Comments on: Q and A … Aric Rindfleisch on ‘Customer Co-creation’ http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/ brands + marketing + innovation + technology Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:11:00 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Adam Needles http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-203 Adam Needles Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:48:59 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-203 @ PM Hut - Thanks for joining the dialogue. @ PM Hut – Thanks for joining the dialogue.

]]> By: PM Hut http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-194 PM Hut Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:05:01 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-194 About the 4 forms of co-creation, the idea of leveraging customer participation and enthusiasm about the product to work for free is just genius marketing. About the 4 forms of co-creation, the idea of leveraging customer participation and enthusiasm about the product to work for free is just genius marketing.

]]> By: equiliqua » coo-… http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-187 equiliqua » coo-… Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:06:20 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-187 [...] producto, lo que hagamos coo-perando, coo-nversando, coo-diseñando con nuestros agentes externos: clientes, colaboradores, proveedores, [...] [...] producto, lo que hagamos coo-perando, coo-nversando, coo-diseñando con nuestros agentes externos: clientes, colaboradores, proveedores, [...]

]]> By: Aric Rindfleisch http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-186 Aric Rindfleisch Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:41:24 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-186 The issue of why customers participate in co-creation activity is an interesting and important question. John and Andi identify two key motives (i.e., extrinsic and intrinsic rewards). I believe that both types of rewards should be employed, if possible. The extant research in creativity and innovation suggest, however, that intrinsic rewards are most effective in generating innovative solutions and fostering a sense of community. Thus, a co-creation effort that mainly doles out intrinsic rewards (i.e., Wikipedia) often works, but the obverse seems rather unlikely. The issue of why customers participate in co-creation activity is an interesting and important question. John and Andi identify two key motives (i.e., extrinsic and intrinsic rewards). I believe that both types of rewards should be employed, if possible. The extant research in creativity and innovation suggest, however, that intrinsic rewards are most effective in generating innovative solutions and fostering a sense of community. Thus, a co-creation effort that mainly doles out intrinsic rewards (i.e., Wikipedia) often works, but the obverse seems rather unlikely.

]]> By: Adam Needles http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-180 Adam Needles Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:03:26 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-180 @John - I think your comments are a good reminder that co-creation only works when objectives and needs ... and incentives ... are aligned. I like how you've positioned this as being about the 'co-creation reward system.' @ Jeffrey - Thanks for the nice comments. Our next Q&A will be with Sandy Carter of IBM. Should be a great dialogue on Marketing 2.0 this coming Thursday. I also like your call-out re: NPSD in the technology industry. From my perspective of almost a decade in the enterprise technology/B2B arena, I can say there is a lot of us as marketers just throwing things against the wall and seeking what sticks. We need to move beyond this and be more insight driven. Co-creation is really the next step beyond this, but many in the enterprise technology/B2B arena need to learn to run before they can walk. Even a moderate increase in customer insights would have a huge impact on the NPSD cycle for these companies. @ Andrea - Thanks for this real-world case study in successful co-creation. Good dialogue, everyone. Aric, what are your follow-up thoughts on this? @John – I think your comments are a good reminder that co-creation only works when objectives and needs … and incentives … are aligned. I like how you’ve positioned this as being about the ‘co-creation reward system.’

@ Jeffrey – Thanks for the nice comments. Our next Q&A will be with Sandy Carter of IBM. Should be a great dialogue on Marketing 2.0 this coming Thursday.

I also like your call-out re: NPSD in the technology industry. From my perspective of almost a decade in the enterprise technology/B2B arena, I can say there is a lot of us as marketers just throwing things against the wall and seeking what sticks. We need to move beyond this and be more insight driven.

Co-creation is really the next step beyond this, but many in the enterprise technology/B2B arena need to learn to run before they can walk. Even a moderate increase in customer insights would have a huge impact on the NPSD cycle for these companies.

@ Andrea – Thanks for this real-world case study in successful co-creation.

Good dialogue, everyone.

Aric, what are your follow-up thoughts on this?

]]> By: Andrea Lind http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-179 Andrea Lind Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:19:49 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-179 Following up on John’s point regarding a co-creation reward system, it is possible to develop a situation in which the participation is its own reward. If one is highly involved with the product/brand/category, the opportunity to be a part of developing something “cool” has an intrinsic value. Volvo used this in its development of the C30 coupe (introduced in the fall of 2007). Volvo offered a “build a C30” tool on its website that allowed potential buyers to choose features and option they wanted in the new model. It also allowed Volvo to gauge reactions to various price schemes and to estimate the market for C30s in the US. American consumers seemed to gravitate toward a sportier C30 than European consumers. Since the introduction of the C30, Volvo has continued to allow consumers considerable voice in the design of the car. When ordering a C30, a consumer can choose to participate in the Custom Build program, where, for a $300 charge, access to 14 exterior colors, nine interior color combinations, and more than 30 other standalone options is available. Consumers have the opportunity to get the exact C30 they want and Volvo gets both insight into consumer preferences and the chance to refine future offerings. Volvo has put a cap of $300 on the lost efficiencies of standardization, effectively a customer charge for entré into co-creation. Customers who do not “custom build” their C30 can choose traditional option packages which bundle a variety of features. http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9539646/1/c_2984382 http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car_news/tailor_made_volvos_car_news Following up on John’s point regarding a co-creation reward system, it is possible to develop a situation in which the participation is its own reward. If one is highly involved with the product/brand/category, the opportunity to be a part of developing something “cool” has an intrinsic value. Volvo used this in its development of the C30 coupe (introduced in the fall of 2007). Volvo offered a “build a C30” tool on its website that allowed potential buyers to choose features and option they wanted in the new model. It also allowed Volvo to gauge reactions to various price schemes and to estimate the market for C30s in the US. American consumers seemed to gravitate toward a sportier C30 than European consumers. Since the introduction of the C30, Volvo has continued to allow consumers considerable voice in the design of the car. When ordering a C30, a consumer can choose to participate in the Custom Build program, where, for a $300 charge, access to 14 exterior colors, nine interior color combinations, and more than 30 other standalone options is available. Consumers have the opportunity to get the exact C30 they want and Volvo gets both insight into consumer preferences and the chance to refine future offerings. Volvo has put a cap of $300 on the lost efficiencies of standardization, effectively a customer charge for entré into co-creation. Customers who do not “custom build” their C30 can choose traditional option packages which bundle a variety of features.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9539646/1/c_2984382

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car_news/tailor_made_volvos_car_news

]]> By: Jeffrey X. http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-178 Jeffrey X. Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:04:44 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-178 Technology is definitely shaping the today business. As you discussed, the internet enabled the co-creation. I am wondering how about the technology industry itself? I mean, how about the development of the advance marketing like co-creation in the technology industry? I may be wrong, while anyway, my experience both in CPG and Cell phone companies tells me that CPG is more consumer and marketing driven while IT companies are really technology driven. It seems like that CPG companies are competing with each other by marketing while IT companies compete by technology. I hope, the improvement or further development of marketing inside technology industry will help the better development of new tech products or services, which will enhance the co-creation or other new marketing practices in the whole business world. Technology is definitely shaping the today business. As you discussed, the internet enabled the co-creation.

I am wondering how about the technology industry itself? I mean, how about the development of the advance marketing like co-creation in the technology industry? I may be wrong, while anyway, my experience both in CPG and Cell phone companies tells me that CPG is more consumer and marketing driven while IT companies are really technology driven. It seems like that CPG companies are competing with each other by marketing while IT companies compete by technology.

I hope, the improvement or further development of marketing inside technology industry will help the better development of new tech products or services, which will enhance the co-creation or other new marketing practices in the whole business world.

]]> By: Jeffrey X. http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-177 Jeffrey X. Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:26:30 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-177 I do like this kind of dialogue because it can ansers the questions of us, readers. I mean, most of time, when we read an article, we are interested in its topics which arouse our curiosity to learn something new or differrent, and the we try to look for some answers from its contents. Now, here are clear questions and answers. Moreover, I'm very impressed by the sharp questions and the solid and inspiring answers. So great! Looking forward to coming dialogues... I do like this kind of dialogue because it can ansers the questions of us, readers. I mean, most of time, when we read an article, we are interested in its topics which arouse our curiosity to learn something new or differrent, and the we try to look for some answers from its contents. Now, here are clear questions and answers. Moreover, I’m very impressed by the sharp questions and the solid and inspiring answers. So great!

Looking forward to coming dialogues…

]]> By: John Rotheray http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-174 John Rotheray Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:49:43 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-174 Without a doubt, co-creation is an extremely powerful tool for new product development, but it's not a substitute for corporations to think strategically about new product development. Firms will always do most of the "laborious work" of new product development. For most people time is a scarce resource, so free co-creation has to be fun and not take very long. It's fun to create and submit a t-shirt design on threadless, but I doubt you'll get a lot of users clamoring to design the manufacturing machinery, supply chain, or online marketing and consumer capture systems that goes into making a new threadless shirt. That's hard work and hardly sexy. Companies must be willing to share in the profits if they expect to attract consumers to collaborate on the "hard part of NPD". Open source ventures like Firefox and Wikipedia are successful because they serve a beneficial cause beyond their corporations. For firms without causes, a shared revenue model like Apple's application store or SalesForce's AppExchange is a proven model to attract collaborators. In conclusion, it's essential for firms to establish the appropriate co-creation reward systems and invest in infrastructure to support new-to-the-worlds products. Without a doubt, co-creation is an extremely powerful tool for new product development, but it’s not a substitute for corporations to think strategically about new product development.

Firms will always do most of the “laborious work” of new product development.

For most people time is a scarce resource, so free co-creation has to be fun and not take very long. It’s fun to create and submit a t-shirt design on threadless, but I doubt you’ll get a lot of users clamoring to design the manufacturing machinery, supply chain, or online marketing and consumer capture systems that goes into making a new threadless shirt. That’s hard work and hardly sexy.

Companies must be willing to share in the profits if they expect to attract consumers to collaborate on the “hard part of NPD”. Open source ventures like Firefox and Wikipedia are successful because they serve a beneficial cause beyond their corporations.

For firms without causes, a shared revenue model like Apple’s application store or SalesForce’s AppExchange is a proven model to attract collaborators.

In conclusion, it’s essential for firms to establish the appropriate co-creation reward systems and invest in infrastructure to support new-to-the-worlds products.

]]> By: Aric Rindfleisch http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/q-and-a-aric-rindfleisch-on-co-creation/#comment-172 Aric Rindfleisch Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:34:11 +0000 http://propellingbrands.wordpress.com/?p=337#comment-172 Adam, Thanks for the soapbox! Clearly, co-creation is an important means of propelling brands in today's interconnected and transparent marketplace. I hope my thoughts are helpful in this regard and look forward to hearing the thoughts from other members of the Propelling Brands community. Adam,

Thanks for the soapbox! Clearly, co-creation is an important means of propelling brands in today’s interconnected and transparent marketplace. I hope my thoughts are helpful in this regard and look forward to hearing the thoughts from other members of the Propelling Brands community.

]]>