusch (2004). However, although these two targets are competent for cocreation, there is no certainty that they will want to get involved with companies.
Engagement of lead users and emergent nature consumers in co-creation
In general, what drives a consumer to get involved in a virtual community or to respond to a call for co-creation? More
specifically, how can lead users or emergent nature consumers be attracted, and how do we keep them excited and actively
engaged in co-creation?
Consumers must be motivated with regular reminders of the benefits of co-creation (Sawhney & Prandelli 2000; Sharma etal.
2002). They also engage in online communities, not only because they are interested in the topic, but also to meet others or to
interactwithothersimilarconsumers(Kozinets2002Fller2010).Blogs,bulletinboardsandjointcollaborationspaces
support interactions between participants.
Nevertheless, managers observe a 1-9-90 type of participation, i.e. 1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that
content, and 90% view the content without contributing (Arthur 2006). In other words, most members of online communities are
passive observers who do not get engaged in active co-creation. Is there a greater proportion of lead users and/or emergent
nature consumers in the most engaged segments? Contrary to what might be supposed, it is not necessarily brand fans who
are the most inclined to co-createidentificationwiththebrandisnotrelatedtoparticipationininnovativeactivities(Flleretal.
2008). On the other hand, there is a significant link between perceived competence and participation (b = 0.18) and between
motivationandcommitmenttothetask,andparticipation(b=0.15and0.19)(Flleretal. 2008). Now, lead users perceive
high value from new products that would satisfy their expectations (Von Hippel 1986). We might expect that they would engage
in this type of collaborative platform (Thomke & Von Hippel 2002; Franke & Von Hippel 2003), especially since they make
great use of online and offline community resources (Franke etal. 2006; Bilgram etal.2008Flleretal.2009Fller2010).
Many other consumers are likely to respond to calls for co-creation because of their taste for a challenge, fun, glory,
competition or simply for pleasure. This crowdsourcing (Chesbrough 2003) produces a proliferation of ideas and solutions for
new products. However, it is recommended to interact effectively with competent customers who will increasingly recognise
and leverage their own value to the company(Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004). The main difficulty is to spot these gems, that
is to say the truly innovative ideas or original solutions, among a flood of banal suggestions. This is why it is worth
concentrating on the most competent targets, such as lead users or emergent nature consumers.
As a result of the above literature review, we propose the research model shown in Figure 2 to illustrate consumer
engagement in co-creation.

Downloaded from warc.com

Methodology
Overview, data collection and sample characteristics
Data were collected through a web-based questionnaire survey. To test the research model, we used 995 completed
questionnaires administered from 2627September2011onarepresentativesampleoftheFrenchpopulationover16years
of age. The sample was selected according to the quota method (age, region, sex and level of education). The sample was
taken from an open-access panel managed by a market research company.1
Measurement
The measures for the study constructs were either adapted from existing scales or created based on previous studies.
Generalised lead userness
We estimated the lead user character not for a single product category, but for an overall consumption of products and
services. There were two reasons for this: first, to avoid the choice of a specific product category that would bias and limit the
external validity of results; and, second, it is difficult to compare two concepts at two different levels, one being a general
characteristic (emergent nature) and the other depending on a product category (lead user).
There are about ten scales of self-evaluation for lead userness (for a review, see Hamdi etal.2011).WepreferredBjiBcheurandGolletys scale (2007), which has the advantage of being validated in both French and American contexts, and
has robust psychometric properties. We adapted this four-item scale to a context of overall consumption of products and
services (see Appendix 1).
Emergent nature consumer
We used the scale developed and validated by Hoffman etal. (2010) in North America. It comprises eight items and is onedimensional (see Appendix 1).
Competence of consumers for co-creation
Competence for co-creation has been interpreted as the capacity of consumers to make suggestions and/or to customise
products (or services) so that they correspond to their own expectations. Thus we are evaluating a form of expertise (Alba &
Hutchinson 1987) for co-creation.
Consumer engagement in co-creation

Downloaded from warc.com

Engagement in co-creation is seen as a co-production of contents between company and customers(Gambetti & Graffigna
2010). It is valued at three levels. The first relates to downstream co-creation with the frequency of interactions about
consumption experiences (Vargo & Lusch 2004, 2008): the number of times the individual posts comments about a product or
service, submits or evaluates ideas on a brand platform, participates in forums, etc. The second concerns upstream cocreation (Von Hippel 1986): the frequency of participation in product or service creation for a brand, participation in testing the
product or service before it is brought to the market, etc. The last level evaluates the intention to adopt a behaviour (Fishbein
& Ajzen 1975): engagement in co-creating a product/service with a brand.
Results
Lead user and emergent nature: measure and distribution of scores
Even though the reliability and validity of construction of these two scales have already been established in the literature, we
nevertheless conducted an exploratory factor analysis. In both cases, we obtained a one-dimensional factor structure that
conforms to previous results. We followed this up with a confirmatory factor analysis using the EQS 6.1 software-structural
equation modelling program (see Tables 1 and 2). The results indicate that both scales are reliable and valid.2

Downloaded from warc.com

Concerningthegeneralisedleadusernessscale,thereliabilitycoefficientsurpassedthe0.7threshold(Jreskogs rho = 0.84)

andtheconvergentvaliditycoefficientwassatisfactory(AverageVarianceExtracted=0.56).Further,thefitindicesofthe
measurement model are all acceptable according to the norms required by the literature.
Itisthesamefortheemergentnaturescale:thereliabilitycoefficientwashigh(Jreskogs rho = 0. 94) and the value of the
convergent validity coefficient exceeds the recommended minimum of 0.5 (average variance extracted = 0.66). Further, the fit
of the confirmatory factor analysis one-factor structure was also excellent according to the norms required by the literature.
The scores of lead user and emergent nature are calculated for each individual by plotting the sum of the scores for individual
i on the respective scales. From a managerial viewpoint, there must be a threshold from which to determine an individual as
lead user or emergent nature. The lead user or emergent nature characters are evaluated along a continuum: the higher the
score, the higher would be the individuals intensity for the concept. With a metric scale, any threshold fixed is by nature an
arbitrary one: several parameters (median, quartile, decile) are tenable, each level giving a stronger or weaker intensity to the
character. Hoffman etal. (2010) use the median to separate lead user population (emergent nature) from non-lead users (nonemergent nature). Other authors take more restricted thresholds, going from 3.6% to 38% for the concept of lead user
considering that the trueleaduserisrare(Urban&VonHippel1988Herstatt&VonHippel1992Lthjeetal.2003Lthje
2004; Morrison etal. 2004; Belz & Baumbach 2010). Given this variance, the choice of the first upper decile (top 10%)
respects the principle of lead user and emergent nature rarity, while remaining consistent with the fact that only 10% of
individuals participate in the life of an online community (1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that content). Further,
this threshold remains acceptable in terms of recruitment costs. The histograms (see Figures 3 and 4) show that the scores
corresponding to the first decile are 16 points for lead users and 33 for emergent nature consumers.

Downloaded from warc.com

We obtain a normal distribution of scores of lead userness in the French population, consistent with the results of Morrison
etal.(2004) and Jeppesen and Laursen (2009), who came respectively to an identical conclusion for the North American and
Danish populations. The same applies to the emergent nature character.
Comparison of competence for co-creation according to status
Table 3 shows clearly that lead users or emergent nature consumers have more pronounced competence for co-creation than
ordinary consumers. Their expertise is significantly higher, whether it be for the conception, improvement or creation of the
product or service. It is noteworthy that lead users and emergent nature consumers are statistically more inclined to file
patents than ordinary consumers.

Downloaded from warc.com

Comparison of engagement in co-creation according to status

Table 4 shows that lead users or emergent nature consumers participate more frequently in co-creation. This is true whether
the co-creation be downstream meaning sharing consumption experience (Post a comment online concerning a product or a
service, for example) or upstream with the creation of products in collaboration with the company (for instance, Submit or
assess ideas on a collaborative platform of idea exchange). In fact, for all items, the average differences are highly significant:
lead users and emergent nature consumers are more frequently engaged in co-creation than are ordinary consumers.

Downloaded from warc.com

10

More globally, the intention to become engaged in co-creation with the company is significantly higher for lead users than for
non-lead users (mean = 4.60 vs 3.89, t = 5.03, p < 0.001). If we consider the whole sample of respondents, there is a marked
correlation between the lead userness score and the intention to get engaged (r = 0.48, p < 0.001): in other words, the more
an individual is a lead user, the stronger his/her intention to get engaged in co-creation. The same applies to emergent nature
consumers (t = 4.16, p < 0.001 and r = 0.55, p < 0.001).
Overall model of co-creation
We tested the consistency of our overall research model of co-creation using a model of structural equation with latent
variables (Hu & Bentler 1995); this allows us to observe both the data fit with concepts (model of measure) and the data fit
with the proposed model (structural model).
The measures of competence and engagement in co-creation were constructed, respectively, from the items in Tables 3 and
4, and then refined according to the usual procedure: an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The resulting items are
shown in Appendix 1. The scale of competence for co-creation is one-dimensionalandpresentsgoodreliability(Jreskogs
rho = 0.80) and acceptable convergent validity (average variance extracted = 0.51); the scale of engagement in co-creation is
also one-dimensionalandalsopresentsgoodreliability(Jreskogs rho = 0.82) and acceptable convergent validity (average
variance extracted = 0.53); the discriminant validity between the measures of these two concepts is established. The average
variance extracted for each construct is higher than the squared correlation between these two constructs = 0.37) (Fornell &
Downloaded from warc.com

11

Larcker 1981).
Figures 5 and 6 show that the postulated relationships between the concepts are confirmed (significant standardised
parameter estimates with a p-value < 0.05). The higher the scores of lead users and emergent nature consumers, the greater
their skills and engagement in co-creation. These results confirm the interest for companies to target these two actors for cocreation projects. The fit indices for both structural models are satisfactory and conform to normally required thresholds.

Perspectives
The validation of the relationships between the variables of the research model leads us to make several recommendations for
marketing managers. First of all, it seems clear that the more a consumer is a lead user or an emergent nature, the more
he/she is prepared to become engaged in co-creation with companies, whether this be by posting comments on a product or
service, submitting ideas on a platform, imagining advertisements or taking part in forum discussions about brands or products.
However, the relationships between lead users and emergent nature consumers with engagement in co-creation are moderate
(b = 0.18 and 0.16 respectively; both p < 0.05).
On the other hand, the relationship between the lead user and emergent nature with competence for co-creation is much
stronger (b = 0.66 and 0.62 respectively; p < 0.05); this is also true for the relationship between competence and engagement
in co-creation (b = 0.49 and 0.51 respectively; p < 0.05). This suggests that the competence for co-creation mediates the
influence of lead user/emergent nature on engagement in co-creation. We have confirmed this effect using the bootstrap
method of Preacher and Hayes (2008) with SPSS (see Appendix 2).
Our results contribute three additional insights for panellists. First, it would be advantageous to start by promoting lead users
and emergent naturescompetence for co-creation, and only then asking them to commit to the company. This approach
would be more efficient than a call to participation directly addressed to one or the other of these two targets. Making toolkits
Downloaded from warc.com

12

available may be an efficient way to increase their competence for co-creation followed by their commitment. This was the
case for example with Sony PlayStations Getting started with create modeon the LittleBigPlanetinternet site. Several
videos are available on the site to Help you along your way to become the greatest creator in all of LittleBigPlanet.
Second, those individuals considered the most efficient for marketing co-creation (i.e. lead users and emergent nature
consumers) are indeed more prepared to collaborate and get engaged in co-creation than less effectiveindividuals (i.e.
ordinary consumers). This result is consistent with those of Jeppesen and Laursen (2009), who reported a significant but
moderate correlation (r=0.18)betweentheintensityofleadusernessandbelongingtocommunities.Thisresultis
encouraging for panellists: it means that even with a selective threshold, such as the first upper decile, recruitment costs for
these rare targets will be partly counterbalanced by their rate of acceptance to engage in co-creation activities, which will be
higher than that of the rest of the population. Thus, 65% of lead users and 67% emergent nature consumers totally agree to
engage in co-creation with the company, compared to 22% of the other consumers. Since lead users and emergent nature
consumers are three times as likely to participate in co-creation, the extra cost of selecting these rare targets is largely
cancelled out. The budget for a study will thus remain reasonable. In this regard, there is a real return on investment in
selecting lead users and emergent nature consumers: better ideas are produced (marketing gains) (Hoffman etal. 2010) for a
selection cost that hardly exceeds that of selecting other consumers (higher probability of participation).
Third, we propose thresholds that are efficient for screening a population using scales that are simple and quick to use, easy
to understand, and can be self-administered (on- or offline). They can act as filters for respondentseligibility. Moreover, since
our scales are normed on a representative sample of a national population, the eligibility scores can be varied according to the
wishes of those in charge of the study. In fact, because these thresholds are arbitrary, they can be lowered or restricted
according to the clients requirements or budget (see Table 5).

In addition, knowing these scores enables us to envisage the following possibilities.

l

Naming open-access panel data files. The market research company identifies global lead user and emergent nature
consumers by name from their scores. Given our results, we recommend choosing the top 10% to select lead users and
emergent nature consumers. As discussed above, the 10% threshold is consistent with the rarityof these individuals and
also with the 90-9-1 rule. Managers can then encourage these targets to co-create for brands or companies. Specialised
firms in co-creation (e.g. Hyve, Innocentive, e-Yeka, 90/10 group, Face) will benefit enormously from being able to name
their databases; they will be able to extract samples of tailor-maderespondents for client companies. These
respondents will be more highly motivated, more engaged and more competent for co-creation, which will counterbalance
the recruitment costs. However, according to Hoffman etal. (2010), the emergent nature consumer can only be used to
develop new products in business-to-consumer markets, whereas many studies (e.g. Bonner & Walker 2004) have
shown that lead users can also be involved in business-to-business projects.

Targeting calls for collaboration. Crowdsourcing is expensive for companies, which have to sort through many banal or
non-innovative ideas produced by hundreds or even thousands of participants. Filtering makes it possible to carry out
effective selective crowdsourcing: when respondents register on a platform, the qualification test directs them towards
Downloaded from warc.com

13

different platforms according to their status (ordinary consumer, lead user or emergent nature consumer). The idea is to
exploit lead user and emergent nature consumer superiority by making them interact with one another on dedicated
platforms; their exchanges will be richer and less pollutedby the background noiseof ordinary consumers. This
segmentation makes it easier to build stronger links and to exploit their ideas; it reduces the size of the pool while
increasing the quality of each fish. In other words, there is less risk of missing the gemsbecause they will be that much
easier to spot; in addition, the percentage of good ideas will, on average, be higher in these groups.
l

Organising communities. Taking into account the 90-9-1 rule, a community manager could target the 1% who produce
and the 9% who circulate information, then calculate the respective rates of concentration of lead users and emergent
nature consumers. Managers would be able to target their calls for co-creation better, rather than aiming at a mass of
fans who do not necessarily have the inclination or the competence to co-create with the brand.

Comparing our results with those of Von Hippel etal. (2010, 2011) for English-speakingcountriesandJapan(seeTable6),
our research offers another interesting highlight on French consumerscompetence in innovation. Our results suggest that the
French have a greater potential for innovation than the populations of these countries regarding the pure creation and
adaptation of products. The French potential for filing patents is comparable to that of the UK. However, these results must be
interpreted with caution for we are working on a wider field of innovation (products and services in general) than that of prior
studies that were carried out on a defined product category. However, the French do seem to demonstrate a large reservoir of
innovation for co-creating.

Conclusion
Our results reinforce the interest of focusing on lead users or emergent nature consumers for co-creation. Indeed, even if we
supposed that these were more efficient than ordinary consumers, it was not evident that the former would wish to become
engaged in co-creation more readily than the latter. This result is a good surprise for marketing agencies too often faced with
consumersgrowing reluctance to take part in marketing studies. Moreover, we show that engagement in co-creation relies on
solid skills that distinguish these users from other consumers: these targets have effectively more often created improved or
adapted products or services, filed for patents or envisaged doing so than ordinary consumers.
Two suggestions for further research should be examined. First, it would be interesting to carry out an in-depth investigation
comparing the role of lead users and emergent nature consumers for each type of co-creation: upstream and downstream.
This might help managers to select the bestconsumers depending on the projects nature (i.e. new product/service
development vs consumer experience understanding). Second, we should look more closely at the moderate results obtained
for the link between lead users and emergent nature consumers concerning engagement in co-creation. Indeed, it seems
essential to better understand the motives driving lead users and emergent nature consumers to engage in co-creation with a
company. A better understanding of these motives would make it possible to increase the participation rate of these two major
Downloaded from warc.com

14

targets.
Appendix 1: Final items for measures
Generalisedleaduserness(Bji-Bcheur&Gollety2007)
l

I had expectations on the use of products or services long before others

I have had ideas on how to improve products or services that have since been taken up by others

Companies offer ideas that I have had for a long time

My ideas are innovative compared to current practices

Emergentnatureconsumer(Hoffmanetal.2010)
l

When I hear about a new product or service idea, it is easy to imagine how it might be developed into an actual product
or service

Even if I dont see an immediate use for a new product or service, I like to think about how I might use it in the future

When I see a new product or service idea, it is easy to visualise how it might fit into the life of an average person in the
future

If someone gave me a new product or service idea with no clear application, I could fill in the blanksso someone else
would know what to do with it

Even if I dont see an immediate use for a new product or service, I like to imagine how people in general might use it in
the future

I like to experiment with new ideas on how to use products and services

I like to find patterns in complexity

I can picture how products and services of today could be improved to make them more appealing to the average person

Competence for co-creation

l

I have told a manufacturer how to improve its products or services

I have adapted and customised a product or a service to satisfy my individual needs

I have developed a complete fabrication of a product or service to meet my personal needs

I have told a firm how to improve its products, services or brands

Engagement in co-creation
l

Post a comment online concerning a product or a service

Submit or assess ideas on a collaborative platform of idea exchange

Promote a product (create an advertisement, share advertisement contents on social networks)

Help other consumers by taking part in product forums, FAQs, etc.)

Downloaded from warc.com

15

Acknowledgement
WewouldliketothankFranoisPetavy,directorgeneralofe-Yeka and Yannig Roth, Surveys Manager, for their interest,
support and field work undertaken for this research.
References
Alba, J.W. & Hutchinson, J.W. (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13,pp.411454.
Arthur, C. (2006) What is the 1% rule? Available online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2(accessed20July2006).
Bji-Bcheur,A.&Gollety,M.(2007)Leaduseretleaderdopinion: deux cibles majeures au service de linnovation.
DcisionsMarketing, 48,4,pp.2134.
Belz, F.-M. & Baumbach, W. (2010) Netnography as a method of lead user identification. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 19,3,pp.304313.
Bilgram, V., Brem, A. & Voigt, K.-I. (2008) User-centric innovations in new product development systematic identification of
lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online-tools. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12, 3,
pp.419458.
Bonner, J.M. & Walker, O.C. (2004) Selecting influential business-to-business customers in new product development:
relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity considerations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 3,
pp.155169.
Downloaded from warc.com

16

Brggen,E.,Wetzels,M.,deRuyter,K.&Schillewaert,N.(2011)Individualdifferencesinmotivationtoparticipateinonline
panels. International Journal of Market Research, 53,3,pp.369390.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44,3,pp.354.
Christensen, C.M., Cook, S. & Hall, T. (2005) Marketing malpractice: the cause and the cure. Harvard Business Review,
December, 83,12,pp.7483.
Eiglier, P., Langeard, E., Lovelock, C.H., Bateson, J.E.G. & Young, R.F. (1977) Marketing Consumer Services: New Insights.
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18,1,pp.3950.
Franke, N. & Von Hippel, E. (2003) Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security
software. Research Policy, 32,7,pp.11991216.
Franke, N., Von Hippel, E. & Schreier, M. (2006) Finding commercially attractive user innovations: a test of lead user theory.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23,4,pp.301315.
Fller,J.(2010)Refiningvirtualco-creation from a consumer perspective. California Management Review, 52, 2, Winter,
pp.98122.
Fller,J.,Matzler,K.&Hoppe,M.(2008)Brandcommunitymembersasasourceofinnovation.Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 25,6,pp.608619.
Fller,J.,Mhlbacher,H.,Matzler,K.&Jawecki,G.(2009)Consumerempowermentthroughinternet-based co-creation.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 26,3,pp.71102.
Gambetti, R.C. & Graffigna, G. (2010) The concept of engagement. A systematic analysis of the ongoing marketing debate.
International Journal of Market Research, 52,6,pp.801826.
Hamdi L., Korotkova, N. & Vernette, E. (2011) Comparing study of two lead user measurement scales, Proceedings of 27th
Conference of the French Marketing Association. Online at: http://www.afm-marketing.org/document.aspx?id=12115 .
Herstatt, C. & Von Hippel, E. (1992) From experience: developing new product concepts via the lead user method: a case
study in a low-techfield. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9,3,pp.213221.
Hoffman, D.L., Kopalle, P.K. & Novak, T.P. (2010) The rightconsumers for better concepts: identifying consumers high in
emergent nature to develop new product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 47,5,pp.854865.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1995) Evaluating Model Fit in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded from warc.com

17

Jeppesen, L.B. & Laursen, K. (2009) The role of lead users in knowledge sharing. Research Policy, 38,10,pp.15821589.
Kozinets, R. (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of
Marketing Research, 39,1,pp.6172.
Lilien, G.L., Morrison, P.D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M. & Von Hippel, E. (2002) Performance assessment of the lead user ideageneration process for new product development. Management Science, 48,8,pp.10421059.
Lthje,C.(2004)Characteristicsofinnovatingusersinaconsumergoodsfield:anempiricalstudyofsport-related product
consumers. Technovation, 24,9,pp.683 695.
Lthje,C.,Lettl,C.&Herstatt,C.(2003)Knowledgedistributionamongmarketexperts:acloserlookintotheefficiencyof
information gathering for innovation projects. International Journal of Technology Management, 26,5/6,pp.561577.
Maklan, S., Knox, S. & Ryals, L. (2007) New trends in innovation and customer relationship management, a challenge for
market researchers. International Journal of Market Research, 50,2,pp.221240.
Magnusson, P.R. (2009) Exploring the contributions of involving ordinary users in ideation of technology-based services.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26,5,pp.578593.
Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H. & Midgley, D.F. (2004) The nature of lead users and measurement of leading edge status.
Research Policy, 33,2,pp.351363.
Nambisan, S. & Baron, R.A. (2009) Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in value cocreation activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26,pp.388406.
Olson, E.L. & Bakke, G. (2001) Implementing the lead user method in a high-technology firm: a longitudinal study of intentions
versus actions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18,6,pp.388395.
Piller, F.T. & Walcher, D. (2006) Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development.
R&D Management, 36,3,pp.307318.
Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2000) Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb, 78,1,pp.79
87.
Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 18,3,pp.514.
Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,pp.879891.
Ramaswamy, V. & Gouillart, F. (2010) The Power of Co-creation. New York: Free Press, Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Roberts, D. & Adams, R. (2010) Agenda development for marketing research: the users voice. International Journal of Market
Research, 52,3,pp.329352.
Roberts, D., Baker, S. & Walker, D. (2005) Can we learn together? Co-creating with consumers. International Journal of
Downloaded from warc.com

18

Market Research, 47,4,pp.405426.

Sawhney, M. & Prandelli, E. (2000) Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets. California
Management Review, 42,4,pp.2454.
Schreier,M.&Prgl,R.(2008)Extendingleadusertheory:antecedentsandconsequencesofconsumerleaduserness.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25,4,pp.331346.
Sharma, D., Lucier, C. & Molloy, R. (2002) From solutions to symbiosis: blending with your customers. Strategy and Business
Magazine, second quarter, 27,pp.211.
Thomke, S. & Von Hippel, E. (2002) Customers as innovators: a new way to create value. Harvard Business Review, 80, 4,
pp.7481.
Urban, G.L. & Von Hippel, E. (1988) Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management
Science, 34,5,pp.569582.
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, January, 68,1,pp.1
17.
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36,pp.110.
Von Hippel, E. (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concept. Management Science, 32,7,pp.791805.
Von Hippel, E. (2001) Perspective: user toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18,4,pp.247
257.
Von Hippel, E. & Katz, R. (2002) Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48,7,pp.821833.
Von Hippel, E., De Jong, J. & Flowers, S. (2010) Comparing business and household sector innovation in consumer products:
findingsfromarepresentativestudyintheUK.September.Availableonlineatpapers.ssrn.com(accessed27September
2010).
Von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S. & De Jong, J. (2011) The age of the consumer-innovator. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall,
53,1,pp.2735.
About the authors
Eric Vernette is Professor of Marketing at the graduate School of Management, at the University of Toulouse I Capitole and
member of the Center for Management Research (UMR CNRS 5303). He is a member of the board of the French Marketing
Association, and was previously co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Decisions Marketing. His research area is focused on
opinion leadership in social networks, lead-usership and marketing co-creation strategies. He has published many articles in
international research and managerial marketing journals.
Linda Hamdi-Kidar is currently Research and Teaching Assistant of Marketing at the graduate School of Management, at the
University of Toulouse I Capitole (linda.hamdi@iae-toulouse.fr ) and member of the Center for Management Research (UMR
Downloaded from warc.com

19

CNRS 5303). Her research interests focus on user innovation and co-creation.
Address correspondence to: Eric Vernette, Institut dAdministrationdesEntreprises,UniversitToulouse1Capitole,2ruedu
doyen Gabriel Marty, 31042 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Email: eric.vernette@ut-capitole.fr
1 The survey institute, member of Esomar, follows Esomar recommendations by applying the field study quality control

procedure (see http://www.cint.com/Products/Marketplace/CintQuality/). The effective response rate is 19%.

2 Reliability is the degree to which results can be reproduced when the instrument is used again in identical conditions,

whereas validity ensures that the concept measured is indeed the one being studied.

Copyright Warc 2013

Warc Ltd.
85 Newman Street, London, United Kingdom, W1T 3EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7467 8100, Fax: +(0)20 7467 8101
www.warc.com
All rights reserved including database rights. This electronic file is for the personal use of authorised users based at the subscribing company's office location. It may not be reproduced, posted on intranets, extranets
or the internet, e-mailed, archived or shared electronically either within the purchasers organisation or externally without express written permission from Warc.

Downloaded from warc.com

20

Copyright of International Journal of Market Research is the property of Warc LTD and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.