Market concentration and effectiveness of co-creation (2011)
Post on 20-Jul-2015
239 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Market control
When crypto-monopoly is assumed it no longer follows that any of the old goals of social efficiency are realised.
“ “15
John K. Galbraith, American Capitalism (1952, p.43)
Hypotheses
H0: Consumers prefer user-driven value creation strategies to company-driven ones.
H1: Preference for a user-driven value creation strategy is associated with market concentration.
27
Manipulation and control checks
1.Type of value creation strategy 2.Level of market concentration 3.Differences in attribute rating
✔
41
1.Involvement 2.Product knowledge 3.Expertise
✔
Choice shares by market concentration
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Low concentration High concentration
31,0%28,2%
69,0%71,8%
User-drivenCompany-driven
Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy
43Company type choice by market concentration: χ2(1) = 0.49, p = .48
Choice preference
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low concentration High concentration
4,72 4,83
3,05 3,28
User-drivenCompany-driven
Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy
44Company type preference by market concentration: F = 0.40, p = .53; measured on a seven-point
Lykert type scale (1 = Company "A" and 7 = Company "B")
Option “1” adoption likelihood
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low concentration High concentration
4,11 3,88
5,214,52
User-drivenCompany-driven
Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy
45Company type preference by market concentration: F = 3.13, p = .08; measured on a seven-point
Lykert-type scale (1 = Very unlikely and 7 = Very likely)
Option “2” adoption likelihood
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low concentration High concentration
5,03 4,85
3,87 4,15
User-drivenCompany-driven
Market concentration and preference for type of value creation strategy
46Company type preference by market concentration: F = 0.41, p = .84; measured on a seven-point
Lykert-type scale (1 = Very unlikely and 7 = Very likely)
Value creation strategy and preference
48
Frequency of choice
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
32,1%
67,9%
User-drivenCompany-driven
Adoption likelihood
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3,544,88
User-drivenCompany-driven
Value creation strategy and preference
49Company type adoption likelihood: t(161) = 3.90, p < .001; measured on a seven-point Lykert-type
scale (1 = Very unlikely and 7 = Very likely)
Value creation strategy and preference
50Relative contribution of company type description and performance attribute ratings: χ2 = 32.10, p < .001.
Contriubtion to choice preference (R-statistic)
Company type description
Functionality & Innovativeness
Reliability & Usability
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
0,16
0,14
0,30
Frequency of reasoning behind preference
31%
4%4%
39%
23%Customer orientationTarget segmentDiversityNumbersExpertise
Reasons for co-creation preference
51
Perceived expertise
Perceived Innovation ability
Perceived customer orientation
Frequency of reasoning behind preference
31%
4%4%
39%
23%Customer orientationTarget segmentDiversityNumbersExpertise
Reasons for co-creation preference
52
Perceived expertise
Perceived customer orientation
Frequency of reasoning behind preference
31%
4%4%
39%
23%Customer orientationTarget segmentDiversityNumbersExpertise
Perceived Innovation ability
Limitations
Like the physical, the psychical is not necessarily in reality what it appears to us to be.
“ “57
Sigmund Freud, “The Unconscious” in The Freud Reader (1989, p.577)
Limitations
1.Student sample 2.Atypical product descriptions 3.Experimental design 4.Polar opposites
58
Future research
1.Wider demographic 2.More product categories 3.Different levels of empowerment 4.B2B
59
top related