Summary
What do you agree with? – 2 points o What you not agree with? – 2 points o What would you change – 2 points
Why would you make the change? – 2 points
InternationalJournal of Marketing Studies; Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
ISSN 1918-719X E-ISSN 1918-7203
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
21
Digital Strategies of Consumer Involvement and Innovation Dynamics:
A Cross-Sector Explorative Study
Eleonora Paolocci1
1 IULM University, Milan, Italy
Correspondence: Eleonora Paolocci, IULM University, Milan, Italy. E-mail: eleonora.paolocci@iulm.it
Received: May 24, 2014 Accepted: June 26, 2014 Online Published: September 28, 2014
doi:10.5539/ijms.v6n5p21 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v6n5p21
Abstract
The study aims at exploring the collaborative dynamics between firms and consumers through Web tools. At
present, there is limited empirical research aimed at investigating if and how the involvement of consumers in
the implementation of open approaches, mediated by digital technologies, is actually implemented. The study
presents a recent multifactorial investigation of the topic where literature lacks in. Through the Web-analysis of
practices of a sample group of 180 companies operating in different market sectors, the author wants to explore
spread and type profiles of collaborative strategies, investigating the existence of a possible correlation with the
served markets and other moderator variables. Findings, identifying a ‘spectrum’ of engagement and co-creation
mechanisms, suggest forms of aggregation and profiling in the approach followed by the firms and illustrate how
the characteristics of virtual spaces allow them to explore new frontiers in the implementation of open
approaches, with different degrees of involvement.
Keywords: co-creation, consumer insight, empirical research, open innovation (OI), virtual integration
1. Introduction
Existing academic literature suggests a significant potential of collaboration with consumers in the process of
market value creation through ICTs (von Hippel, 2001; von Hippel & Katz, 2002; Sawhney, Verona, & Prandelli,
2005; Prandelli, Verona, & Raccagni, 2006; Bilgram, Brem, & Voigt, 2008; Füller & von Hippel, 2008;
Prandelli, Sawhney, & Verona, 2008; Füller, Muhlbacher, Matzler, & Jawecki, 2009; Morgan & Wang, 2010).
Considerable attention has been given to the benefits offered by the advent of digital technologies: low-cost
interaction; increase in the speed and duration of the engagement process; easier sharing processes if compared
to what can be done offline, where dynamics are limited to contexts of physical closeness (Dahan & Hauser,
2002; Afuah, 2003). The importance of collaborating with consumers in the development of innovative products
and services has been recognised for many years and there has been a steady proliferation of studies on this topic
(von Hippel, 1976, 1978, 1986, 1988; Grönross, 1990; Day, 1991; Bruce, Leverick, Littler, & Wilson, 1995;
Gales & Mansour-Cole, 1995; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). However, it is only
recently that the attention given to collaborative approaches, based on the emergence of a new creative consumer
(Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, & Kates, 2007; Berthon, Campbell, Pitt, & McCarthy, 2011; Jespersen, 2011; Page &
Pitt, 2011; Cova & Cova, 2012), has grown exponentially. This area of research has been given new impetus
especially by the rapid growth of the Web, a powerful platform to access external and distributed knowledge.
Also, this new perspective is central in open-business innovation (Chesbrough, 2003, 2006, 2011) and in
network-centric innovation (NCI) (Nambisan & Sawhney, 2007) models. These approaches emphasise the need
to continuously experiment around value creation and encourage companies to open up to new ideas coming
from the outside, combining them with in-house ones.
However, the topic, from an empirical point of view, appears to be currently under-explored. There is still little
work done to explore if and how consumer engagement processes, mediated by digital technologies, are actually
implemented. In particular, while some studies are carried out within specific industries (e.g., Füller, Jawecki, &
Muhlbacher, 2007, on athletic footwear; Kim, Bae & Kang, 2008, on MP3 players and mobile phone handsets in
Korea; Garcia Martinez, 2013, on food products) literature lacks a cross-sector and multi-factorial investigation
of the topic which relies on recent data and not limited to a specific geographic market. The topic deserves
particular attention given the new opportunities that virtual environments offer: the challenge for firms is to
transform new interaction opportunities into added value. Given the context illustrated and taking into due
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
22
account the difficult application of the concept of strategic segmentation of the public to Web contexts (Hatch &
Schultz, 2010), the goal of this study is to understand if specific mechanisms have been put in place to enable
Web-based collaboration with consumers. Specifically, the purposes are (1) investigating ways to kick off
co-creation mechanisms, (2) empirical analysis of the following hypothesis: existence of typological profiles in
the implementation processes of collaborative modalities; correlation between the identified profiles and the
peculiarities of the served markets, along with other specific features of the companies in the sample group. To
achieve this aim, explorative research has been carried out with a cluster analysis, aimed at identifying
homogeneous groups of data. The study mainly adopts the point of view of the firm and the focus is on the
engagement concept in its pragmatic interpretation (Gambetti & Graffigna, 2010).
The structure of the paper is as follows: first, prior studies related to the phenomenon investigated will be
reviewed; in the central section, methodology and findings will be illustrated. In the last section, results and
managerial implications for marketing strategy will be discussed; the author also put forward suggestions for
future research.
2. Theoretical Background
To address these overlooked issues, the present paper adopts a perspective that integrates different streams of
literature related to: relationship marketing studies; new product innovation (NPI) research and collaborative
marketing patterns; management and organisational studies on network-firm and Open Innovation (OI).
The concept of relationship marketing (Christopher, Payne, & Ballantyne, 1991; McKenna, 1991; Pepper &
Rogers, 1993), and the research streams derived from it, apply the metaphor of personal relationship to the
exchange processes between a company and consumers. A key idea, in the later development of this approach
(Gummesson, 2002), is the potential that the Internet has to enhance the ability of firms to engage customers
(Zineldin, 2000). NPI research has given great impetus to co-creation mechanisms (von Hippel, 1976, 1978,
1986, 1988; Grönross, 1990; Day, 1991; Webster, 1994; Gales & Mansour-Cole, 1995; Bruce et al., 1995; Slater
& Narver, 1998; Verona, 1999; Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001; Thomke, 1998, 2002; Danneels, 2002; Urban &
Hauser, 2002; Sawhney et al., 2005), identifying the power of collaboration, going beyond a company’s borders
and demand-pull dynamics as the main factors behind this process in current times. Literature on collaborative
marketing (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a; Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2006, 2008; Payne, Storbacka & Frow, 2008)
presents the concept of convergence between consumers and producers as an invitation to combine their
respective skills in a partnership. The main focus is on the role of companies in identifying and supporting those
consumers’ activities which lead to value creation. The contribution of management studies on OI (Chesbrough,
2003, 2006, 2011; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2007) and on the network and systemic model of organisations
(Butera, 1995; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, 1994; Gergen, Gergen, & Barrett, 2004; Lane,
Serra, Villani & Ansaloni, 2006; Golinelli, 2010) is particularly relevant in connection to the idea of a collective
enterprise. This is linked to the disappearance of organisational borders, the emergence of looser relationships
and the enlargement of a company’s network.
It is believed that only the combination of these separate theoretical bodies can yield the first insights to explore
the complex nature of the investigated topic: each one takes on a different epistemological perspective, which
highlights complementary aspects. Hence, our study is positioned at the intersection of these different research
streams and, drawing on them, proposes a framework that identifies key dimensions that have to be taken into
account to explore the investigated topic: relationship, engagement, value co-creation, openness.
2.1 Transactional Model of Communication: A Relationship Based Pattern
The Web changed the way consumers contact firms: the communication pattern is now based on multi-channel
and multi-stakeholder communication and on a type of information transmission which can be defined as
transactional (Duncan & Moriarty, 1998), bi-directional and characterised by a continuous and dynamic
exchange. The use of new interactive marketing tools and techniques has the purpose of fostering
‘conversational relationships’ with consumers (Stokes, 2000). What is new is the low-cost electronic
management of the dialogue (Blattberg & Deighton, 1991) and the fact that communication is not sequential
(Stavrakantonakis, Gagiu, Toma, & Fensel, 2013). Web tools have become a new component of corporate
communication and allow organisations to establish strong relationships with their consumers (Mangold &
Faulds, 2009). Moreover, the potential of using social media as a tool to support the relationship has been
highlighted by many authors (Granat, 2006; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009, 2010; Vasalou, Joinson, Bänziger, Goldie,
& Pitt, 2008). In a systemic approach to the study of economic organisations, the emergence of a new model
based on the management of relationships has been observed (Golinelli, 2010). In this model, firms focus more
and more on the creation of a specific function with this specific task. This should allow them to benefit from
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
23
existing external resources, skills and innovative knowledge. Another area of organizational studies which has
identified interesting concepts is that of generative dialogue: a co-created dialogue, taking new perspectives into
account (Palmer, Benveniste, & Dunford, 2007) and generating ideas and alternatives. A field of research
analyses innovation processes through the lens of generative dialogue and maintains that the knowledge
networks stimulate innovation through “generative relationships” (Lane & Maxfield, 2005; Lane et al., 2006)
between heterogeneous subjects developing constructive interactions, outside the exchanges which are
traditionally linked to economic transactions. These changes can in turn lead to new products, processes or
services.
2.2 Consumer Engagement as a Dynamic, Collaborative and Interactive Process
While the traditional perspective on consumer engagement considered value creation as a firm-centric activity,
with little emphasis on interactive dialogue and where companies had a limited understanding of consumer
knowledge developed within their specific contexts of experience, as previously observed by Sawhney et al.
(2005), recent studies reveal the complex multidimensional and dynamic nature of consumer engagement, which
comprises of a range of sub-processes reflecting consumers’ interactive and value co-creation experiences
(Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurlic, & Ilic, 2011). Indeed, the main dimensions associated with engagement in the
marketing literature are: involvement (Sawhney et al., 2005), empowerment (Shaw, Newholm, & Dickinson,
2006), interaction (Ahuja & Medury, 2010), activation, including the interaction, participation, collaboration and
co-creation components (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Etgar, 2008). In the literature on NPD, the concept of
engagement has been analysed mainly from the perspective of empowerment and of its links with perceived
customer orientation, purchase intentions, and customers’ attitudes towards the company (Fuchs & Schreier,
2011). More specifically, as for the first point, the concept has been explored through two key aspects: 1.
consumer empowerment to create and generate ideas for new product designs (empowerment to create); 2.
consumer empowerment to select and “vote” which product designs should be produced and sold (empowerment
to select). Web tools facilitate new and extended forms of interactive consumer experiences, which may
contribute to the development of engagement with companies and brands. In particular, interactive relationships
in the virtual world reflect Vivek, Beatty and Morgan (2012) expanded relationship marketing domain, and
Vargo’s (2009) transcending view of relationships, which provide a conceptual foundation for the consumer
engagement concept, defined as “the intensity of an individual’s connection with an organization’s offerings
and/or organizational activities, which either the customer or the organization initiate” (Vivek et al., 2012, p. 4).
According to this perspective, the development of any strategy focusing on consumer engagement will need to
find a place for consumers to have their voice heard (Perks & Sedley, 2008).
2.3 Consumers as Market Partners and Co-Creators of the Offer
Literature indicates that companies are using customisation and collaborative processes with consumers to grasp
product ideas and reduce development risk (Greer & Lei, 2012). In the mid-2000s collaborative marketing
approaches emerged (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Payne et al., 2008), spurred also by the
new so-called Service Dominant Logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2006, 2008), whereby marketing is not just
directed at consumers, but is developed with consumers. This perspective is based on the key concept according
to which value is co-created in the interaction between companies and consumers (Ramirez, 1999; Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004a, b) and on the figure of consumers as market partners who own resources. Collaborative
marketing has its roots in the research on services marketing (Grönross, 1990), where co-production is at the
basis of the service system and in the studies on product innovation and design, which look at users as potential
collaborators of companies (von Hippel, 1986; Thomke & von Hippel, 2002). In the context of this last field,
studies on lead users have particular relevance. This approach focuses on the creative role of a specific category
of consumers, defined by von Hippel (1978, 1986, 1988, 2001) as expert users, at the forefront of a specific field,
who are at the origin of new concepts and solutions. Often they are even more knowledgeable than companies’
experts, they are interested and motivated to promote a product sector’s evolution, so that it can meet their
expectations in a more and more adequate way. Von Hippel’s suggestion highlights how companies have
gradually moved from a technical-production approach to an approach which is linked to the active involvement
of customers. This is defined Consumer Active Paradigm. Digital environments offer many opportunities to
support the direct involvement and to integrate and value consumers’ contributions. The Web, using Afuah’s
words (2003), makes it easier to access skills, electronic archives and communities where knowledge is already
codified and digitalised, ready to be recombined. Wind and Rangaswamy (2001) have coined the term
customerisation to define a new approach which companies can follow to combine high levels of technological
differentiation and customisation of the end product, made possible by modular platforms, with high levels of
marketing differentiation, thus offering highly analytical and targeted informative content.
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
24
2.4 A Paradigm Shift toward External Innovation Processes
There is increasing consensus among academics and practitioners on the paradigm shift from internal innovation
to open innovation processes (Keinz, Hienerth & Lettl, 2012). Focus is placed on the limitations of traditional
production-based innovation processes in order to overcome the commodity trap. This is linked to the fact that
products quickly lose their attractiveness for end consumers and that, over time, a company’s product becomes
indistinguishable from others available on the market (Chesbrough, 2003, 2006, 2011). Open Innovation is
defined as the antithesis of a vertical integration model, as it integrates internal and external flows of knowledge
with the aim of accelerating a company’s innovation process and expand markets through third-party channels.
This generates a positive cross-pollination between heterogeneous knowledge. The direct involvement of
consumers in innovation processes, which promotes the sharing of tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1997) with companies, helps solving difficulties arising from knowledge which cannot be transferred
with technical-scientific language, but which is based on the sharing of practices and interaction. In an open
model it is more difficult for competitors replicate concepts, solutions and the value proposition as they are
based mainly on the sharing of non-codified knowledge between partners. Also, consumers are less inclined to
leave the company. The joint work by Nambisan and Sawhney (2007) which introduces the concept of
network-centric innovation (NCI) and the need to continuously experiment around value creation, follows the
same approach. NCI is defined as an externally focused approach to innovation that relies on harnessing the
resources of external networks and communities to amplify innovation reach / speed and the quality of outcomes.
With the creation of virtual environments to manage relationships with consumers, firms can foster their
systematic engagement (Swink, 2006; Nambisan 2003).
3. Propositions and Research Questions
Based on the insights from the reviewed literature, the following proposition has been formulated:
P1. Different approaches related to the OI paradigm can be adopted by firms: a ‘spectrum’ of potential forms of
collaboration, at different product life-cycle stages, market levels, with heterogeneous objectives and degrees of
consumer involvement.
Although there is considerable literature demonstrating the benefits and potential of digital consumer
involvement, empirical support about the implementation approaches followed by firms appears to be scarce.
Hence, the following set of research questions have been considered as critical to define the relevance of the
investigated topic and will drive the study:
RQ1. Which specific mechanisms have been put in place to enable Web-based engagement and collaborative
processes with existing or potential consumers and how widespread is their use?
RQ2. Is it possible to identify different typological profiles in their implementation? If so, does a correlation
exist between the identified profiles and the peculiarities of the served markets, the specific industries and with
other features of the companies?
4. Study design
4.1 Scope of the Investigation
The universe of reference is the company. The scope of the investigation is circumscribed to the analysis of the
dynamics related to Web-based collaborative processes of physical consumption goods. It focuses on business to
consumer markets (B2C), given some prerogatives which make their exploration particularly stimulating. First,
Web-based co-creation processes are the most advanced developments in terms of sharing customer knowledge
with a company. Second, the extension of the principles of open source movements to non-immaterial goods, is
supported by the idea that every product is also a concept and an information product, especially at development
stage. Third, studies on collaborative processes were originally carried out mainly on B2B markets, where they
can boast a longer tradition (e.g., concept of customer-supplier interaction, largely explored since the 80s by the
researchers of the IMP – Industrial Marketing and Purchasing; social media utilization in B2B relationships:
Kärkkäinen, Jussila & Väisänen, 2013). Fourth, B2C markets are characterised by more elements of risk, due to
the size of the scope of reference and the wider language gap linked to the difficulty of directly understanding
needs. Coherently, the methodological choice for the analyzed industries excludes companies which exclusively
operate in B2B markets, offer immaterial goods as their core business and that only deal in distribution activities.
However, in constructing the theoretical background, the author also referred to concepts taken from models
which originate in the B2B and service markets, as they are useful to have an holistic understanding of the
studied phenomenon.
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
25
4.2 Sample
This explorative study was carried out following a quantitative methodology and a sample of companies
belonging to nine different sectors of physical consumption goods. To select the product industries, the following
reports (Note 1) were jointly analyzed and considered. Different factors were taken into account, such as fastest
growers, most profitable, most bang for buck, brand reputation and other critical features: Fortune World’s Most
Admired Company; Brand Finance Best Global Brands; Fortune Global 500 – Annual ranking of the world’s top
industries. In order to select the units, the method of judgmental or purposive sampling (Lavrakas, 2008, p. 646)
was chosen. The method is generally used to study phenomena which can theoretically exist in a wide population,
but in practice are expected to be concentrated in some specific areas. For example, the choice was made to
exclude micro and small manufacturing companies as, based on a first explorative analysis, their absence from
virtual environments was observed, or at least a scattered digital presence which could not enable an effective
analysis of codified typologies. The final sample, from the Bureau Van Dijk Electronic Publishing Directory
(Note 2), consists of 180 companies (see Appendix 1 for the complete list), 20 for each of the following sectors:
Apparel, sportswear, shoes and accessories; Automotive; Consumer packaged goods (CPG): household, family
and personal care, beauty; Consumer electronics and appliances; Consumer packaged goods (CPG): food
industry; Furniture and accessories; Pharmaceutical and healthcare; Toys, videogames, hobby modelling;
Stationery, adhesives, hobby paint products.
4.3 Methodology and Data Collection
The method used envisages the Web-analysis of practices of the firms belonging to the sample-group. Adopting
the technology-in-practice approach suggested by Orlikowski (2000) and moving from the theories by Korkman,
Storbacka and Harald (2010), the goal is the description of the ways in which collaborative dynamics can
develop starting from practical engagement. This involves a mapping activity in the virtual environment, aimed
at exploring if and how companies consider the adoption of Web tools to connect to consumers and cooperate
with them with different degrees of involvement, until the highest level of collaborative innovation, following
the integrated marketing and innovation management perspective suggested by Stephen and Toubia (2010). The
survey unit is represented by the open virtual spaces, which may be observed by any external subject. A similar
method was used by Prandelli et al. (2006); Alexy, Criscuolo & Salter (2012); Russo-Spena & Mele (2012). The
data collection occurred in Winter 2013-2014. In order to operationalise the variable “Type of mechanisms put in
place by the firm to enable collaborative processes”, an explorative analysis was carried out to identify its
possible ways – Coding of practices –. To this purpose, the method of content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was
used, following the steps recommended by Kassarjian (1977). The process of analysis let to the identification of
the following categories, characterised by different degrees of consumer involvement:
Technology-driven channels to collect ideas (Note 3)
Primary target: scientific and business community – B2B partnering, inventors, researchers –. Accepted
contribution types: mainly breakthrough or radical innovation oriented – new products, ingredients, technologies,
materials, packaging and process innovations, in some cases already patented –. Communication modality:
one-to-one – forms; e-mails – and one-to-many. Types of channels: collaborative platforms, portals or dedicated
pages within the corporate website.
Potentially, this first category may involve, as secondary targets, expert consumers / lead-users as theorised by
Hippel and creative consumers, as identified by Berthon et al. (2007), given that «users may possess knowledge
in the application domain and knowledge in the technology domain of the product» (Jespersen, 2011, p. 1145;
see also: Magnusson, 2009; Fuchs & Schreier, 2011).
Market oriented channels to collect ideas, understand the user experience and catch consumer insights
Target: mass open approach – cross-target – (Note 4). Type of accepted contributions: any, not limited to
breakthrough innovation – also incremental innovation oriented –, but aimed to the activation of market
competencies and skills and to facilitate a ‘consumer self-revelation’ and ‘customer self-disclosure’ process
(Andrade, Kaltcheva, Weitz, 2002; Zwass, 2010), such as: «a new concept», «ideas for advertising/promotions»,
«new suggestions for brands», «sustainability ideas», «product enhancements», «marketing plans or new product
names». Communication modality: one-to-one – forms; e-mails – and one-to-many. Types of channels:
collaborative platforms, platforms or dedicated pages within the corporate website.
Idea Communities (Note 5)
Communication modality: one-to-many and many-to-many. Target: mass open approach – cross-target –. Type of
accepted contributions: any, not limited to breakthrough innovation, but aimed to the activation of market
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
26
competences and skills – also incremental innovation oriented –. Types of channels: open collaborative
platforms.
Danneels’s contribution (2002) on the implications of strategic alternatives to innovation further explores the
first three typologies, highlighting the role of consumers among the possible actors which may be involved by
crossing the options related to the knowledge needed to develop innovation – with more technological or market
significance – and the subjects to be involved in each case – technology oriented partners in the first case,
customers with innovation relevant knowledge in the other –.
On-line contests:
‐ aimed to trigger competitive mechanisms on ideas: design competitions, collaborative advertising
initiatives, also in partnership with external platforms, creative communities and social networks;
‐ aimed to collect consumer insights (Note 6) and better understand the user experience.
Web business games / online idea competitions (Note 7) which involve international students: they have
communication and strategic purposes of employer branding, but also of input collection and innovation
management. The target is usually represented by university/design school students and, more generally, “young
talents”.
Literature has addressed motivation for consumers, and several incentives and stimulators to encourage
participation have been identified (Etgar, 2008; Kaiser & Muller-Seitz, 2008; Ojanen & Hallikas, 2009; Füller,
2010; Nambisan & Baron, 2007, 2009). Consistent with the theoretical background, for both these two last types
of modalities, the data collection has identified the presence of any Economic rewards and/or Social value
incentives to collaborate – fun, exposure, psychological reasons, career perspectives and so on –.
Online product customisation (Note 8): possibility to customise and personalise the aesthetic and functional
attributes through configuration tools.
Online consumer surveys with open and spontaneous participation, publicised on the corporate sites / brand
sites / official pages of social networks.
Activation of a general “Suggestions” channel, usually through tools such as a suggestions box, or a
specific item in the drop-down menu in the Contact area.
Activation of a “Feedback / Consumer experience” channel, specifically related to products: this is not
simply referred to “complaints or general comments about services or company”. It usually is a dedicated page, a
tailor-made section in the web product pages, or a specific item in the drop-down menu in the Contact area.
Romero and Molina (2011) define innovation processes based on this type of channel Existing Product
Adaptation. The same approach is followed by Boztepe (2005), according to whom successful organization are
those which can quickly adapt different versions of their products based on real-time feedback from consumers.
Explicit regulation “Unsolicited ideas submission” / “External proposals policy”, usually in the sections:
Legal notice, Disclaimer, Terms and conditions, Contact us, FAQ.
Explicit exclusion of online modality to collect ideas, suggestions and external contributions, with
indication of off-line channels to communicate with the firm and kick off a bi-directional interaction.
To further investigate in a deeper way the strategies adopted by firms, the empirical observation has been
crossed with other moderator variables in addition to the product sector (Note 9): Firm’s headquarters (North
America and Canada; Central and South America; Western Europe; Eastern Europe; Asia; Oceania; Africa);
Firm’s age; Firm’s size; Type of business (only B2C; B2C+B2B); Presence of a Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) / Sustainability policy; Presence of specific references to the expression “Stakeholder
engagement” in the official documents available on the Web and related to the CSR policy (e.g.: CSR Report);
eCommerce strategy (eCatalogue; online shopping cart; other shopping tools – e.g.: “request a quote; apply for
credit; online retailers direct link” –; social integration with social media and / or review and advice system);
Presence of specific references of the following terms in the firm’s Mission & Vision, Annual Reports and other
official documentation available online: Openness; Innovation; Open Innovation (OI); Listening to the
consumers; Variables related to the firm’s digital engagement strategy, particularly the active and official
presence on social media (Facebook page; Linkedin profile; Youtube channel; Twitter profiles; Official blogs /
forums).
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
27
5. Data Analysis and Findings
5.1 Descriptive Analysis
A preliminary frequency analysis on empirical data has been performed for the purpose of observing and
characterizing the amount and general distribution of the investigated phenomenon (Figure 1) before it can be
explained with more analytical methods. First results highlight that the most used collaborative mechanism by
the firms in the sample-group is that of “Online creative and ideas contests” (52.8%). The majority of firms that
have launched “Online creative contests to collect ideas” (66.3%) or “Online contests to collect consumer
experience insights” (82.3%), have only used economic incentives to encourage participation, while both types
of incentives, social and economic rewards, have been used by the majority of firms (39%) that have launched
“Web business games”. The majority of companies that have implemented technology-driven channels have
opted for a more evolved model, a tailor-made collaborative and co-creation platform or a dedicated micro-site
within the corporate official site (51.2%); only one firm (2.3%) has implemented both channel types, while
46.5% has opted for a more traditional channel (form or e-mail, dedicated page in the official corporate site,
usually in the Innovation section); in the majority of cases external links to social networks are also absent
(62.8%). The majority of companies that have implemented market oriented channels have opted for a traditional
approach where consumers can submit new product ideas and insights (89.5%), only 10.5% have implemented a
more evolved model; external links to social networks are also usually absent (60.5%). With reference to the
Idea Communities model, in the majority of cases (85%) these are proprietary platforms – the firm can boast
exclusive rights on its followers –, present external links to social media (60%) and a mechanism of
review/voting system or an idea testing system (90%). Only 15% has opted for an external partnership and a
mixed-type approach (e.g. specialised co-creation platforms). The absolute majority (99.4%) of the firms has
implemented at least one of the coded engagement and collaborative mechanisms. Only one firm has
implemented no mechanism; nevertheless, it is characterised by a basic connecting strategy – presence on social
media –.
Figure 1. Hierarchy of collaborative and engagement strategies recorded
5.2 Cluster Analysis
A multivariate, statistical analysis has been carried out on the empirical material to identify homogeneous groups
of data. As all variables are categorical, dichotomous or ordinal – size and age of the company –, the TwoStep
method has been used. Its peculiarity lies in the fact it can handle even qualitative variables by extending the
model-based distance measure used by Banfield and Raftery (1993). To summarise, the analysis carried out
through this method has pointed out the findings described below.
1) By subdividing all companies into two clusters it is possible to obtain the best classification based on the
scores for the 52 variables taken into account;
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
28
2) Table ‘Clusters’ (Table 1) shows that the largest cluster (cluster 2) includes 52.8% (N=95) of the analyzed
companies, while the other one (cluster 1) includes the remaining 47.2% (N=85).
Figures 2 and 3 show the bar charts of the only two ordinal variables, that is size and age of the company. As for
the first chart, we can see that the darker area (which represents cluster 1) is larger than the lighter one (which
represents cluster 2) in area 4, which indicates multinational companies. No company in cluster 1 has a medium
size (value 1), as the value 1 bar has no dark portion. As for the second chart, no company in cluster 1 is a
start-up; a small percentage, in comparison to companies in cluster 2, is young or middle-aged; mature
companies are evenly distributed in the two clusters, while companies older than 100 year mainly belong to
cluster 1.
Medium (50-250 EEs) cod.=1;
Large (+250-499 EEs) cod.=2;
Very large domestic (+500) cod.=3;
Multinational (+ 500, operations and facilities
in more than one country) cod.=4
Start-up (younger than 2 years) cod.=1;
Young (+2-10) cod.=2;
Middle-aged (+10-25) cod.=3;
Mature (+25-100) cod.=4;
Old (+100) cod.=5
Figure 2. Firm’s size Figure 3. Firm’s age
Companies in cluster 2 (larger than cluster 1) show a strategic behaviour which may be defined as more
conservative and traditional than that of cluster 1 companies, which follow a more evolved behaviour.
An analytical reading of the analyzed variables, listed in decreasing order in terms of the discriminating power
they had in defining two cohesive clusters, shows that the variable where the two clusters show the greatest
difference is: ‘Presence of specific references to: ‘Stakeholder engagement’ in the online official documentation
related to the CSR policy. In cluster 2 the mode corresponds to answer 0 (91.6%), while in cluster 1 mode is
answer 1 (94.1%). Besides, firms in cluster 1 are characterised, to a greater extent, by the presence of a CSR
policy (98.8%) in comparison to cluster 2 (55.8%). The other relevant factors are represented by:
‐ size of the company: in cluster 2 mode is 1 (medium size), and the occurrence percentage is 36.8%, while
in cluster 1 mode is 4 (multinational) in 92.9% of cases;
‐ presence of the expressions “Listening to the consumers”: in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the
occurrence percentage is 90%, while in cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), with 68.2% of cases;
‐ digital presence, with particular reference to Youtube channel – in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the
occurrence percentage is 60%, while in cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 96.5% of cases – and to the activation of
“Official blogs and forums” – in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the occurrence percentage is 76.8%, while in
cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 60% of cases –;
‐ type of business: in cluster 2 mode is B2C, and the occurrence percentage is 77.9%, while in cluster 1
mode is B2C + B2B, with 81.2%;
‐ “Online idea and creative contests” with economic rewards: in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the
occurrence percentage is 78.9%, while in cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 77.6% of cases;
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
29
‐ specific references to the term “Open Innovation”: in both clusters mode is 0 (absent), but the occurrence
percentage is 98.9% in cluster 2 against 51.8% in cluster 1.
The variables on the following rows can be interpreted in the same way. It is worth noticing, in particular, the
features of the following variables in the two clusters:
‐ “Explicit regulations”: in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the occurrence percentage is 71.6%, while in
cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 78.8% of cases;
‐ “Online consumer surveys”: in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the occurrence percentage is 84.2%, while
in cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 58.8% of cases;
‐ “Online contest to collect consumer insights” with economic rewards: in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and
the occurrence percentage is 75.8%, while in cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 61.2% of cases;
‐ “Feedback/Customer experience channel”: in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the occurrence percentage is
58.9%, while in cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 62.4% of cases;
‐ eCommerce strategy, presence of a social integration: in cluster 2 mode is 0 (absent), and the occurrence
percentage is 53.7%, while in cluster 1 mode is 1 (present), in 56.5% of cases.
The comparison between the two cells of each row suggests that companies in cluster 1 are the most inclined to
the use of digital tools to establish a connection with consumers. In particular, they use the considered
engagement and collaborative mechanisms. They are larger in size, older, and work in both B2C and B2B
markets (81.2%, compared to only 22.1% of companies in cluster 2). Outcomes do not confirm the hypothesis of
a possible socio-geographical pattern linked to the headquarters location, West vs emerging countries. Results
almost show a “globalised” view of strategic approaches related to the investigated topic. However, this should
be statistically interpreted taking into account the fact that companies which operate in emerging countries, are
under-represented in the studied sample. Asian companies, on the other hand, cannot be considered as typical of
cluster 1 or cluster 2 as they are evenly distributed.
In terms of sectors where companies operate, the analysis suggests that this variable is not one of the main
discriminating criteria, but present a “typological” behaviour anyway, confirming what had emerged from the
preliminary descriptive analysis:
– companies in the Consumer electronics and appliances; Automotive; CPG – Beauty, household, family /
personal care; Healthcare / Pharmaceutical; CPG – Foods sectors are mainly included in cluster 1;
– companies operating in the Toys, video games, hobby modelling; Furniture and accessories; Stationery,
adhesives, hobby paints products; Apparel, sportswear, shoes and accessories sectors are mainly included in
cluster 2.
It is also important to notice how companies belonging to cluster 1 – in contrast to companies in cluster 2 – also
show a higher number of occurrences for the following variables, in this order: activation of a Linkedin profile,
Online students competitions with economic rewards, activation of a Twitter profile, presence of the term
“Innovation”, Online students competitions with social rewards, presence of the term “Openness”, implementation
of evolved Technology-driven channels, Idea communities (with presence of an idea testing / voting system), Idea
Communities (proprietary type), implementation of traditional Technology-driven channels, Idea Communities
(with the presence of social links), Other shopping tools with reference to the eCommerce strategy, Online product
customisation, activation of a Facebook profile, Online idea and creative contests with social rewards,
implementation of evolved Market oriented channels, Online contests to collect consumer insights with social
rewards, Idea communities (external ownership / partnership). Correspondingly, it is interesting to see that
companies belonging to cluster 2 show a higher number of occurrences for the following variables, in this order:
traditional Market oriented channels, Suggestions channel, Explicit exclusion, Online shopping charts (direct
shopping) and eCatalogues related to the eCommerce strategy.
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
30
Table 1. Clusters
Cluster
Hierarchy
2 1
Size 52.8% (95) 47.2% (85)
In
p
u
ts
(
p
re
d
ic
to
r)
1. “Stakeholder engagement / dialogue”: 0 (91.6%) “Stakeholder engagement / dialogue”: 1 (94.1%)
2. Firm’s size: 1 (36.8%) Firm’s size: 4 (92.9%)
3. “Listening to the consumers”: 0 (90.5%) “Listening to the consumers”: 1 (68.2%)
4. Digital presence – Youtube channel: 0 (60%) Digital presence – Youtube channel: 1 (96.5%)
5. Type of business – Only B2C=cod. 1: 1 (77.9%) Type of business – B2C + B2B=cod.2: 2 (81.2%)
6. Online idea contests (economic rewards): 0 (78.9%) Online idea contests (economic rewards): 1 (77.6%)
7. “Open Innovation”: 0 (98.9%) “Open Innovation”: 0 (51.8%)
8. Digital presence – Linkedin profile: 1 (50.5%) Digital presence – Linkedin profile: 1 (97.6%)
9. Presence of a CSR policy: 1 (55.8%) Presence of a CSR policy: 1 (98.8%)
10. Explicit regulation: 0 (71.6%) Explicit regulation: 1 (78.8%)
11. Student competitions (economic rewards): 0 (95.8%) Student competitions (economic rewards): 0 (52.9%)
12. Digital presence – Twitter profile: 1 (61.1%) Digital presence – Twitter profile: 1 (100%)
13. Presence of references to “Innovation”: 1 (64.2%) Presence of references to “Innovation”: 1 (100%)
14. Online consumer surveys: 0 (84.2%) Online consumer surveys: 1 (58.8%)
15. Online student competitions (social rewards): 0 (95.8%) Online student competitions (social rewards): 0 (60%)
16. “Openness”: 0 (89.5%) “Openness”: 0 (51.8%)
17. Firms’ age: 4 (46.3%) Firms’ age: 5 (48.2%)
18. Technology-driven channels: evolved type: 0 (100%) Technology-driven channels: evolved type: 0 (72.9%)
19. Digital presence – Official blogs / forums: 0 (76.8%) Digital presence – Official blogs / forums: 1 (60%)
20. Consumer insight contests (economic): 0 (75.8%) Consumer insight contest (economic): 1 (61.2%)
21. Idea Communities (ideas testing / voting): 0 (100%) Idea Communities (ideas testing / voting): 0 (78.8%)
22. Idea Communities (owned platform type): 0 (100%) Idea Communities (owned platform type): 0 (80%)
23. Consumer electronics. appliances: 0 (97.9%) Consumer electronics. appliances: 0 (78.8%)
24. Traditional technology-driven channels: 0 (96.8%) Traditional technology-driven channels: 0 (78.8%)
25. Idea communities (presence of social links): 0 (98.9%) Idea communities (presence of social links): 0 (83.5%)
26. eCommerce strategy – Other shopping tools: 0 (91.6%) eCommerce strategy – Other shopping tools: 0 (70.6%)
27. Online product customisation : 0 (87.4%) Online product customisation: 0 (68.2%)
28. Digital presence – Facebook: 1 (84.2%) Digital presence – Facebook: 1 (97.6%)
29. Toys. video games. hobby modelling: 0 (82.1%) Toys. video games. hobby modelling: 0 (96.5%)
30. “Feedback/Customer experience” channel: 0 (58.9%) “Feedback/Customer experience” channel: 1 (62.4%)
31. Online idea contests (social rewards): 0 (89.5%) Online idea contests (social rewards): 0 (74.1%)
32. Sector: Automotive: 0 (94.7%) Sector: Automotive: 0 (82.4%)
33. Furniture and accessories: 0 (82.1%) Furniture and accessories : 0 (92.9%)
34. Stationery. adhesives. hobby paint products: 0 (82.1%) Stationery. adhesives. hobby paint products: 0 (92.9%)
35. Market oriented channels – evolved model: 0 (100%) Market oriented channels – evolved model: 0 (95.3%)
36. Apparel. sportswear. shoes and accessories: 0 (84.2%) Apparel. sportswear. shoes and accessories: 0 (94.1%)
37. Beauty. household. family / personal care: 0 (90.5%) Beauty. household. family / personal care: 0 (80.0%)
38. Market oriented channels: traditional model: 0 (75.8%) Market oriented channels: traditional model: 0 (87.1%)
39. Consumer insight contests (social rewards): 0 (95.8%) Consumer insight contests (social rewards): 0 (88.2%)
40. “Suggestions” channel: 0 (53.7%) “Suggestions” channel: 0 (65.9%)
41. HQ Eastern Europe: 0 (96.8%) HQ Eastern Europe: 0 (100%)
42. HQ Oceania: 0 (96.8%) HQ Oceania: 0 (100%)
43. Healthcare / Pharma: 0 (91.6%) Healthcare / Pharma: 0 (84.7%)
44. eCommerce strategy: Social integration: 0 (53.7%) eCommerce strategy: Social integration: 1 (56.5%)
45. HQ Asia: 0 (85.3%) HQ Asia: 0 (80%)
46. HQ North America and Canada: 0 (65.3%) HQ North America and Canada: 0 (58.8%)
47. HQ Western Europe: 0 (55.8%) HQ Western Europe: 0 (61.2%)
48. Idea communities (external/partnership): 0 (98.9%) Idea communities (external / partnership): 0 (97.6%)
49. Explicit exclusion of online modalities …: 0 (97.9%) Explicit exclusion of online modalities …: 0 (98.8%)
50. eCommerce strategy: Online shopping carts: 0 (55.8%) eCommerce strategy: Online shopping carts: 0 (57.6%)
51. eCommerce strategy: eCatalogue: 1 (95.8%) eCommerce strategy: eCatalogue: 1 (95.3%)
52. CPG – Food: 0 (87.4%) CPG – Food: 0 (87.1%)
6. Conclusion
6.1 Discussion
The analysis shows that the rapid advances in ICTs are encouraging the spread of digital and media technology
and their use by firms to engage consumers and foster relationships: connecting with consumers through digital
tools emerges as an “institutionalised” practice, a general cross convergence in managerial behaviour.
As for the study proposition (P1), the study confirms that different open approaches mediated by Web tools can
be adopted by firms. These approaches create a ‘spectrum’ of ways to absorb external knowledge, with different
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
31
impacts on the content and process of knowledge, which imply heterogeneous goals and different degrees of
consumer involvement.
More specifically, for the first research question (RQ1), the process of content analysis enabled the identification
of heterogeneous categories characterised by different degrees of consumer involvement. This confirms the
assumption of a previous work by Jespersen (2011), according to whom “Online channels do not necessarily
empower users in the innovation process” (ivi, p. 1141).
In general, the study reveals a strong managerial focus on the launch of temporary initiatives, mainly centred on
individual brands and often targeted at specific geographical markets, as a way of experimenting. These
initiatives are characterised by a tactical nature, short-term goals and mainly brand engagement and word of
mouth goals. Emerged data indicate how companies are taking the first steps in this new territory. Actual Open
Innovation, if and where implemented, is mainly carried out through one-to-one relationships. Finally, the study
shows that companies have not yet turned their attention to long-term engagement and collaborative modalities
and strategic vision. Nevertheless, the research has been possible to detect and isolate useful emerging trends and
new approaches, whose development stage is expected to be very interesting: as today’s competitive
environment demands, these modalities go beyond merely importing the “voice of the consumer” through
traditional offline market research mechanisms.
With reference to the second (R2) research question previously stated in the paper, findings from the cluster
analysis carried out, indicate that different typologies in the implementation strategies of Web-based engagement
and collaboration with consumers exist. Factors such as the sector where a company operates, the presence of a
policy related to CSR, the size and the age of the company, the type of business, its eCommerce strategy and the
variables related to the firm’s digital active and official presence on social media, appear to be significant and
suggest new forms of aggregation and profiling in the approach followed by the company referred to open
approaches and collaborative mechanism: from a more conservative and closed approach, to a mass open and
market driven strategy. If we take a closer look at the identified correlations, the most conservative companies,
which are less inclined to the adoption of collaborative policies, operate in the in Furniture and accessories;
Apparel, sportswear, shoes and accessories and Toys, video games, hobby modelling industries. These are
mature sectors, traditionally seen as being characterised by high labour and low technology intensity, and
products whose life cycle is rather short. They are further characterised by high demand elasticity and a high
structural fragmentation in the market. Companies in the CPG sector – which boasts a long tradition in
marketing and communication policies and approaches aimed at listening to customers in a continuous and
structured manner – are in and intermediate position, characterised by a strategic opening towards customers,
however based on more traditional tools, such as Suggestions channels, Feedback/Customer experience channels
and the more traditional Market-driven channels. Companies in the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare industry,
characterised by intense R&D activities, mainly implement the Technology-driven channel collaborative strategy,
which targets a specialised public and is geared towards radical innovation. Consumer electronics and
appliances and Automotive companies, which operate in industries with high technological intensity and product
differentiation, appear to be the most open and advanced when it comes to experimenting collaborative strategies.
In general, the managerial strategies connected to the investigated phenomenon appear to be influence by the
specific product sector. The observed results seem to indicate that trust, as opposed to the simple transaction, is
the discriminating factor. It depends on the degree of information asymmetry in the relationship with customers,
in terms of information on products and features of production processes. Where the information asymmetry is
wider, the physical relevance of the product becomes a key element in the company-customer relationship.
Companies are more inclined to search for external collaboration when the requirements to meet are very
complex and there is a great deal of uncertainty on the performance which can be obtained. As for the other
corporate features, the following appear as positively correlated to the adoption of open approaches: larger size
of the organizational structure, age (mature / old); presence on both B2B and B2C markets, rather than on the
consumer market alone; presence of a CSR policy and specific references to Stakeholder engagement in the
official corporate documentation, available online and linked to the CSR policy; a more advanced eCommerce
strategy, which not only focuses on transactions, but takes social integration into account and offers additional
tools and services; higher penetration of digital social channels; presence of the expressions Listening to the
consumers; OI; Innovation; Openness in the official online corporate documentation.
The observed findings support evidence from previous contributions in the literature. For example, Brockhoff
(2003) stated that collaborative innovation with consumers (CIC) relationship appears to differ by industry;
Greer and Lei (2012), in their conceptual work, conclude that “the nature of industry may be a driving of a
restraining force for CIC” (ivi, p. 74). Barbarito (2004), in a national study on 113 different sectors, explores the
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
32
link between sectorial structural features and relational behaviour adopted by companies. His conclusion is that,
despite the clear customisation of implemented tools, the characteristics of the sector where a company operates
do influence the choices on the way in which companies relate to their customers. The obtained results also seem
to validate the hypothesis formulated by Lichtenthaler (2008), who suggests that the openness of an organization
grows with the growth of the emphasis placed on radical innovation. The differences in knowledge intensity
would explain the variability of managerial approaches in heterogeneous sectors (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,
2000). The existence of a correlation with the presence on both B2B and B2C markets, rather than on the
consumer market alone, can be traced back to what Ferrero and Savelli (2006) state, according to whom B2B
contexts, by their own nature, tend to promote tighter relationships between the subjects in the production and
distribution chain. The influence of the presence of a CSR policy in relation to the implementation of consumer
involvement strategies confirms the reach and importance of the concept expressed by Devinney, Auger,
Eckhardt and Birtchnell (2006) in a previous conceptual paper. They state that the Consumer Social
Responsibility (CnSR) also includes a ‘consumerism’ component related to the preferences and desires of
consumer segments. With reference to the issue of firm size, results seem to confirm what previous studies stated
(Lichtenthaler, 2008; Prandelli et al., 2006), according to which larger firms have been observed to be more
likely to engage in Open Innovation.
6.2 Managerial Implications
The study illustrates how the characteristics of Web spaces allow firms to explore new frontiers in value
co-creation, offering insights on the practices that companies can incorporate to promote different kinds of
external contributions. Findings identify different typologies, based on peculiar features. Managers must be
aware of how relevant each may be in their strategy, understanding the firm’s openness to the competence-based
approach. The various modalities work in synergy, and can therefore be employed simultaneously as part of an
integrated strategy. Firms should integrate these and other possible modalities to create a portfolio that they may
use to for different purposes.
The contribution has also enabled the identification of emergent trends and has caught the scope of the potential
of the open approach in all its nuances, different implementation modalities and objectives:
– at a more basic level of brand engagement and word of mouth;
– in order to explore the consumer day-to-day life from a closer perspective and with lower costs in comparison
to off-line methods;
– with the aim of adsorbing heterogeneous inputs, even through the involvement of potential consumers who are
far removed from the company’s core competences;
– in order to catch interesting opportunities in terms of new knowledge generation, above all through the
relational dimension that develops in Idea Communities and which influences, in a positive way, the cognitive
processes.
The contribution also allows noticing that real connection is a two-way process. Particularly, managers need to
acknowledge that true customer centricity can only come when they facilitate this approach: consumers own
resources which can be effectively mobilised through the transformation of market connections into authentic
communicative relations.
The study also has implications for research on OI. It draws attention to problems in terms of time, resources,
skills and planning needed to deal with the flow of external ideas and suggestions, of potentially unlimited
quantity, highly variable quality and presenting intellectual property ownership issues.
Finally, another important aspect that the study highlights concerns the mutual gains and rewards in
collaborative processes. It draws attention to the balance of mutual benefits: to this end, managers should ensure
that both parties perceive that they are gaining the same advantages, thus stimulating and encouraging the
consumer to take part in the relationship.
6.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research
This study presents a recent multi-factorial investigation of the topic where literature lacks in, but limitations
about the analysis carried out should be also considered. First, findings are limited by the fast-paced nature of the
Internet and the rapid dynamics related to virtual environments. Some practices may have changed since the data
collection was conducted. Besides, the analysis is of explorative type, and therefore requires further investigation.
It could be improved with a wider survey based on data coming directly from the voice of firms and management
staff, including other product sectors in addition to the covered industries, for the purpose of testing the reach of
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
33
the emerged findings. Similarly, while the survey unit of this empirical study focused on open virtual spaces,
future investigations could include more selective approaches of consumer involvement beyond mass-open
modalities.
In addition, data are only considered from a corporate perspective. Future research may extend this method by
examining other variables linked to the micro-level, particularly to consumer audience and its responses, for
example by investigating the relationship between the topic and: reputation, consumer loyalty, effectiveness of
products.
References
Afuah, A. (2003). Redefining Firm Boundaries in the Face of the Internet: Are Firms Really Shrinking?
Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 34–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.8925207
Ahuja, V., & Medury, Y. (2010). Corporate blogs as e-CRM tools–Building consumer engagement through
content management. Journal of Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Management, 17(2), 91–105.
http://dx.doi.org /10.1057/dbm.2010.8
Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2012). Managing Unsolicited Ideas for R&D. California Management
Review, 54(3), 116–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.116
Andrade, E. B., Kaltcheva, V., & Weitz, B. (2002). Self-Disclosure on the web: The impact of privacy policy,
reward and company reputation. Advances in Consumer Research, XXIX, 350–353. Retrieved from
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8674
Banfield, J. D., & Raftery, A. E. (1993). Model-based Gaussian and non-Gaussian clustering. Biometrics, 49,
803–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2532201
Barbarito, L. (2004). Economia delle relazioni. Tipologie settoriali e modalità relazionali nell’industria Italiana.
Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Berthon, P. R., Campbell, C. L., Pitt, L. F., & McCarthy, I. (2011). Creative Consumers: Awareness, Attitude
and Action. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(7), 500–507.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761111181482
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., McCarthy, I., & Kates, S. M. (2007). When Customers Get Clever: Managerial
Approaches to Dealing with Creative Consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1), 39–48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.05.005
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), 419–458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608002096
Blattberg, R., & Deighton, J. (1991). Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of Addressability. Sloan
Management Review, 33(1), 5–14. Retrieved from
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/interactive-marketing-exploiting-the-age-of-addressability/
Boztepe, S. (2005). User-Value-Based Product Adaptation. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of
the European Academy of Design, Bremen, Germany. Retrieved from
http://ead.verhaag.net/fullpapers/ead06_id166_2
Brockhoff, K. (2003). Customers’ perspectives of involvement in new product development.
International
Journal of Technology Management, 26(5/6), 464–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003418
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurlic, B., & Ilic A. (2011). Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 252–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703
Bruce, M., Leverick, F., Littler, D., & Wilson D. (1995). Success factors for collaborative product development:
a study of suppliers of information and communication technology. R&D Management, 25(1), 33–44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1995.tb00898.x
Butera, F. (1995). Human oriented management of Change. A conceptual model. Advances in Human
Factors/Ergonomics, 20/b, 1003–1010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-2647(06)80344-8
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Platform Innovation: Creating Value from Internal and External Innovation. Intel
Technology Journal, 7(3), 5–9. Retrieved from
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
34
https://noggin.intel.com/content/open-platform-innovation-creating-value-from-internal-and-external-innov
ation
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2011). Open Services Innovation: Rethinking Your Business to Grow and Compete in a New
Era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., & Ballantyne, D. (1991). Relationship Marketing. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2012). On the road to prosumption: marketing discourse and the development
of consumer competencies. Consumption Markets and Culture, 15(2), 149–168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2012.654956
Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. R. (2002). The Virtual Customer. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(5),
332–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1950332
Danneels, E. (2002). The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competences. Strategic Management Journal,
23(12), 1095–1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.275
Day, G. (1991). Learning about markets. Marketing Association Report, 91–117. Cambridge (MA): Marketing
Science Institute. Retrieved from http://www.msi.org/reports/learning-about-markets/
Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G., & Birtchnell, T. (2006). The other CSR. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 4(3), 32–33; 35–37. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_other_csr
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. E. (1998). A communication-based marketing model for managing relationships. The
Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252157
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36(1), 97–108. http://.dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1
Ferrero, G., & Savelli, E. (2006). La dinamica del rapporto User/Producer nell’innovazione di prodotto: analisi
teoriche ed evidenze empiriche. In Atti del V Congresso Internazionale Le tendenze del marketing, Venezia,
20-21 gennaio 2006, 1–16. Retrieved from
http://www.escp-eap.eu/conferences/marketing/2006_cp/Materiali/Paper/It/Ferrero_Savelli
Fuchs, C., & Schreier M. (2011). Customer empowerment in new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 28(1), 17–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00778.x
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The Psychological Effects of Empowerment Strategies on
Consumers’ Product Demand. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 65–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.1.65
Füller, J. (2010). Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a Consumer Perspective. California Management Review,
52(2), 98–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2010.52.2.98
Füller, J., & von Hippel, E. (2008). Costless Creation of Strong Brands by User Communities: Implications for
Producer-Owned Brands. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper, 4718-08: 1–30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1275838
Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Muhlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal
of Business Research, 60, 60–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019
Füller, J., Muhlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki G. (2009). Consumer empowerment through internet-based
co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 71–102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260303
Gales, L., & Mansour-Cole, D. (1995). User involvement in innovation projects: Toward a theory of user
information processing. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12, 77–109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0923-4748(95)00005-7
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), 801–826.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2501/S147078531020166
Garcia Martinez, M. (2013). Open Innovation in the Food and Beverage Industry. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead
Publishing.
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
35
Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., & Barrett, F. J. (2004). Dialogue: Life and Death of the Organization, in
Handbook of Organizational Discourse. CA: Sage.
Golinelli, G. M. (2010). Viable Systems Approach (VSA). Governing Business Dynamic. Padova, IT: Cedam,
Kluwer.
Granat, P. (2006). Strategy first: How to make Web 2.0 work for you. Public Relations Tactics, 13(11), 38–38.
Greer, C. R., & Lei, D. (2012). Collaborative Innovation with Customers: A Review of the Literature and
Suggestions for Future Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 63–84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00310.x.
Grönross, C. (1990). Relationship Approach to Marketing in Service Contexts: The Marketing and
Organizational Behavior Interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 3–11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90037-E
Gummesson, E. (2002). Relationship marketing in the new economy. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(1),
37–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J366v01n01_04
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand
governance. The Journal of Brand Management, 17, 590–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.14
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 78–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jppm.21.1.78.17600
Jespersen, K. R. (2011). Online Channels and Innovation: Are Users being Empowered and Involved? Journal of
Innovation Management, 15(6), 1141–1159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919611003684
Kaiser, S., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2008). Leveraging lead user knowledge in software development. The case of
weblog technology economics of open-source collaboration. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), 199–221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710801954542
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009). The fairyland of Second Life: Virtual social worlds and how to use them.
Business Horizons, 52(6), 563–572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.07.002
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social
Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kärkkäinen, H., Jussila, J., & Väisänen, J. (2013). Social Media Use and Potential in Business-to-Business
Companies’ Innovation. International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence (IJACI), 5(1), 53–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jaci.2013010104
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 4, 8–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208674
Keinz, P., Hienerth, C., & Lettl, C. (2012). Designing the Organization for User-driven Innovation. Journal of
Organization Design, 1(3), 20–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/jod.1.3
Kim, J. H., Bae, Z., & Kang, S. H. (2008). The role of online brand communities in new product development:
case studies on digital product manufacturers in Korea. International Journal of Innovation Management,
12, 357–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608002011
Korkman, O., Storbacka, K., & Harald, B. (2010). Practices as markets: Value co-creation in e-invoicing.
Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(4), 236–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.07.006
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. London: Sage.
Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management
Science, 47(1), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.1.10668
Lane, D. A., & Maxfield, R. (2005). Ontological Uncertainty and Innovation. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, 15(1), 3–50.
Lane, D. A., Serra, R., Villani, M., & Ansaloni, L. (2006). A Theory-Based Dynamical Model of Innovation
Processes. ComplexUs, 2, 177–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000093689
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication
Inc.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to technology
transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148–157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.912932
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
36
Magnusson, P. R. (2009). Exploring the Contributions of Involving Ordinary Users in Ideation of
Technology-Based Services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 578–593.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00684.x
McKenna, R. (1991). Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategies for the Age of the Customer. Cambridge,
MA: Perseus Publishing.
Morgan, J., & Wang, R. (2010). Tournament for Ideas. California Management Review, 52(2), 77–97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2010.52.2.77
Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: toward a theory.
Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 392–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.7389914
Nambisan, S. (2003). Information Systems as a Reference Discipline for New Product Development. MIS
Quarterly, 27(1), 1–18.
http://misq.org/information-systems-as-a-reference-discipline-for-new-product-development.html
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications for product
support and customer relationship management. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 42–62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20077
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual customer environments: Testing a model of voluntary participation
in value co-creation activities. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(4), 388–406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00667.x
Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2007). The global brain: Your Roadmap for Innovating Faster and Smarter in a
Networked World. Wharton School Publishing, PA.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.
http://hbr.org/1991/11/the-knowledge-creating-company/ar/1
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1996). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the
dynamics of innovation. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 592.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(96)81509-3
Ojanen, V., & Hallikas, J. (2009). Inter-organisational routines and transformation of customer relationships in
collaborative innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 45(3/4), 306–322.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.022655
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology
in organizations. Organization science, 11(4), 404–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
Page, K. L., & Pitt, L. (2011). Web 2.0, Social Media, and Creative Consumers: Special Issue. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 10(6), 313–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.390
Palmer, I., Benveniste, J., & Dunford, R. (2007). New organizational forms: towards a generative dialogue.
Organization Studies, 28, 12: 1829–1847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840607079531
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Pepper, D., & Rogers, M. (1993). The One-to-One Future: Building Relationships One Customer at a Time.
New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
Perks, M., & Sedley, R. (2008). Winners and Losers in a Troubled Economy: How to Engage Customers Online
to Gain Competitive Advantage. cScape Strategic Internet Services Ltd.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1),
79-87. http://hbr.org/2000/01/co-opting-customer-competence/ar/1
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co-creating unique value with the customers. Strategy and
Leadership, 32(3), 4–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878570410699249
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004c). The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with
Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
37
Prandelli, E., Sawhney, M., & Verona, G. (2008). Collaborating with Customers to Innovate. Conceiving and
Marketing Products in the Network Age. Edgar, Sheffield Brightman.
Prandelli, E., Verona, G., & Raccagni, D. (2006). Diffusion of Web-based product innovation. California
Management Review, 48(4), 109–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166363
Ramirez, R. (1999). Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 49–65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199901)20:1<49::AID-SMJ20>3.0.CO;2-2
Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2011). Collaborative networked organisations and customer communities: value
co-creation and co-innovation in the networking era. Production Planning and Control: The Management
of Operations, 22(5-6), 447–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.536619
Russo-Spena, T., & Mele, C. (2012). “Five Co-s” in innovating: a practice-based view. Journal of Service
Management, 23(4), 527–553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231211260404
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a Platform for
Customer Engagement in Product Innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20046
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, R., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:
Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Shaw, D., Newholm, T., & Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: an exploration of consumer
empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 1049–1067.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610681005
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Customer-led and market-oriented: let’s not confuse the two. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(10), 1001–1006.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199810)19:10%3C1001::AID-SMJ996%3E3.0.CO;2-4
Stavrakantonakis, I., Gagiu, A-E., Toma, I., & Fensel, D. (2013). Towards Online Engagement via the Social
Web. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Building and Exploring Web Based Environments
(WEB2013). Seville, Spain, January 27, 2013 – February 1, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=web_2013_2_20_40055
Stokes, D. (2000). Entrepreneurial marketing: a conceptualisation from qualitative research. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 3(1), 47–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750010310497
Swink, M. (2006). Building Collaborative Innovation Capability. Research Technology Management, 49(2),
37–47. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iri/rtm/2006/00000049/00000002/art00006
Thomke, S. (1998). Managing Experimentation in the Design of New Products. Management Science, 44(6),
743–762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.6.743
Thomke, S., & von Hippel, E. (2002). Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value. Harvard Business
Review, 80(4), 74–81. http://hbr.org/2002/04/customers-as-innovators-a-new-way-to-create-value/ar/1
Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (2002). Listening in to find unmet customer needs and solutions. Working Paper,
156, July, Center for eBusiness, Mit Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.373061
Vargo, S. L. (2009). Toward a Transcending Conceptualization of Relationship: a Service-Dominant Logic
Perspective. Journal of Business and Industry Marketing, 24(5/6), 373–379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620910966255
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68,
1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing. Dialog, Debate and Directions.
Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academic
Marketing Science, 36, 1–10. Retrieved from
http://www.sdlogic.net/Vargo_and_Lusch_2008_JAMS_Continuing
Vasalou, A., Joinson, A., Bänziger, T., Goldie, P., & Pitt, J. (2008). Avatars in social media: Balancing accuracy,
playfulness and embodied messages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(11), 801–811.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.08.002
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
38
Verona, G. (1999). A Resource-based View of Product Development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1),
132–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1580445
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Consumer engagement: Exploring customer relationships
beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122–146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201
von Hippel, E. (1976). The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process. Research
Policy, 5(3), 212–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(76)90028-7
von Hippel, E. (1978). Successfull Industrial Products From Customer Ideas. Journal of Marketing, 42, 39–49.
Retrieved from http://evhippel.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/cap-map-1978-jour-of-mktg-evh
von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791
von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. (2001). Perspective: User toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
18(4), 247–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00090-X
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48(7),
821–833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.7.821.2817
Webster Jr, F. E. (1994). Market-Driven Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Wind, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customerization: The Next Revolution in Mass Customization. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 15(1), 13–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6653(200124)15:1<13::AID-DIR1001>3.0.CO;2-#
Zineldin, M. (2000). Beyond relationship marketing: technologicalship marketing. Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 18(1), 9–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500010308549
Zwass, V. (2010). Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(1), 11–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415150101
Notes
Note 1. From 2010 to 2012.
Note 2. This enables the profiling of units based on other structural characteristics in addition to the specific
industry, such as company size.
Note 3. Examples of this type of strategy are represented by platforms G-WIN, General Mills; Ideas for
Innovation, Campbell Soup Company; Kraft Collaboration Kitchen, Kraft Foods Group; OI Submission Portal,
Unilever; Helping Your Ideas Grow, GSK; Collaborate & Innovate, LG; Intelli-Ideas, Johnson&Johnson, as
well as dedicated pages within corporate Web sites, such as GM New Device Section, GM; Submit Your Idea,
Colgate Palmolive.
Note 4. Some examples: platform IdeaWorks by The Hershey Company; simplyinnovate by Philips; the tailor
made channel on the Web corporate site Chip Chat Submission by Terra Chips Brand (The Hain Celestial
Group).
Note 5. Some examples: platform FordSocial Your Ideas by Ford; In the mill of my desires by Mulino Bianco
Brand (Barilla Group); IdeaStorm by Dell; the Co-Creation section of the Connect + Develop new platform by
P&G; Innovation By You by Coloplast; Kellogg’s Community Share an idea by Kellogg Company.
Note 6. Typical headlines of this kind of initiatives are: “Tell your story … habits … taste … preferences / Show
us how … and you may win … “.
Note 7. Examples: iDream Annual Student Challenge by Honda; Stratedge Case Study Annual Contest by GSK
Consumer.
Note 8. Some examples of this are the Factory Customization by Harley-Davidson and the Barbie styled by me
by Mattel.
Note 9. The main product sector in which the firm operates has been indicated; however, in some cases, this
variable does not have the “mutually exclusive” feature. For Ikea, e.g., its Food Business has been considered as
marginal, while Unilever operates both in the equally significant Food and Cleaning product sectors.
www.ccsenet.org/ijms International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 6, No. 5; 2014
39
Appendix A
Companies in the Study
3M Brivais Vilnis Fiat SpA JumboDiset Pacific Brands Ltd STABILO
International GmbH
AB Electrolux Bruce Food Corporation Fila Spa Kangaro Group Pfizer Steelcase
Acer Group Bruschettini Srl Fila USA Kellogg Co Philips Subaru Fuji Heavy
Industries Ltd
Adidas Group Calia Italia Spa Ford Motor Company Kimberly-Clark Poliform SpA Super Glue
Corp
AkzoNobel Campbell Soup Inc. FrieslandCampina K-SWISS INC Prodeco Pharma Svenska Cellulosa
Aktiebolaget SCA
Alivar Srl Casio Fuyimei Leggett & Platt
Consumer Porducts
Group
PSA Group Tapizados Fama SL
American Apparel Inc Chiquita Brands International
Inc.
G. Lalo Lego Group Quiksilver Tata Motors
Amorepacific
Corporation
Church & Dwight Co. Inc General Mills Lenovo Group Ltd Ravensburger Techno Source
AoGrand Group Clementoni SpA GlaxoSmithKline LG Electronics Reckitt Benckiser Teflon DuPont
Apple Inc Colgate Palmolive GM General Motors Lifeway Foods Inc Renault SA Group Tempur Sealy
International
Artsana Group Coloplast Goldrooster Group Logitech Roche Texas Instruments
Asus Inc Columbia Sportswear
Company
Grünenthal Group L’Oreal SA Rocky Hill Loctite The Clorox Company
Aurora Srl Colussi Group Gund Mattel Fisher-Price
Inc
Rocky Mountain
Chocolate Factory
Inc
The Hans Celestial
aussieBum Crocs Inc Haba Group Mayora Group Room & Board The Hersey Food
Corp
Avery Dennison Daiichi Sankyo Hanesbrands Inc. McBride plc Rubbermaid Home
Organization
Product &
Solutions
The Honest Company
Bandai Namco Daimler AG Harley-Davidson Mega Brands Inc. Sanderson Walker
Greenbank Plc
Tootie Pie Co
Barilla Group Deli Group Co. Ltd. Henkel Ag & Co. Melitta USA Sanofi Toshiba Corp
Bassett Furniture Dell Inc Herlitz AG MERX Furniture
Company
Schiapperelli SpA Toy Vault Inc
Bayer AG Delta Apparel Herman Miller Inc Micro Cars Limited Select Harvests Ltd Toyota Motor Corp
Bburago Dongbu Daewoo Electronics Herpa Modenas Servier Under Armour Inc
BD Becton, Dickinson
and Company
Eli Lilly & Company Holiday Kitchens Motorcycle Company
Minsk-Moto
Seven SpA Unilever
Beiersdorf Energizer Holdings Inc Honda Motor
Company
Motorola (Google
Inc)
Silvine Sinclairs
Stationers
Valsoia SpA
Bialetti Industrie SpA Epson Hornby Ltd New Balance Inc SKECHERS USA
Inc
Vemedia Group
Björn Borg AB Ericsson HP (Hewlett-Packard) New-Ray Toys
Company
Smith & Nephew
plc
VF Corporation
Blistex Inc Esselte Hulsta Nike Inc Smoby Toys Volkswagen Group
BMW Mini Ethan Allen Inc Humbrol Ningbo Songli
Stationery
Manufacture Ltd
Société Bic Volvo Group Corp
bObles Faber-Castell Hyundai Kia
Automotive Group
Nissan Motor Co Ltd Sofa Workshop WD-40 CO
Boots Alliance Farmax India Ltd IKEA Nokia Corp SONY Corp Wham-O
Boss Hoss Cycles Inc Farook International
Stationery
Italeri SpA North America Kraft
Foods Group Inc
Speedo
International Ltd
Winning Brands Corp
Bostik Inc Fater SpA J&J Healthcare P&G Spin Master LtD Zoch Gmbh
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
