Exploring Customer To Customer Value Co Creation Platforms and Practices in Team Sports

European Sport Management Quarterly
ISSN: 1618-4742 (Print) 1746-031X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resm20
Exploring customer-to-customer value co-creation

platforms and practices in team sports
Sebastian Uhrich
To cite this article: Sebastian Uhrich (2014) Exploring customer-to-customer value co-creation
platforms and practices in team sports, European Sport Management Quarterly, 14:1, 25-49, DOI:
10.1080/16184742.2013.865248
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.865248
Published online: 17 Feb 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3780
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 38 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=resm20
European Sport Management Quarterly, 2014
Vol. 14, No. 1, 25–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.865248
Exploring customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms and

practices in team sports
Sebastian Uhrich*
Department of Sport Economics and Sport Management, German Sport University Cologne,
Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany
(Received 3 April 2013; accepted 23 October 2013)
Research question: According to an increasingly acknowledged view, customers co-

create value with several other actors in the marketplace (e.g. firms and other
customers) across multiple touchpoints prior to, during, and after the primary service
encounter. This research focuses on professional team sports and examines one form
of value co-creation that is particularly important in this context, i.e. customers’ co-
creation of value with other customers. The present research adds to our understanding
of customer-to-customer value co-creation by identifying where (platforms) and how
(practices) team sports customers create value with one another. Research methods:
The study uses a multi-method qualitative research approach including in-depth
interviews, naturalistic observation and netnography. The sampling frame consisted of
three live venues (Germany), several virtual platforms (Germany and England), and a
number of physical customer interaction sites such as sports bars and fan trains
(Germany). Results and Findings: The study develops a typology of co-creation
platforms that distinguishes between different spheres (customer sphere vs. joint
sphere) and types (virtual vs. physical) of value co-creation platforms. In addition, the
data reveal five customer-to-customer co-creation practices that occur across these
platforms: associating and dissociating, engaging and sharing, competing, intensify-
ing, and exchanging. Implications: Identifying and classifying customer-to-customer
value co-creation platforms is an important first step toward developing approaches
for team sports firms to become involved in and manage value co-creation among
customers. In addition, knowledge of value co-creation practices will assist managers
in shaping co-creation platforms in ways that facilitate the execution of value-creating
practices.
Keywords: value co-creation; customer-to-customer interactions; team sports; sports
fans; social influence
Introduction
The consumption of team sports is highly popular and economically relevant. For example,
football (soccer) – the most popular team sport in Europe – generated a revenue of €16.9
billion in the 2010/2011 season (Deloitte, 2012). The five biggest European football
leagues attracted more than 53 million spectators and generated €8.6 billion of revenues
(Deloitte, 2012). Other team sports such as ice hockey, handball, and basketball additionally
attract considerable attendance. In Germany, for instance, 5.5 million spectators attended
live games in the first-division leagues of these sports in the 2012/2013 season (BBL, 2013;
*Email: s.uhrich@dshs-koeln.de
© 2014 European Association for Sport Management
26 S. Uhrich
DEL, 2013; HBL, 2013). Due to the high popularity and economic relevance of team
sports, consumer behavior in this context is an important research topic in the sports
management literature. A common approach to explaining the popularity of team sports is
the examination of how team sports services create value from the perspective of
customers. A number of academic studies have examined the concept of value in the
team sports context and highlight that customers’ value perceptions are a key driver of their
behavioral intentions (Byon, Zhang, & Baker, 2013), satisfaction, and loyalty (Howat &
Assaker, 2013). Based on the traditional view that firms produce goods and services and
customers purchase goods and services (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008), the research in
this area has mainly focused on firm’s activities (e.g. designing the sportscape, team
performance), customers’ perceptions and evaluations of these activities, and the firm–
customer relationship (e.g. team identification) to explain how team sports services create
value for customers (Gerrard, 2001; Kelley & Turley, 2001; Madrigal, 1995; Wakefield,
Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995; Yoshida & James, 2010). However,
according to an increasingly acknowledged view, value is created through interactive
activities in which customers integrate their resources with different actors, such as firms,
other customers, and public institutions (McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, Sweeney, &
Kasteren, 2012; Payne et al., 2008). A key notion of this new understanding is that value is
both created and determined ‘in use’ because there is no value until an offering is used by
the customer (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Thus, the customer is active, rather than passive, and
always co-creates value with the focal firm or other actors in the marketplace (Bendapudi &
Leone, 2003; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Yet, some authors
argue that value is not always co-created but can also be individually (i.e. independently
from other actors) created by the customer (Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Gummerus, 2013).
While the creation of value may be individual or shared, the determination of value
outcomes is clearly individual as value is embedded in the customer’s individual experience
of consumption (Gummerus, 2013). The customer’s perceptions and evaluations of value
(co-)creation determine his or her value outcomes. This determination of value outcomes is
phenomenological and experiential, referring to the customer’s ‘feeling, thinking, wanting,
sensing, imagining, and acting’ (Gummerus, 2013, p. 30). Vargo and Lusch (2008) express
this view in one of their foundational premises of service-dominant logic ‘value is always
uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary’.
Several fields of research propose that among the actors with whom customers can
co-create value are other customers. For example, the service-dominant logic (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004) suggests that customer-to-customer interactions – defined as situations in
which two or more customers are physically, virtually, or mentally involved in each
other’s practices (Grönroos & Voima, 2013) – are one specific form of value co-creation
(Lemke, Clark, & Wilson, 2011). This view is supported by the customer engagement
literature (van Doorn et al., 2010), which suggests that interactions with other customers
contribute to a customer’s value perception by providing ‘“linking value”, that is, value
based on peer-to-peer bonds and socially embedded consumption’ (Libai et al., 2010,
p. 271). In addition, research into brand communities provides empirical evidence that
customers’ interactive practices within consumer collectives create value beyond that
which is created through interactions with the firm or brand (Schau, Muñiz, &
Arnould, 2009).
The importance of customer-to-customer interactions is particularly obvious in the
team sports industry and has been acknowledged in a number of studies (Woratschek,
Horbel, & Popp, 2014). For example, research repeatedly demonstrates that socializing
European Sport Management Quarterly 27
with fellow fans is an important aspect that contributes to a focal customer’s perception of
value at sporting events (e.g. Melnick, 1993; Pimentel & Reynolds, 2004; Trail & James,
2001; Wann & Wilson, 1999). In addition, team sports customers engage in numerous
valuable interactions with other customers on various platforms outside the live venue
and beyond the game day (Kerr & Emery, 2011; Stone, 2007). It has been suggested that
such interactions among sports customers contribute to a focal customer’s value
perception and should therefore not be conceptualized as a ‘less authentic’ or ‘passive’
form of fandom that is only used by ‘flaneurs’ (Gibbons & Dixon, 2010,
p. 604). This is in line with the view that a customer’s value perception is shaped by
various consumption experiences prior to, during, and after the primary service encounter,
rather than being the result of a single consumption episode (e.g. one individual event
visit) (Flint, 2006; Lemke et al., 2011; Verhoef et al., 2009). A service encounter is any
direct or indirect contact of a customer with the firm (Lemke et al., 2011). In the case of
team sports, the primary service encounter is the live venue. However, many value-
creating customer-to-customer interactions occur beyond the customer’s touchpoints with
the firm, e.g. in pubs (Weed, 2008), in fan busses (Woratschek, Horbel, Popp, & Roth,
2007), or in online fan forums (Healy & McDonagh, 2013).
Despite these initial findings, a comprehensive analysis of value co-creation among
team sports customers does not exist. Previous research has failed to identify and
categorize systematically the places in which team sports customers interact and co-create
value. Prior studies focus either on the live venue or on other specific places but do not
explore customer-to-customer value co-creation across multiple locations. In addition, the
vast majority of studies refer rather generally to concepts like socialization (Melnick,
1993) or social interaction (Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003) without analyzing in detail
how customers co-create value with one another. Thus, our understanding of how sports
customers co-create value with other customers is at a rudimentary stage.
This study addresses these shortcomings and attempts to develop our understanding
of value co-creation among team sports customers by means of a multi-method
qualitative research approach. Based on McColl-Kennedy et al.’s (2012, p. 370) general
definition of value co-creation, we define customer-to-customer value co-creation as
customer benefit realized from the integration of resources through interactions with other
customers. On the broadest level, customer benefit means that the customer’s well-being
is increased, such that the customer ‘becomes better off in some respect’ (Grönroos &
Voima, 2013, p. 134). More specific manifestations of this benefit can be various
utilitarian, hedonic, or relational outcomes (Lemke et al., 2011). The purpose of this
research is twofold. First, we empirically identify customer-to-customer value co-creation
platforms. We define value co-creation platforms as the places or locations where
customers interact with one another and thus integrate their resources. Such platforms can
include both physical and virtual environments. Based on these findings, we develop a
typology of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms. Identifying and classifying
the relevant platforms is an important first step toward developing approaches for team
sports firms to become involved in and manage value co-creation among customers.
Second, we explore the customer-to-customer value co-creation practices that occur
across the different co-creation platforms. Based on social practice theory, Schau et al.
(2009, p. 31) define practices as ‘linked and implicit ways of understanding, saying, and
doing things’. Practices ‘comprise a temporally unfolding and spatially dispersed nexus
of behaviors that include practical activities, performances, and representations or talk’.
Thus, value co-creation practices describe how team sports customers co-create value or
28 S. Uhrich
as McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012, p. 384) put it ‘what they actually do when they co-create
value’ with other customers. Note that a customer can engage in non-interactive
(independent) value-creating practices or in interactive practices (Grönroos & Voima,
2013). In the latter case, value is co-created through interactions with other actors such as
firms or other customers. This research focuses on interactive practices of customers that
involve other actors, in our case other customers. Precise knowledge of customer-
to-customer value co-creation practices will assist managers in shaping co-creation
platforms in ways that facilitate the execution of value-creating practices. While this
research focuses on the customer as the beneficiary of customer-to-customer value
co-creation, customer benefit should eventually result in benefit for team sports firms by
way of revenues, profits, or referrals (Payne et al., 2008).
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In the next section, we present a
review of the literature regarding customer-to-customer interactions in the team sports
industry. Next, we describe the empirical study and introduce our typology of co-creation
platforms. Then, we present the customer-to-customer value co-creation practices that
emerged from the data. Finally, we discuss our findings and outline managerial
implications as well as avenues for future research.
Literature review
Our review of the literature is divided into two sections. The first section provides a
general summary of the previous work on customer-to-customer interactions in the team
sports context, which focuses mainly on the live venue. In the second section, we review
the relevant studies addressing different platforms on which interactions among team
sports customers take place.
Customer-to-customer value co-creation in team sports

Although the previous literature on sports consumer behavior has only rarely explicitly
referred to the concept of value co-creation (exceptions are Healy & McDonagh, 2013;
Woratschek & Durchholz, 2012a, 2012b), a review of the literature reveals that several
past studies have acknowledged the relevance of customer-to-customer interactions in the
context of team sports. For example, research on the motives for attending live sports
events repeatedly suggests that team sports customers derive value from affiliating with
fellow spectators (James & Ross, 2004; Trail & James, 2001; Trail et al., 2003; Wann,
1995; Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Peace, 2001). The customer’s perceived value created
through interactions with other supporters is reflected in the findings of several studies
that find a positive relationship between social interactions and variables such as fan
devotion (Pimentel & Reynolds, 2004), event satisfaction (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994),
team loyalty (Tapp, 2004), and event enjoyment (Wann & Wilson, 1999).
Crawford (2004) states that feelings of community and belonging do not require
sports customers to know each other or even to associate with fellow supporters.
However, sports teams are typically the base of numerous supporter communities with
extensive interactions and close relationships among the members (Brown, Crabbe, &
Mellor, 2008; Heere & James, 2007). As a consequence, previous studies have also
investigated the concept of brand community in the team sports industry and
acknowledge that supporter clubs exhibit characteristics of brand communities, such as
frequent interactions and identification among the members (Devasagayam & Buff, 2008;
Grant, Heere, & Dickson, 2011).
Another relevant stream of literature focuses on designing the sportscape, which is an
important determinant of sports spectators’ psychological and behavioral reactions at a
sporting event (Westerbeek & Shilbury, 1999). This literature highlights the important
role of other customers in a focal customer’s perceptions and evaluations of the stadium
environment. For example, perceived crowding is positively related to spectators’
pleasure experienced in a stadium (Wakefield et al., 1996; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).
In addition, spectators contribute considerably to the special atmosphere at sporting
events (Charleston, 2008, 2009; Uhrich & Benkenstein, 2010, 2012), which is an
antecedent not only to the immediate stadium experience but also to the attractiveness of
a sports league as a whole (Koenigstorfer, Groeppel-Klein, & Kunkel, 2010).
A comparatively small number of studies examine the specific practices through
which customers co-create value with one another. Among the few exceptions is Holt’s
(1995) exploration of consumption practices in a baseball spectator setting. Holt identifies
the four metaphors experience, integration, classification, and play to describe how
spectators consume. These consumption practices embrace many social interactive
aspects, including interactions with other supporters. For example, spectators engage in
classification practices both to build affiliation with similar other fans of their own team
and to distinguish themselves from dissimilar others or those who support other teams.
Spectators’ practice of distancing themselves from other spectator groups and the
importance of rivalry with opponent fans are also emphasized in other studies (Heinonen,
2002; Richardson & Turley, 2006; Woratschek & Durchholz, 2012a, 2012b). In their
study of value co-creation through other customers in a football setting, Woratschek and
Durchholz (2012b) use the concept of reference groups and identify several groups of
other spectators (e.g. family members, opposing fans, own fans, VIPs) and a large
number of specific activities of these others (e.g. supporting the team, provoking,
performance of choreography) that enhance the perception of value from the perspective
of a focal customer. These initial findings are important to develop our understanding of
customer-to-customer value co-creation practices in team sports. However, the study only
focuses on the live venue and does not address other platforms of value co-creation.
Taking into account such other platforms is an essential task because, as Crawford (2004,
p. 106) states, the experience of sport fans is largely shaped by ‘their conversations, social
relationships, media use and memories, which exist outside of the live venue in their
everyday lives.’
Customer-to-customer value co-creation beyond the live venue

Many previous studies have postulated that value-creating interactions among team sports
customers are not restricted to the live venue. Two decades ago, authors had already
pointed out that social interactions with other supporters at post-event assemblings and
tailgating parties are important components of a match day for many spectators (Mann,
1989; Melnick, 1993). In addition to socializing with others around the stadium,
supporters interact both prior to and after the game on platforms like pubs and restaurants
(Kelley & Tian, 2004), fan zones (Lauss & Szigetvari, 2010), parks (Kytö, 2011), fan
busses and fan trains (Woratschek et al., 2007), or online environments (Rowe, Ruddock,
& Hutchins, 2010). Kerr and Emery (2011) point out that team sports brands become
global, with supporters clubs around the world. The so-called ‘satellite fans’ live far away
30 S. Uhrich
from their favorite team and watch the games with fellow fans at a bar or discuss them
with others in team-related virtual communities. Although many of these satellite fans
have never visited a game of their own team, the value perceptions of these fans are
important to team sports firms because they increase the media demand, purchase
merchandising, and develop consumption capital in distant markets.
A few initial studies have examined sports customers’ value co-creation practices
involving other customers beyond the primary service encounter. For example, fans
debate about the chances of their team before the match (Weed, 2008) and they discuss
and dissect the key events of the game (Harris & Ogbonna, 2008) and grieve for or
celebrate their team after the match (Mann, 1989). Kytö (2011) empirically explores
sports fans’ experience and participation in practicing and performing choreography,
marches, and chants both at the stadium and at pre-match gatherings. Woratschek et al.
(2007) use an ethnographic approach to examine interactions of football fans who travel
to the away games of their team. An important finding from this study is that many
valuable interactive consumption practices, for instance living out the fan culture by
engaging in shared rituals, take place not only inside the stadium but also on fan busses
and fan trains. These practices strengthen the fans’ relationships with one another and
create value through the satisfaction of social motives. Kelley and Tian’s (2004) study of
basketball fans extends Holt’s (1995) work on sports spectator consumption practices by
taking into account such practices that are not associated directly with attending the live
event. This study provides further empirical evidence that team sports customers co-
create value with other customers during their travel to games, at post-event gatherings,
and on several other platforms outside the stadium.
Importantly, in addition to interactions at game days inside or outside the live venue,
team sports customers co-create value with other supporters beyond the game day
(Brown, 2008; Crabbe, 2008; Holt, 1995; Stone, 2007). Supporters derive value from
various team-sports-related social interactions, which become embodied in the practice of
their everyday lives (Stone, 2007), for instance talking about their club at work (Holt,
1995) or reading others’ comments in an online fan forum (Healy & McDonagh, 2013).
The Internet is an important platform on which team sports customers interact with
one another (Dixon, 2011; Gibbons & Dixon, 2010). Sharing experiences and knowledge
with other supporters has been identified as a value-creating practice of sports online
consumption (Hur, Ko, & Valacich, 2007; Seo & Green, 2008). In addition, online
interactions sometimes extend beyond the virtual world and thus become a precursor of
face-to-face encounters, for instance if fans arrange car sharing via team-related social
media platforms to travel to games together (Dixon, 2011). The proliferation of new
media provides a number of additional opportunities to interact with other customers.
Mobile devices allow customers to be in touch with others almost anywhere at any time
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Accordingly, several studies acknowledge that interactions
among team sports customers in online environments extend the match day long into the
week (Brown, 2008; Healy & McDonagh, 2013; Kerr & Emery, 2011; Kolbe & James,
2000; Rowe et al., 2010).
Method and data collection

The goals of our empirical study are to explore where and how team sports customers co-
create value with other customers. Thus, the study aims to identify (1) the platforms on
which customer-to-customer value co-creation takes place in team sports and (2) customer-
to-customer value co-creation practices across multiple platforms by investigating the

customers’ interactive activities, performances, and conversations, i.e. what customers do
when they co-create value with one another. The exploratory nature of these research topics
indicates that a qualitative research approach is the most appropriate for advancing our
knowledge of customer-to-customer value co-creation. This is in line with Grönroos and
Voima’s (2013) recommendation to use qualitative research methods to gain further
understanding of the customers’ logic and value creation context.
To gain a comprehensive insight into the phenomenon of customer-to-customer value
co-creation in team sports, the data collection included a combination of interrogative and
observational methods and lasted over a period of one year (between September 2011 and
August 2012). More specifically, we conducted in-depth interviews with 32 team sports
customers, engaged in naturalistic observation of customer interactions on various real-
world platforms, and used netnographic research within online co-creation platforms. Our
sampling frame consisted of three live venues (two second-division football teams and
one first-division ice hockey team in Germany), several virtual platforms centered on
professional football and ice hockey teams in Germany or England (e.g. online fan
forums and Facebook pages of sports teams), and a number of physical customer
interaction sites (e.g. sports bars, public viewing sites, fan trains) in two German towns.
In the first step, we conducted several in-depth interviews with team sports customers
to identify where and how team sports customers co-create value with one another. These
interviews included questions such as the following, to identify the relevant value co-
creation platforms: ‘Please describe a typical match day’ or ‘Where do you engage with
other supporters beyond the match day/outside the stadium?’ In addition, the interviews
explored what interactions with others mean to customers across different platforms and
how they derive value from the presence, appearance, and behavior of others. The initial
findings from these interviews allowed us to focus on specific platforms and practices
later in the process of data collection (e.g. ‘Why do you observe other fans’ behavior at
the stadium?’; ‘Please describe the difference between travelling on a fan train and
travelling independently to away games?’; ‘Why do you observe the conversations of
opponent fans in online forums?’).
Subsequently, the different data collection techniques were applied in an iterative and
simultaneous way to complement each other. For example, we took field notes during
observations in bars or public transport and followed up on the themes emerging from
these notes in the interviews. As the data collection process continued, we used more and
more theoretical sampling to focus on the practices and platforms that emerged from the
initial interviews. For example, as social media websites were identified as important
value co-creation platform, we selected interviewees who post and/or lurk in online fan
forums or on their team’s Facebook page and engaged in netnographic research
(Kozinets, 2010). Similarly, we targeted participants who travel to the away games of
their team to explore co-creation platforms specifically related to visiting away games,
such as fan trains, a rental car that is shared with fellow fans, or the live venue of the
opponent team.
The interviews, ranging from 20 to 65 minutes, followed guidelines recommended by
McCracken (1988). In some cases, we used autodriving techniques to enrich the
interviews. The autodriving method uses photographs or recordings of the informant’s
own life as projective stimuli to ‘drive’ the interview (Heisley & Levy, 1991). The
method is based on the assumption that the method allows informants to be better able to
reflect on and provide rich insights into the phenomenon of interest compared with
32 S. Uhrich
traditional interrogative techniques. We asked the participants to show and comment on

photographs that they had taken of their own practices as sports fans. This method
enhanced the participants’ ability to report on practices that are difficult to articulate.
Analysis and findings

The analysis of the data focused on two goals: (1) the identification of the platforms
on which customer-to-customer value co-creation takes place in team sports and (2)
the identification of the practices that describe how team sports customers co-create value
with one another. The data pool consisted of extensive field notes taken during the
observation of team sports customers on physical and virtual platforms and 450 pages of
1.5 line spacing text from the in-depth interviews. As the field notes were taken by
several persons, these data were analyzed both individually and in groups involving the
principal researchers as well as research assistants. This analysis was conducted
throughout the process of data collection and provided insights into value co-creation
platforms and practices. In addition, the results of this analysis yielded several themes
that were more thoroughly investigated in the in-depth interviews. To analyze the
interview data, we used an inductive content analysis procedure that followed the
guidelines recommended by McCracken (1988).
Typology of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms

In line with the findings of previous studies, our analysis reveals that team sports
customers’ value co-creation is not limited to the primary service encounter but occurs on
several platforms beyond the live venue. These include platforms that are directly related
to a team sports league in general or a particular team (e.g. a team-sponsored sports bar,
an online discussion forum centered on team sports, or a fan train) and platforms that are
unrelated to team sports (e.g. public transport or a private home where fans meet to watch
a game on TV). A complete list of the customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms
identified in our study is included in Appendix 1. However, any list of platforms is
somewhat arbitrary because, ultimately, team sports customers can co-create value with
one another at any place where they interact. To overcome this arbitrariness and to take
the first step toward a theoretical classification, we developed a typology of customer-
to-customer value co-creation platforms. This typology is based on the two dimensions
co-creation sphere and type of co-creation platform (Figure 1).
The dimension sphere is borrowed from Grönroos and Voima’s (2013) value creation
spheres and distinguishes between the joint sphere and the customer sphere. Although
Grönroos and Voima (2013) developed these value creation spheres to conceptualize the
customer’s value co-creation with the firm, it is also a useful categorization of value co-
creation among customers for theoretical and practical reasons. The joint sphere and the
customer sphere differ with regard to the firm’s influence on the customer’s value creation
practices. In the joint sphere, the service provider has the opportunity to engage with the
customer’s value-creating practices, including interactive practices with other customers.
For example, sports teams can actively engage in customer-to-customer interactions in the
stadium and in a team-operated online discussion forum. By contrast, in the customer
sphere, the customer co-creates value with other customers independently from the firm.
Though firm resources are involved, the firm has no immediate control and plays a
passive role in the customer sphere. Examples of customer-to-customer value co-creation
Joint sphere
Examples Examples
– Stadium – Team‘s official online fan forum
– Official supporters club meeting – Team‘s Facebook page: reading
site other supporters’ comments
– Team-operated sports bar
– Team-organized bus or train ride
Value co-creation sphere
to away game
Physical Virtual
Examples Examples
– Home: watching game on TV with – Independent online fan forums
friends
– Private chat room: discussions with
– Self-organized bus or train ride fellow supporters while watching
with fellow supporters to away game at home or stadium
game
– General pub: watching game with
fellow supporters of own and/or
opponent team
Customer sphere
Type of value co-creation platform
Figure 1. Typology of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms in team sports.
platforms in the customer sphere are independent supporters clubs, general sports bars
(not operated by a team), independently operated online fan communities, and a rental car
that a group of supporters shares to travel to an away game. The distinction of customer-
to-customer value co-creation platforms in the joint sphere and the customer sphere is not
least of practical importance because it shows which platforms can be managed by the
firm (= joint sphere) and which platforms must be transferred from the customer sphere to
the joint sphere before the firm can exert control. Sports teams can develop strategies to
broaden the joint sphere by offering managed platforms that are now solely in the
customer sphere (Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Lury, 2004).
The second dimension of our typology is labeled type of co-creation platform and
distinguishes between physical and virtual platforms on which value co-creation among
customers takes place. This dimension is based on several recent classifications of
customer-to-customer interactions that differentiate between online and offline environ-
ments (Deighton & Kornfeld, 2009; Godes et al., 2005; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Libai
et al., 2010). The proliferation of new media channels has provided customers with new
forms of interpersonal communication and numerous virtual interaction platforms that
were not available in the past. Team sports supporters, for instance, are connected through
online communities, team-related discussion boards, wikis, blogs, and individual chat
rooms. Our data reveal that many value-creating interactions among team sports
customers take place on such virtual platforms. The previous literature highlights several
important characteristics of social interactions in virtual environments. For example,
34 S. Uhrich
virtual platforms allow customers to reach and be reached by others almost anywhere at
any time (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010), exhibit a high speed of diffusion, and provide
opportunities to interact with others and simultaneously maintain their own anonymity
(Deighton & Kornfeld, 2009; Godes et al., 2005).
Figure 1 illustrates our typology of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms
in team sports. The two dimensions of the typology define four distinct categories of co-
creation platforms: joint sphere/physical, joint sphere/virtual, customer sphere/physical,
and customer sphere/virtual. As the examples presented in the figure show, team sports
customers can co-create value with other supporters on different platforms at the same
time. For example, a supporter can cheer with fellow supporters at the live venue and
simultaneously exchange chat messages with a friend who is interested in the game
through a mobile device.
Customer-to-customer value co-creation practices

Based on the empirical data, we identify five customer-to-customer value co-creation
practices. As defined, these practices describe what team sports customers do when they
co-create value with one another, i.e. the practical activities, performances, and
representations or talk underlying value co-creation. Importantly, the co-creation practices
are not platform-specific but can be observed on several physical and virtual co-creation
platforms in both the customer sphere and the joint sphere. Table 1 presents a summary,
short descriptions and examples of all practices for each of the four categories of co-
creation platforms as defined by our typology.
Associating and dissociating

The value co-creation practice of associating and dissociating demonstrates a customer’s
affiliation with (= associating) and/or distinction from (= dissociating) particular groups
of other customers. Associating can relate to the supporters of the own team in general or
to specific subgroups of the team’s supporters. For example, a customer may want to
show his or her association with one team as opposed to an opponent team (e.g. in a
general sports bar) or with the subgroup of die-hard fans as opposed to occasional
supporters of the same team (e.g. at the home ground). Dissociation occurs in relation to
specific subgroups of supporters of the own team or supporters of opponent teams. This
practice creates value because it is important to team sports customers to exhibit who they
are and who they are not. This finding is in line with previous research that acknowledges
a desire for both affiliation and distinction among team sports customers (Crawford,
2004; Holt, 1995; Richardson & Turley, 2006; Woratschek et al., 2007).
Our data reveal that the practice of associating and dissociating is a multifaceted
phenomenon, which can be observed among different spectator segments. For example,
spectators demonstrate who they are and associate with desired groups by selecting seats
in the ‘right’ section of the stadium, by participating in discussions with ‘authentic fans’
in an independent online forum, by using fan busses to away games instead of traveling
independently, or by wearing team merchandise in a sports bar. Woratschek and
Durchholz (2012b) contend that dissociative spectator groups – i.e. groups with which
one does not wish to be associated – can reduce value for other customers. This can be
the case, for instance, when hooligans show violent behavior; however, our data show
that the existence of dissociative spectator groups is often also the base for customer-
Table 1. Customer-to-customer value co-creation practices.
Examples of practices across categories of co-creation platforms
Joint sphere Customer sphere
Practice Description Physical Virtual Physical Virtual

Associating/dissociating Customers demonstrate Stand in the Become a member in a Wearing team Become a member in an
to themselves and others bleacher and avoid specific subgroup in the merchandise in a general independent Facebook
(1) their belonging to a the family seats to team’s official online fan sports bar to demonstrate group for ‘authentic
group of spectators that associate with forum to demonstrate which team one wants to fans’ of the team
they identify with likeminded others one’s association with be associated with
(= associating) and/or (2) and dissociate from particular spectator
their distinctiveness from occasional segments
particular groups of other supporters
supporters whose
behavior and/or status is
denigrated
European Sport Management Quarterly

(= dissociating)
Engaging and sharing Customers actively Share ideas on new Provide a detailed Share past team sport- Send text messages to
involve other supporters choreography in a description and post related experiences with friends at home during a
in their past, current, and team-organized pictures of last colleagues at work and ride to an away game in
future consumption meeting of different weekend’s away game try to convince them to an independent fan bus
experiences supporters clubs on the team’s Facebook go to the next game to provide a ‘live
page for those supporters together coverage’ of the
who couldn’t attend atmosphere in the bus
Competing Customers engage in Attempt to shout Provide video footage of Engaging in a fan Compete with other
contests with other louder and longer choreography of one’s support contest with the users of an independent
groups of team sports than other bleachers supporter club at the last supporters of the online fan forum for the
customers in the stadium away game in the team’s opponent team in the highest number of views
official fan forum to streets before or after a of one’s posts
demonstrate the superior game (e.g. shout louder
creativity of the club
35
36
Table 1 (Continued)
S. Uhrich
Examples of practices across categories of co-creation platforms
Joint sphere Customer sphere
Practice Description Physical Virtual Physical Virtual

or longer, lavish
choreography)
Intensifying Customers create Celebrate with the Post sneering comments Practice special Discuss an upcoming
friendship or rivalry with supporters of a team on the team’s official choreography that derby with other fans in
supporters of opponent with which they Facebook page regarding derogates the archrival a specific thread in an
teams to increase have a friendship at last weekend’s loss of an and its fans at the independent online fan
excitement or to enhance the stadium archrival upcoming derby forum
the meaning of specific
activities
Exchanging Customers exchange Introduce new Open a thread to Introduce a friend who Share rumors about the
unique information with choreography to communicate established has never attended an possible signing of a
other customers that is other supporters ‘rules’ of fan behavior away game to the new player via general
not available from other during a trip to an (e.g. how to engage in activities and unwritten social media channels
sources, such as the away game on an shouts or choreography) laws for attending an
media or the team official fan bus in the team’s official fan opponent’s live venue
forum
to-customer value co-creation. For example, at the stadium, die-hard fans stand in the
bleacher and avoid the family seats to associate with likeminded others and dissociate
from occasional supporters. Thus, it is the presence of fair-weather fans that provides die-
hard fans with the opportunity to show who they are not and therefore reinforce their
social identity. Similarly, occasional supporters dissociate from die-hard fans by avoiding
fan trains to reach the stadium because they try not to be associated with fans who often
carry the image of being dull or violent. Our informant Andre dissociates from both die-
hard fans and occasional supporters by choosing a very specific section in the stadium.
The following comments demonstrate his subtle form of dissociation:
We are fans... not like those people in the family seats... we stand in the bleachers where all
the Ultras are but we are not right in the middle of them but rather on the side where the
frenzy is not as intense as among these idiots... we don’t want to get down to the intellectual
level of these blockheads. (Andre)
Customers’ activities can specifically serve to associate or dissociate; however, in many

cases, associating behavior directed at desired groups automatically results in dissociation
from an undesired group and vice versa. Our informant Stephen describes how he
terminated his membership of the official online fan forum of his favorite team and
switched to a smaller independent fan forum. Stephen considered this step as necessary
both to dissociate from an increasing number of occasional members in the official forum
whose posts are of low quality and to associate with more experienced and competent
supporters in the independent forum:
Over the years, more and more people signed up for the official forum... the quality of the
comments got worse and worse and the discussions were silly... many people signed up to
post one comment and never got back to the forum or used different pseudonyms.. that was
not the kind of forum I like anymore because there were too few people who posted high-
quality comments... I switched to a smaller independent forum with people like me... who
appreciate more profound comments and discussions. (Stephen)
Importantly, dissociation from others is often accompanied by direct or indirect

appreciation of these others. Thus, customers can be aware of the fact that groups of
other customers from whom they dissociate are important contributors to their
perceptions of value. This is consistent with Thomas, Price, and Schau’s (2013) recent
finding that heterogeneity within consumer communities can contribute to community
continuity when the heterogeneous actors are dependent on each other. In team sports,
heterogeneous customer groups coexist and contribute to each other’s value perception.
For example, supporters of one team typically dissociate from the opponent fans. Our
data show that many customers acknowledge that these opponent fans enhance their
perception of value because dissociating activities like mocking add to the enjoyment of
consumption, be they in a stadium, at a public viewing site, in an online fan forum, in a
pub, or on other co-creation platforms. This is reflected in the comment by Nathan, who
is generally averse to opponent fans but recognizes their contribution to the creation of
value:
Of course I try to show that I am not one of them... we make fun of them and mock them...
but there is nothing worse than a game without opposing fans... logically opposing fans are
really important and I respect them. (Nathan)
38 S. Uhrich
To summarize, associating and dissociating serves to show who one wants to be

associated with and who one does not wish to be associated with. This practice creates
value by providing opportunities to exhibit one’s desired social category.
Engaging and sharing

The practice of engaging and sharing aims at involving other customers in one’s own
past, present, or future consumption experiences. Team sports customers derive value
from this practice because they desire interactions with others who are able to appreciate,
understand, and empathize with their team sports-related consumption experiences. There
is a wide consensus that team sports constitute a group consumption setting, i.e. the
presence of other customers is generally desired and customers prefer going to a game
with friends or family instead of going alone (Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003).
However, physically sharing the stadium experience is only one aspect of team sports
customers’ efforts to involve others. One example of engaging and sharing is the
provision of detailed descriptions of an away game in an online discussion forum. This is
a frequent activity of team sports customers that aims to share the experience of an away
game with other supporters of one’s own team who could not go to the game. By using
their mobile devices, supporters provide ‘live coverage’ of the bus ride, the atmosphere in
the stadium, or the game action. After returning home, the fans may also report on
interactions with opposing fans or their performance at the opponent’s ground and post
photographs or short pieces of video from the trip.
The following comments by our informant Christoph reflect the co-creation practice
of engaging and sharing in the customer sphere. When Christoph has no opportunity to
attend the live venue or watch the game with others at a pub, he watches the games of his
favorite team on TV at home. While watching the game, Christoph constantly involves
other known or unknown supporters over the phone or social media platforms:
I call a friend to chat about a missed opportunity, an unjustified penalty shot or a goal... we
share our happiness or grieve together... after every big opportunity [to score a goal] I send a
text message to friends... did you see this? Did you see that?... I continuously read others’
comments on Facebook or in the fan forum.. because it’s just nice to see that other fans are
out there and do the same as you... you can see what a mass of people that I don’t know think
about the situation... through the forum you almost feel like watching together with them.
(Christoph)
Engaging and sharing do not always relate to present or past consumption experiences
but can also be directed toward future consumption episodes. One example is a user of an
online discussion forum that involves others in his or her thoughts and speculations about
the upcoming game or the possible signing of a new player by posting opinions or
opening a new thread.
Hellen moved away from the town where her favorite team is located and started
several activities to engage other supporters of her team in the new town:
I founded a fan club for Dresden fans in Hamburg... this allowed me to get in touch with
other fans far away from Dresden... I also opened a thread in the forum ‘Dresden fans in
Hamburg’... the forum connected me to many other supporters... I didn’t have to travel to
games by myself anymore. (Hellen)
In sum, sharing one’s past, present, or future consumption experiences with informed
others is an important customer-to-customer value co-creation practice in team sports.
Importantly, many activities that serve to engage others and share one’s consumption
experiences occur on platforms beyond the live venue.
Competing
The third co-creation practice that emerged from the data is labeled competing. This
practice describes team sports customers’ engagement in contests with other groups of
customers. The activities, performances, and conversations associated with this practice
create value because customers can demonstrate their authenticity, their creativity, and
particularly their superiority over other groups of customers. The practice of competing is
consistent with Kelley and Tian’s (2004) finding that there are various forms of contests
in the sports customers’ minds that are associated with the actual competition between
teams. Our empirical data reveal that different groups of customers compete against
others on several platforms. For example, in the joint sphere, supporters of one team
compete against other supporters of the same team at the live venue to be the most
supportive stand in the stadium. This may involve attempts to shout louder or longer than
the other end. In addition, supporter groups may prepare lavish choreography to
demonstrate that they are the most authentic fans of the team. As part of this practice,
customers frequently honor the performance of the opposing party. For example, groups
of spectators applaud each other for their creative terrace songs or choreography at the
live venue or acknowledge the fair behavior of the away fans at the last game.
Away games and other encounters with fans of opposing teams offer important
opportunities for the practice of competing because competing and winning over
opposing fans is particularly enjoyable and meaningful to team sports customers.
Sometimes the competition with the opponent’s fans starts several days prior to the
game in online discussion forums. The teams’ supporters post comments in the other
team’s online fan forum and compete, for instance, for the most provocative or funniest
post or the post with the most responses. On the match day, such activities extend to
physical platforms in and around the opponent’s live venue. Andre’s and Hellen’s
comments illustrate the practice of competing at the opponent’s stadium:
And then we yell at them ‘we’ve brought something for you: hate, hate, hate’ and they
respond with their chants... that is the fun about it, an open competition, a fight on the stands
and it is all about who is better, who performs the better choreography, who shouts louder,
who is more supportive. That really is the important thing. (Hellen)
Sometimes we, the away fans, make more noise than the home supporters. It’s a pretty good
feeling if 1,500 away fans create more atmosphere than 20,000 home fans. (Andre)
The practice of competing is also common among friends who support different teams.
Luis describes his appreciation of good-natured banter coming from his friends:
When my team is losing my friends send me text messages and tease me... after a match day
those of my friends whose favorite teams have won usually banter those whose teams have
lost... it’s a fun part of almost every match day. (Luis)
40 S. Uhrich
Engaging in competitions with other customers creates value as it provides team sports
customers with opportunities to experience achievement beyond the vicarious achieve-
ment felt after seeing a victory of their favorite team in the actual athletic competition.
Intensifying
The customer-to-customer value co-creation practice of intensifying describes the
development and execution of rivalries or friendships with the supporters of other teams.
This practice creates value because fan friendships and fan rivalries intensify the
enjoyment of several team sports-related activities, such as attending live games, chatting
in online fan forums, or watching games in a pub. Note that in this context, rivalry does
not refer to the usual animosity between fans of opposing teams; rather, it refers to a
special, very intense form of rivalry that is often driven by the geographical proximity of
two teams and typically develops over a long period of time. Examples of such rivalries
in European football leagues include those between Arsenal and Tottenham in England,
between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain, and between Schalke 04 and Borussia
Dortmund in Germany. By contrast, the supporters of two opposing teams can also have
friendly relations. This seemingly contradictory phenomenon is another facet of the value
co-creation practice of intensifying. Although both practices seem similar, the practice of
intensifying must be distinguished from the practice of associating and dissociating.
While associating and dissociating helps sports customers to reinforce their desired social
identity by showing who they are and who they are not, the practice of intensifying adds
meaning to or strengthens the excitement of many value-creating consumption activities
in team sports. For example, a derby game – i.e. a fixture between two local rivals –
creates a more heated atmosphere in the stadium because the typical interactions between
the opponent supporters are particularly intense during such games.
The practice of intensifying through fan rivalries and fan friendships includes several
practical activities, performances, and conversations in both the customer sphere and the
joint sphere. For example, on virtual platforms, rival teams are a frequent discussion topic
in private online chats (customer sphere) or the official fan forum (joint sphere). Weeks
before and after the match against a rival, supporters are excited and discuss different
aspects related to what is often seen as the most important match of the season. At the
live venue, supporters may perform special choreography that was developed to mock the
rival fans or join in each other’s songs with the supporters of a team with which they have
a friendship. In addition, the Schadenfreude of fans is particularly intense when the rival
team loses because a defeat of the rival is as much a reason to celebrate as a victory of the
own team. A common characteristic of such activities is that they intensify the emotional
and cognitive consequences of team sports consumption and therefore create additional
value.
When our informants talked about fan rivalries and described their interactions and
relationships with supporters of the rival team, their comments were mainly characterized
by insults and hostility. However, it is quite obvious that this aversion to the rival fans is
desired and adds to the enjoyment of team sports consumption. Our informant Hans, a
supporter of Germany’s first-division football club Borussia Dortmund, even expressly
states that the relegation of archrival Schalke 04 would reduce the enjoyment of being a
team sports customer:
I look forward to every derby [between Dortmund and Schalke]; it would be the worst thing
that could happen if Schalke got relegated to the second division because we wouldn’t have
the derbies anymore... a relegation of Schalke would be a catastrophe much worse than a
relegation of Mainz... Mainz is substitutable, Schalke is unique. (Hans)
The practice of intensifying highlights that the value co-creation of heterogeneous actors
is not limited to the supporters of one team but occurs beyond team boundaries. What
Thomas et al. (2013) call ‘resource dependence between heterogeneous actors’ also exists
among the supporters of opponent teams because the value co-creation practice of
intensifying is based on interactions of customers of different teams.
Exchanging
The practice of exchanging describes the exchange of unique information among team
sports customers. Both providing and receiving unique information – i.e. information that is
unavailable from other sources, such as the media or the team’s official communication –
can contribute to customers’ value perceptions. Another facet of this practice is that
customers often pass on messages from firms (e.g. their team or the media) to other
customers and during this transmission idiosyncratic and creative elements are added to the
message. This is in line with Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki, and Wilner’s (2010) findings
that when customers transfer firm messages to other customers they use different
communication strategies that alter the messages and their attendant meanings in ways
that are attuned to the other customers’ desires and expectations. For example, customers
may evaluate or explain firms’ messages to other customers and thus create additional
value. Many team sports customers are highly involved in topics surrounding their favorite
team or team sports in general. High levels of involvement with a particular topic typically
drive a person’s desire to acquire information about that topic (Celsi & Olson, 1988). Team
sports customers often seek unique information that is related to their consumption
activities from other customers. One example of the practice of exchanging is that team
sports customers receive specific information about a particular game from the perspective
of other customers, a perspective that complements the objective reports available in the
media. This is reflected in Ian’s and Alex’ comments. Ian describes how he receives text
messages from a friend who is at the live venue while he is at home:
Of course I can look up the score on the Internet... but that’s not what I’m after, it’s a neutral
and objective report from some journalist but that’s totally different compared to the report of
another fan, a likeminded person who sends a message to me because you get more detailed
information, for example, if they just missed a big opportunity, or what the fans sing, what
the atmosphere is like... you don’t hear anything about these kinds of things through those
live score webpages. (Ian)
Similarly, Alex often follows matches on the radio and receives additional information
from other customers who watch the match on TV:
When I follow a game on the radio or a live score website, I usually read others’ comments
in the [online] fan forum. There are many people who watch the game on TV or are at the
stadium and post comments in the forum... I catch up on this additional information because
the official reports are usually two-liners and it’s interesting to get more details on what
caused a goal or a disputable situation... it’s much more informative and comprehensive, the
facts are on the Internet but the other fans’ comments are more comprehensive. (Alex)
42 S. Uhrich
Virtual environments, such as online fan forums or chat rooms, are important platforms
for the value co-creation practice of exchanging because information from the rumor mill
can be easily shared with many other fans. Individual fans may have insider information,
for instance, about the possible signing of a new player or the imminent submission of the
team manager and share this information with others in a discussion forum.
Information received from other customers can also relate to consumer habits and
norms. For example, our informant Markus describes how he introduced a friend who had
never attended an away game to the activities and unwritten laws for attending an
opponent’s live venue. This introduction took place during travel to the friend’s first visit
of an away game in a shared rental car and is therefore an example of the practice of
exchanging in the customer sphere:
We hired a van because it was six of us... for one of my friends it was the first time ever to go
to an away game. Of course you need to tell her what it’s going to be like and what she has to
do once we get there... it’s pretty much a set course of action, the newbies need to know
because it’s quite different compared to home games. (Markus)
To summarize, team sports customers derive value from the exchange of unique
information with other customers. Like the other four co-creation practices, the practice
of exchanging occurs on several platforms.
Discussion
Theoretical implications
Drawing on the service-dominant logic and its basic premise that the customer is always a
co-creator of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2008), this research examines one specific form of
value co-creation, i.e. the customer’s co-creation of value with other customers. Our study
focuses on the context of team sports, a context in which customer-to-customer value
co-creation is particularly important (Woratschek et al., 2014). The findings of numerous
past studies indicate that team sports customers derive value from interactions with other
customers both during the primary service encounter (i.e. at the live venue) and on
various other platforms. However, a comprehensive analysis of value co-creation among
team sports customers across multiple platforms is missing.
This study contributes to the literature in several important ways. Our research
provides the first systematic exploration of the platforms on which customer-to-customer
value co-creation takes place in the team sports industry. Based on the findings from a
qualitative empirical study, we develop a typology of customer-to-customer value
co-creation platforms using the two dimensions value co-creation spheres (customer
sphere vs. joint sphere) and type of value co-creation platform (physical platforms vs.
virtual platforms). This typology allows us to classify a plethora of potential co-creation
platforms and therefore also helps to synthesize prior studies that each focus on an
individual platform. The typology is an important first step toward a comprehensive
theoretical classification of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms in team
sports.
In addition to identifying where team sports customers co-create value with one
another, we explore co-creation practices across multiple interaction platforms. Our
empirical study reveals five customer-to-customer value co-creation practices that
describe what team sports customers actually do when they co-create value with other
customers: (1) associating and dissociating, (2) engaging and sharing, (3) competing,
(4) intensifying, and (5) exchanging. The identification of these practices provides an
insight into the specific meaning of customer-to-customer interactions and how different
practical activities, performances, and conversations contribute to a customer’s perception
of value. Thus, this study adds to our understanding of how team sports customers
co-create value with other customers. In this regard, the study also addresses calls in the
literature to examine the modalities of social interactions during team sport consumption
(Madrigal & Dalakas, 2008). Importantly, the co-creation practices identified in our study
occur across all four categories of co-creation platforms that are defined by our typology.
Thus, our research provides a more holistic analysis of value co-creation and extends the
previous literature that focused mainly on customer-to-customer value co-creation at the
live venue.
In the context of team sports, this study supports several emerging perspectives in
marketing research. First, a team sports customer determines value in use through
interactive practices in which the customer integrates resources with other actors in the
market. Second, other customers are important actors with which a team sports customer
co-creates value. Third, our findings provide empirical support for the notion that a
customer’s perception of value is shaped by several consumption experiences, not only
during but also prior to and after the live sporting event. Fourth, sports firms do not
always participate in the creation of value because customer-to-customer value co-
creation can completely elude the firm’s control.
On a broader level, the investigation into team sports customers’ value co-creation
with other customers also contributes to our knowledge about the determinants of the
firm–customer relationship. Previous research indicates that even the relationship
between sports fans and their favorite team – a relationship that is usually considered
as a very strong bond – often lacks relational characteristics such as intimacy, trust, and
commitment (Harris & Ogbonna, 2008). Thus, building strong relational ties among
customers may be a more realistic goal, at least in spectator segments that do not feel
highly committed to the team. Strong relationships among customers of a sports team can
replace or supplement relationships between customers and the team and thus contribute
to customer loyalty.
Limitations and future research

This study is one of the first attempts to advance our knowledge of value co-creation
among team sports customers. There are a number of avenues for future research
endeavors that have the potential to extend the findings of this research. Our study
focused on customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms and practices in the team
sports industry. However, as customer-to-customer interactions are not always positive,
customers can also diminish value for other customers (Plé & Cáceres, 2010). Thus, an
integrative study that examines both the co-creation and the co-destruction of value
through interactive practices with other customers would provide additional insights into
how team sports customers influence each other’s value perceptions.
Our empirical study used mainly theoretical sampling to focus on specific value
co-creation platforms and practices. A valuable extension of this approach would be to
investigate how customer-to-customer value co-creation varies across different spectator
segments. It may be possible that the relative contribution of customer-to-customer
interactions to a customer’s perception of value compared with other determinants of
44 S. Uhrich
value differs among spectator segments. Future research could also explore in more detail
the specific benefits that customers derive from value co-creation with other customers.
The qualitative methodology used in this study was deemed appropriate to reach our
research goals. Future studies should develop a measurement instrument that provides
quantitative access to customer-to-customer value co-creation in team sports. This is an
important prerequisite for examining the antecedents and consequences of value
co-creation among customers. For example, it would be interesting to investigate how
team sports customers’ perception of value is related to important variables such as team
loyalty or team identification. A quantitative analysis might also reveal the relative impact
of different co-creation platforms and practices on the customer’s individual determina-
tion of value. The findings of such research would be useful for team sports managers
because they indicate which co-creation practices should be at the center of managerial
activities that aim to channel value co-creation in ways desired by the firm.
Another promising area for future research is to develop strategies for team sports
firms to manage customer-to-customer value co-creation. Such research could be
centered, for instance, on individual value co-creation platforms, such as online fan
forums or team-operated sports bars, and identify opportunities for firms to influence
customer-to-customer co-creation practices. Studies could also examine customers’
acceptance of managerial attempts to influence their interactions with other customers.
Managerial implications
In addition to its theoretical importance, this study has some important implications for
team sports management. The broadest managerial implication of our work is that
focusing on their own resources and activities is an insufficient strategy for sports teams
to increase the value perceptions of their customers. The results of this study confirm the
view that a customer’s perception of value is shaped not only by interactions with the
firm but also by interactions with other customers. It is important that team sports firms
develop a detailed understanding of customer-to-customer value co-creation because
customer benefit – including that derived from interactive practices with other customers
– is likely to eventually translate into benefit for the firm (e.g. revenues, profits, referrals)
(Payne et al., 2008). We therefore argue that managerial actions that facilitate this form of
value co-creation may be a source of competitive edge for team sports firms. In this study,
we identify where and how team sports customers co-create value with one another and
thus provide a useful basis on which to develop customer-to-customer value co-creation
management.
Importantly, customer-to-customer value co-creation often occurs on platforms that
completely elude the firm’s control. This poses challenges for team sports firms in
managing this form of value co-creation. Our typology of value co-creation platforms
provides managers with a general overview of where team sports customers co-create
value with one another. Specific strategies can be defined for each of the four categories
of the typology. Customer-to-customer value co-creation in the joint sphere offers
comparatively wide opportunities for managerial actions because the firm is involved in
the co-creation among customers. Thus, managerial action could focus on moving the
boundaries of the joint sphere by creating platforms that are now solely in the customer
sphere (cf. Grönroos & Voima, 2013). For example, sports teams that up to now have not
operated an online fan forum, have not organized busses to away games, and have not
provided places for their supporters to prepare and practice choreography could create
such platforms in order to transfer these platforms from the customer sphere
(i.e. independent forums, independent travel, independent practicing of choreography)
to the joint sphere. This would enhance the opportunities for the firm to control and
channel value co-creation among customers. However, moving platforms from the
customer sphere to the joint sphere might affect customers’ perceptions of value. This
issue is subject to future research. In addition, regarding the type of value co-creation
platform, virtual platforms offer additional approaches to manage customer-to-customer
value co-creation compared with physical platforms. For example, customer value
co-creation with other customers on virtual platforms in the joint sphere (e.g. a
team-operated online fan forum) can be managed by establishing governance mechanisms
such as controlling the access to the forum, defining behavioral rules for the forum users,
and enforcing these rules through forum administrators. However, managerial action is
not limited to virtual platforms in the joint sphere. In the case of virtual platforms in the
customer sphere (e.g. an independent online fan forum), team sports firms can observe
and analyze customer-to-customer co-creation.
The co-creation practices identified in our study are also useful for team sports firms
because they indicate how customer co-creates value with one another. Team sports
managers can use these findings to shape customer-to-customer value co-creation
platforms in the joint sphere in ways that facilitate the execution of the value co-creation
practices. For example, at the live venue, the noise emanating from different stands could
be measured and displayed using electronic devices to promote the practice of competing.
In online fan forums, the practice of associating and dissociating may be facilitated by
introducing a member status system that categorizes forum users depending on variables
such as membership length, posting frequency, or ratings of other users. Finally, the
practice of engaging and sharing could be supported by awarding the best pictures or the
best video footage that supporters make available for other supporters on the team’s
Facebook page.
References
BBL. (2013). Stats. Retrieved August 8, 2013, from http://www.beko-bbl.de/dates-und-results/stats/
teams/zuschauerzahlen.html
Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-
production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.1.14.18592
Brown, A. (2008). Our club, our rules: Fan communities at FC United of Manchester. Soccer &
Society, 9, 346–358. doi:10.1080/14660970802008967
Brown, A., Crabbe, T., & Mellor, G. (2008). Introduction: Football and community – Practical and
theoretical considerations. Soccer & Society, 9, 303–312. doi:10.1080/14660970802008934
Byon, K. K., Zhang, J. J., & Baker, T. A. (2013). Impact of core and peripheral service quality on
consumption behavior of professional team sport spectators as mediated by perceived value.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 13, 232–263. doi:10.1080/16184742.2013.767278
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension
processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210–224. doi:10.1086/209158
Charleston, S. (2008). Determinants of home atmosphere in English football: A committed
supporter perspective. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 31, 312–328.
Charleston, S. (2009). The English football ground as a representation of home. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29, 144–150. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.002
Crabbe, T. (2008). Fishing for community: England fans at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Soccer &
Society, 9, 428–438. doi:10.1080/14660970802009056
Crawford, G. (2004). Consuming sport:Fans, sport and culture. London: Routledge.
Deighton, J., & Kornfeld, L. (2009). Interactivity’s unanticipated consequences for marketers and
marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 4–10. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.001
46 S. Uhrich
DEL. (2013). Statistiken. Retrieved August 8, 2013, from http://www.del.org/de/statistiken /zuschauer/

playoffs-12/13/page/925-1350—.html
Deloitte. (2012). Annual review of football finance. Manchester: Sports Business Group, Deloitte.
Devasagayam, R., & Buff, C. L. (2008). A multidimensional conceptualization of brand
community: An empirical investigation. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 20–29.
Dixon, K. (2011). A ‘third way’ for football fandom research: Anthony Giddens and structuration
theory. Soccer & Society, 12, 279–298. doi:10.1080/14660970.2011.548363
Flint, D. J. (2006). Innovation, symbolic interaction and customer valuing: Thoughts stemming
from a service-dominant logic of marketing. Marketing Theory, 6, 349–362. doi:10.1177/
1470593106066796
Gerrard, B. (2001). A new approach to measuring player and team quality in professional team
sports. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1, 219–234. doi:10.1080/16184740108721898
Gibbons, T., & Dixon, K. (2010). ‘Surf’s up!’: A call to take English soccer fan interactions on the
Internet more seriously. Soccer & Society, 11, 599–613. doi:10.1080/14660970.2010.497359
Godes, D., Mayzlin, D., Chen, Y., Das, S., Dellarocas, C., Pfeiffer, B., … Verlegh, P. (2005). The
firm’s management of social interactions. Marketing Letters, 16, 415–428.
Grant, N., Heere, B., & Dickson, G. (2011). New sport teams and the development of brand
community. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11(1), 35–54. doi:10.1080/16184742.2010.
537364
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Criticial service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-
creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 133–150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-
0308-3.
Gummerus, J. (2013). Value creation processes and value outcomes in marketing theory: Strangers
or siblings? Marketing Theory, 13(1), 19–46. doi:10.1177/1470593112467267
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2008). The dynamics underlying service firm–customer relationships.
Journal of Service Research, 10, 382–399. doi:10.1177/1094670508314711
HBL. (2013). Saisonstatistik. Retrieved August 8, 2013, from http://www.dkb-handball-bundesliga.
de/handball/statistik.php?bereich = 2&liga = 01&menuid = 3&saison = 13&topmenu = 61
Healy, J. C., & McDonagh, P. (2013). Consumer roles in brand culture and value co-creation in
virtual communities. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1528–1540. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.
2012.09.014.
Heere, B., & James, J. D. (2007). Sports teams and their communities: Examining the influence of
external group identities on team identity. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 319–337.
Heinonen, H. (2002). Finnish soccer supporters away from home: A case study of Finnish national
team fans at a World Cup qualifying match in Liverpool, England. Soccer & Society, 3(3), 26–50.
doi:10.1080/714004891
Heisley, D. D., & Levy, S. J. (1991). Autodriving: A photoelicitation technique. Journal of
Consumer Research, 18, 257–272. doi:10.1086/209258
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., &
Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service
Research, 13, 311–330. doi:10.1177/1094670510375460
Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of
Consumer Research, 22(1), 1–16. doi:10.1086/209431
Howat, G., & Assaker, G. (2013). The hierarchical effects of perceived quality on perceived value,
satisfaction, and loyalty: Empirical results from public, outdoor aquatic centres in Australia.
Sport Management Review, 16, 268–284. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2012.10.001
Hur, Y., Ko, Y., & Valacich, J. (2007). Motivation and concerns for online sport consumption.
Journal of Sport Management, 21, 521–539.
James, J. D., & Ross, S. D. (2004). Comparing sport consumer motivations across multiple sports.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(1), 17–25.
Kelley, S. W., & Tian, K. (2004). Fanatical consumption: An investigation of the behavior of sports
fans through textual data. In L. R. Kahle & C. Riley (Eds.), Sports marketing and the psychology
of marketing communication (pp. 27–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Kelley, S. W., & Turley, L. W. (2001). Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at sporting
events. Journal of Business Research, 54, 161–166. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00084-3
Kerr, A. K., & Emery, P. R. (2011). Foreign fandom and the Liverpool FC: A cyber-mediated
romance. Soccer & Society, 12, 880–896. doi:10.1080/14660970.2011.609686
Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kunkel, T. (2010). The attractiveness of national and
international football leagues: Perspectives of fans of ‘Star Clubs’ and ‘Underdogs’. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 10, 127–163. doi:10.1080/16184740903563406
Kolbe, R. H., & James, J. D. (2000). An identification and examination of influences that shape the
creation of a professional team fan. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship,
2(1), 23–37.
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography. Doing ethnographic research online. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked narratives:
Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74,
71–89.
Kytö, M. (2011). We are the rebellious voice of the terraces, we are ÇarşI’: Constructing a football
supporter group through sound. Soccer & Society, 12(1), 77–93. doi:10.1080/14660970.2011.
530474
Lauss, G., & Szigetvari, A. (2010). Governing by fun: EURO 2008 and the appealing power of fan
zones. Soccer & Society, 11, 737–747. doi:10.1080/14660970.2010.510731
Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in
business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39, 846–869. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0219-0
Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bugel, M. S., de Ruyter, K., Götz, O., Risselada, H., & Stephen, A. T. (2010).
Customer-to-customer interactions: Broadening the scope of word of mouth research. Journal of
Service Research, 13, 267–282. doi:10.1177/1094670510375600
Lury, C. (2004). Brands: The logos of the global economy. London: Routledge.
Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting event
attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 205–227.
Madrigal, R., & Dalakas, V. (2008). Consumer psychology of sport: More than just a game. In C. P.
Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 857–876),
New York, NY: Taylor and Francis/Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mann, L. (1989). Sports crowds and the collective behavior perspective. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.),
Sport, games, and play (pp. 299–332). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & van Kasteren, J. (2012).
Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service Research, 15, 370–389.
doi:10.1177/1094670512442806
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Melnick, M. J. (1993). Searching for sociability in the stands: A theory of sports spectating. Journal
of Sport Management, 7(1), 44–60.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Pimentel, R. W., & Reynolds, K. E. (2004). A model for consumer devotion: Affective commitment
with proactive sustaining behaviors. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 5, 1–45.
Plé, L., & Cáceres, R. C. (2010). Not always co-creation: Introducing interactional co-destruction of
value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 430–437. doi:10.1108/
08876041011072546
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business
Review, 78, 79–87.
Richardson, B., & Turley, D. (2006). Support your local team: Resistance, subculture, and the desire
for distinction. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 175–180.
Rowe, D., Ruddock, A., & Hutchins, B. (2010). Cultures of complaint online fan message boards
and networked digital media sport communities. Convergence: The International Journal of
Research into New Media Technologies, 16, 298–315. doi:10.1177/1354856510367622
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value.
Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
Seo, W.-J., & Green, B. C. (2008). Development of the motivation scale for sport online
consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 22(1), 82–109.
Stone, C. (2007). The role of football in everyday life. Soccer & Society, 8, 169–184. doi:10.1080/
14660970701224319
Tapp, A. (2004). The loyalty of football fans: We’ll support you evermore. Database Marketing &
Customer Strategy Management, 11, 203–215. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dbm.3240221
48 S. Uhrich
Thomas, T. C., Price, L. L., & Schau, H. J. (2013). When differences unite: Resource dependence in
heterogeneous consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1010–1033.
doi:10.1086/666616.
Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2003). Social-servicescape conceptual model. Marketing
Theory, 3, 447–475. doi:10.1177/1470593103040785
Trail, G. T., Fink, J. S., & Anderson, D. F. (2003). Sport spectator consumption behavior. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 12(1), 8–17.
Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the
scale’s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.
Uhrich, S., & Benkenstein, M. (2010). Sport stadium atmosphere: Formative and reflective
indicators for operationalizing the construct. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 211–237.
Uhrich, S., & Benkenstein, M. (2012). Physical and social atmospherics effects in hedonic
service consumption: Customers’ roles at sporting events. The Service Industries Journal, 32,
1741–1757. doi:10.1080/02642069.2011.556190
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010).
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of
Service Research, 13, 253–266. doi:10.1177/1094670510375599
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A.
(2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies.
Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66–76. doi:10.1108/08876049410065624
Wakefield, K., Blodgett, J. G., & Sloan, H. J. (1996). Measurement and management of the
sportscape. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 15–31.
Wakefield, K., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on
spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 153–172.
Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 19, 377–396. doi:10.1177/019372395019004004
Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Peace, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology
and social impact of spectators. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wann, D. L., & Wilson, A. M. (1999). Variables associated with sport fans’ enjoyment of athletic
events. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 419–422. doi:10.2466/pms.1999.89.2.419
Weed, M. (2008). Exploring the sport spectator experience: Virtual football spectatorship in the
pub. Soccer & Society, 9, 189–197. doi:10.1080/14660970701811057
Westerbeek, H. M., & Shilbury, D. (1999). Increasing the focus on “place” in the marketing mix for
facility dependent sport services. Sport Management Review, 2(1), 1–23. doi:10.1016/S1441-
3523(99)70087-2
Woratschek, H., & Durchholz, C. (2012a). Facilitators and barriers in co-creation of value through
other customers – Evidence in sports. Business Discussion Paper Series No. 03–12, University of
Bayreuth.
Woratschek, H., & Durchholz, C. (2012b). Co-creation of value by other customers – Evidence in
sports. Business Discussion Paper Series No. 04–12, University of Bayreuth.
Woratschek, H., Horbel, C., & Popp, B. (2014). The sport value framework – A new fundamental
logic for analyses in sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(1), 6–24.
Woratschek, H., Horbel, C., Popp, B., & Roth, S. (2007). A videographic analysis of “weird guys”:
What do relationships mean to football fans? Business Discussion Paper Series No. 05–07,
University of Bayreuth.
Yoshida, M., & James, J. D. (2010). Customer satisfaction with game and service experiences:
Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 338–361.
Appendix 1. Overview of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms

identified in the study
Note: Activities and/or temporal limits are specified in parenthesis where applicable.
Customer sphere, physical

Tram, bus, private car, plane (travel to stadium)
Mall (match day, before and after the game)
Streets around the stadium (match day, before and after the game)
Resting area on highway (match day, before and after the game)
Train station (match day, before and after the game)
Shuttle bus (travel to stadium from train station)
At home (watching a game on TV with friends/following a game on the radio with friends)
General pub (attending a live screening of a game together with known and/or unknown others)
General sports bar
Open-air live screening
Park (match day, before and after the game; independent practicing of choreography)
At work (talking with others about team sport-related topics)
Independent supporters’ club
Demonstrations
Customer sphere, virtual

Private chat room (talking with others about team sport-related topics)
Independent online fan forum related to the team
Independent online fan forum related to the league in general
Private accounts of social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Independent blogs (team sport-related topics)
Phone (exchanging text messages before, during, and after the game)
Joint sphere, physical

Inside the stadium (stands, bleachers, corporate boxes, family stand, aisles)
Team’s training ground (watching training with known and/or unknown others)
Food stall inside the stadium
Around the stadium (match day, before and after the game)
Queues at the stadium (match day, before and after the game)
Area around the stadium (match day, before and after the game)
Team-operated bus (travel to an away game)
Team-operated sports bar
Official supporters’ club meeting
General meeting of team members
Team-organized party to celebrate championship/promotion
Joint sphere, virtual

Team-operated online fan forum
Team’s social media platforms (e.g. Facebook page)

Exploring Customer To Customer Value Co Creation Platforms and Practices in Team Sports

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Customer To Customer Value Co Creation Platforms and Practices in Team Sports

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Sport Management Quarterly

ISSN: 1618-4742 (Print) 1746-031X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resm20

Exploring customer-to-customer value co-creation

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.865248

Published online: 17 Feb 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3780

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 38 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Exploring customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms and

Research question: According to an increasingly acknowledged view, customers co-

Customer-to-customer value co-creation in team sports

Customer-to-customer value co-creation beyond the live venue

Method and data collection

to-customer value co-creation practices across multiple platforms by investigating the

traditional interrogative techniques. We asked the participants to show and comment on

Analysis and findings

Typology of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms

Type of value co-creation platform

Figure 1. Typology of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms in team sports.

Customer-to-customer value co-creation practices

Associating and dissociating

Examples of practices across categories of co-creation platforms

Joint sphere Customer sphere

Practice Description Physical Virtual Physical Virtual

European Sport Management Quarterly

Joint sphere Customer sphere

Practice Description Physical Virtual Physical Virtual

Customers’ activities can specifically serve to associate or dissociate; however, in many

Importantly, dissociation from others is often accompanied by direct or indirect

To summarize, associating and dissociating serves to show who one wants to be

Engaging and sharing

Limitations and future research

DEL. (2013). Statistiken. Retrieved August 8, 2013, from http://www.del.org/de/statistiken /zuschauer/

Appendix 1. Overview of customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms

Customer sphere, physical

Customer sphere, virtual

Joint sphere, physical

Joint sphere, virtual

You might also like