Consumer value journey with pet in multible touchpoints
1. CONSUMER VALUE JOURNEY
WITH PET IN MULTIPLE
SERVICE TOUCHPOINTS
24th Annual RESER Conference, 2014
September 11-13, 2014
Helsinki, Finland
Jaakko Autio
Ari Kuismin
Minna Autio
Henna Syrjälä
Eliisa Kylkilahti
2. PRESENTATION
1. Introduction: theoretical background and research design
2. Pet as a co-consumer
3. Consumer value journey with pet
4. Conclusions
3. INTRODUCTION
ď§ Various discussions on consumer value
(e.g. Gummerus, 2013; SĂĄnchez-FernĂĄndez; Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007)
ď§ Holbrookâs (1999; 2006) definition:
Value as an âinteractive relativistic preference experienceâ
ď§ Context: pet-related consumption
ď Pet as a co-consumer (Vänskä 2014)
ď§ Co-consumers engage in visible, participatory and
joint activities as part of the overall experience
(Baron & Harris 2008, 125)
4. COMPANY-CONSUMER
INTERACTION
ď§ The focus has often been on firm and its processes in
value-creation (Heinonen et al. 2012; Osborne & Ballantyne 2012)
ď§ Also in context of pet-related services (Boksberger et al. 2011;
Brockman et al. 2008; Harrison-Walker 2001)
ď§ Consumer value occurs in dyadic interaction with a firm
ď§ Also other actors of everyday life produce value
(e.g. Holbrook 2006; Mickelsson 2013)
ď§ Understanding consumer value requires expanding
the scope of customer-firm interaction (see Heinonen et al.
2010; van Riel et.al. 2013)
5. CONSUMER-CENTRIC VALUE
JOURNEY
Approach: the consumer value journey with pet
ď§ Service is experienced as a journey including several
touchpoints (e.g. Zomerdijk; Voss, 2010)
ď§ Touchpoint = interaction with the provider (e.g. PatrĂcio et al. 2011)
ď§ Consumers face touchpoints with different providers
contributing to experienced value (Tax et. al. 2013)
6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How consumer value is negotiated with co-consumer
(the pet) in the context of pet-related services?
2. How consumers face touchpoints with different
providers?
7. RESEARCH DATA
ď§ The empirical data consists of 53 guided interviews
ď§ Carried out between December 2012 â January 2014
Women: 38
Men: 15
Age: 21-75
ď§ Interview themes covered pet-related consumption,
service encounters and everyday life with pet
ď§ The interviews are interpreted as narrative stories (Shankar;
Goulding, 2001; Moisander & Valtonen, 2012)
8. THE PET AS A CO-CONSUMER
Fig. 1: A pet creating value to consumer
9. THE PET AS A VALUE CREATOR
ď§ Consumers create - a separate - independent agency
for the pet
ď§ The pet has a significant position, when consumer use time
and buy goods or services (e.g. Ridgway et al., 2008)
ď§ The pet brings value experiences to the owner by âusingâ
services
ď§ Relationship between pet and owner is reciprocal
âItâs also been kind of a lifeline, like if youâre really stressed out,
itâs really great to see the dog having fun, rolling around in
the snow or whatever. Because it canât help but it can make
you feel better, because the dog is never really in a bad
mood. Itâs pretty much in that sense, like all you have to do is
go home, thereâs a happy dog waiting for you there, so that
does make you feel good.â [Interview 21]
10. THE PET AS A MEDIATOR OF VALUE
ď§ The value emerges in relationship between consumer
and provider(s) â pet is a negotiating actor
ď§ Consumer justifies choices (e.g. pet food recommendations,
selecting an insurance company) by the pet
ď§ Ownerâs agency (e.g. as an active enthusiast)
ď§ The service provider status (e.g. a speciality retailer)
ď§ The status given to the pet (e.g. family dog)
âFor a puppy Iâd say it [an insurance] is pretty important, or if
for some really hard-core racing dog, then itâs probably
really important. But maybe for just your normal house pet,
then it's not necessarily quite as important.â [Interview 21]
11. THE PET AS AN EXPERIENCER OF
VALUE
ď§ Consumer sees pet as an actor that experiences the
service
ď§ Consumer values petâs experiences
ď§ E.g owners are willing to make sacrifices in money and time
ď§ E.g. the technical quality and the efficiency of service are
secondary evaluation criteria if the service provider does not
treat pet well enough
âEverythingâs gone well and Iâve felt good about it and itâs left a
very positive experience for the dog, too. (âŚ) with us itâs
actually a joke because it [the vetâs office] is really near us,
so on a walk Holly always (âŚ) walks there, to the door of the
veterinary clinic because the ladies always come and give
her treats out the door.â [Interview 5]
12. FROM DYADIC TO TRIADIC
RELATIONSHIP
Co-consumer
(pet)
Consumer Service provider
(pet owner)
Fig. 2: The tripartite relationship
13. CONSUMER VALUE JOURNEY WITH PET
ď§Persons, firms, communities
and other actors take part to
consumerâs everyday life
ď§ Play together or separately
ď§ Touchpoint â a tripartite
interaction
ď§ Series of interaction
experienced together as a
journey
Fig. 2: Consumer value wheel through pet and
service touchpoints (Lee et al., 2013)
14. CONSUMER VALUE JOURNEY WITH PET
⢠Different providers are linked to each other and contribute
consumersâ value journey
⢠Consumers construct their journeys by using, sometimes
misusing, choosing and refusing services
15. CONCLUSIONS
In everyday life - consumers do not meet a consistent
chain of service stages along the time axis in isolation
ď§ Instead, the consumer value journey appears as layered,
sometimes scattered set of touchpoints experienced
inseparably.
ď§ Consumer value is created with pet (co-consumer) in
tripartite relationship (pet owner/consumer, pet and service
provider)
ď§ Ref. consumption for elderly or children - vulnerable
consumers (RĂśtzmeier-Keuper; WĂźnderlich, 2014)
ď§ Also actors and activities of everyday life not taking part
in the immediate interaction should be recognized and
considered (see also Baron & Harris 2008, Mickelsson 2013)
16. REFERENCES
Baron, S. & Harris, K. (2008) âConsumers as resource integratorsâ. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(1-2), 113-130.
Boksberger, P. E. & Melsen, L. (2011) âPerceived value: a critical examination of definitions, concepts and measures for the service industryâ.
Journal of Services Marketing, 25(3), 71â84.
Brockman, B. K., Taylor, V. A. & Brockman, C. M. (2008) âThe price of unconditional love: consumer decision making for high-dollar veterinary
careâ. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 397â405.
Gummerus, J. (2013) âValue creation processes and value outcomes in marketing theory â strangers or siblings?â. Marketing Theory 13(1), 19â
46.
Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001) âThe Measurement of Word-of-Mouth Communication and an Investigation of Service Quality and Customer
Commitment as Potential Antecedentsâ. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60â75.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K-J., Edvardsson, B.., SundstrĂśm, E. & Andersson, P. (2010) 'A Customer-dominant logic of serviceâ.
Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 531â548.
Holbrook, M. B. (2006) âConsumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: an illustrative photographic essayâ.
Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 714â725.
Holbrook, M.B. (1999) âConsumer value: A framework for analysis and researchâ. London: Routledge.
Lee, K., Chung, K.-W. & Nam, K.-Y. (2013) âOrchestrating designable touchpoints for service businessesâ. Design Management Review 24(3),
14â21.
Mickelsson, K-J. (2013) âCustomer activity in serviceâ. Journal of Service Management, 24(5), 534â552.
Moisander, J. & Valtonen, A. (2012) âInterpretive marketing research: using ethnography in strategic market developmentâ. In: PeĂąaloza, L.;
Toulouse, N., Visconti, L. N. (eds.) Marketing management: A cultural perspective. New York: Routledge, 246-260.
Osborne, P. & Ballantyne, D. (2012) âThe Paradigmatic pitfalls of customer-centric marketingâ. Marketing Theory, 12(2), 155â172.
PatrĂcio, L., Fisk, R. P., e Cunha, F. J. & Constantine L. (2011) âMultilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service
Experience Blueprintingâ. Journal of Service Research, 14(2), 180â200.
Ridgway, N. M., Kukar-Kinney, M., Monroe, K. B. & Chamberlin, E. (2008) âDoes excessive buying for self relate to spending on pets?â. Journal of
Business Research, 61(5), 392â396.
RĂśtzmeier-Keuper, J., WĂźnderlich, N.V. (2014) âInterdependent relationships between and among service providers and customer collectivesâ.
AMA SERVSIG proceedings, session transformative/health services/public and non-profit services, 27â28.
SĂĄnchez-RernĂĄndez, R.; Iniesta-bonillo, M.Ă. (2007) âThe concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the researchâ. Marketing Theory,
7(4), 427â451.
Shankar, A.; Goulding, C. (2001) âInterpretive consumer research: two more contributions to theory and practiceâ. Qualitative Market Research,
4(1), 7-16.
Tax, S. S., Mccutcheon, D., Wilkinson, I. F. (2013) âThe service delivery network (SDN): A customer-centric perspective of the customer journeyâ.
Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 454-470.
van Riel, A. C.R., Calabretta, G., Driessen, P. H, Hillebrand, B., Humphreys, A., Krafft, M. & Beckers, S. F. M. (2013) âConsumer perceptions of
service constellations: implications for service innovationâ. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 314â329.
Vänskä, A. (2014) âNew kids on the mall: Babyfied dogs as fashionable co-consumersâ. Young consumers, 15(3), 263â272.
Zomerdijk, L. G.; Voss, C.A. (2010) âService design for experience-centric servicesâ. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67â82.
Editor's Notes
Focus on consumers and service consumption beyond managerial aspects and customer behaviour may open new ways of understanding how value emerges
Focus on consumers and service consumption beyond managerial aspects and customer behaviour may open new ways of understanding how value emerges
Focus on consumers and service consumption beyond managerial aspects and customer behaviour may open new ways of understanding how value emerges
TEOREETTISESTI? KIRJALLISUUSVIITTEITĂ!
PITĂISIKĂ LYHYESTI SANOA: MIKĂ ON TOUCHPOINT!
Focus on consumers and service consumption beyond managerial aspects and customer behaviour may open new ways of understanding how value emerges
TEOREETTISESTI? KIRJALLISUUSVIITTEITĂ!
PITĂISIKĂ LYHYESTI SANOA: MIKĂ ON TOUCHPOINT!
MyÜs päätÜs jättää kuluttamatta
Interaction represents a tripartite relationship between a pet-owner/consumer, a pet and a service provider
Pet as a value creator, a mediator of value and an experiencer of value
Ruotsinkielinen pp ja vielä macillä: tausta hävisi, kun poistin yliopiston typerän logon. Sen voisi lisätä taustalle :D
Interaction represents a tripartite relationship between a pet-owner/consumer, a pet and a service provider
Pet as a value creator, a mediator of value and an experiencer of value
âOmnichannelâ + âMulti-providerâ
Analogia autoihin?
Voisi kertoa sanallisesti: Consumers do not use the service in vacuum or necessarily follow the service journey as provider intended. Poistin sen diasta! T. Jaakko