To be or not to be in the ad?: Which Advertising Strategy to Promote a Co-Created Product with Users?

The mountain bike, Napster or Kleenex paper tissues (von Hippel, 2005) are examples of successful new products developed by creative and innovative users. Widely recognized and extensively documented for the last forty years,... [ view full abstract ]

The mountain bike, Napster or Kleenex paper tissues (von Hippel, 2005) are examples of successful new products developed by creative and innovative users. Widely recognized and extensively documented for the last forty years, the phenomenon of innovation by users is an easily observable practice in the current economic landscape. Indeed, according to a recent report (eYeka, 2015), 85% of the largest global brands in consumer good industry (such as Procter & Gamble, followed by Unilever and Nestlé) have used crowdsourcing with consumers in the last ten years. While managers and researchers agree on the interest to involve users in the new product development processes, little has been done concerning advertising strategies to be implemented to promote a product co-created with users. Indeed, some firms stress, in their communication campaigns, that their products are designed by users (Schreier, Fuchs and Dahl, 2012) like Threadless [“designed by user name”], Lego [“designed by Lego fans”] or Local Motor [“designed by you in America”], but little attention has been paid to the implication and effectiveness of such a trend and argument. A better understanding of how companies should promote co-created products with users is important both from a theoretical and managerial perspective, because this could affect consumer behavior and purchase intents. Three objectives are assigned to this research: 1 / to better understand the effect of the presence vs. absence of a co-creator in an advertisement on the perceived originality of the advert, the perceived credibility of the manufacturer, the attitude towards the advertisement, the attitude toward the brand and the purchase intent; 2 / to examine these effects in the context of a low vs. high brand awareness and 3 / to explore the moderating role of the product being advertised (utilitarian vs. hedonic product). Two online experiments were conducted, one for a utilitarian product, and one for a hedonic product. In Study 1, 209 participants (51% female) were randomly assigned to one of four groups: co-creator -absence vs. presence and brand awareness –low vs. high. Concerning the product category, for the utilitarian one, we chose the pivot power, a flexible power strip designed by Zake Zien (after asking his permission) when he was still studying (idea submitted on Quirky Inc.). Concerning the choice of brands, we selected several known brands (with a high awareness) in the electronic sector that we submitted to the vote of a group of students (N = 30). “Philips” brand appeared to be the most congruent with the selected product. We proceeded in the same way for the unknown brand (brand with a low awareness): we made several proposals and the name “Edison” appeared to be the most congruent with the promoted product. Thus, four stimuli have been created using Photoshop to promote the electric power strip (appendix 1). A second experiment was conducted for a hedonic good (chocolate bar) among 194 subjects (48% female). We followed the procedure used in study 1. The results showed a significant negative impact of the presence of a co-creator for a brand with a high awareness promoting an utilitarian product on the perceived originality of the advertisement, the perceived credibility of the manufacturer, the attitude towards the ad and the attitude toward the brand. However, the data indicate no significant effect for the hedonic product. In summary, for trademarks utilitarian products whose notoriety is established, it is recommended to not feature the co-creator in the advertising communications. On the other hand, for a new brand or a hedonic product, putting forward the co-creator does not harm the perception of the advert nor the brand.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research, all of which present opportunities for further investigations to confirm and extend these first initial results. In a third study, it would be interesting to consider possible moderators such as the similarity/dissimilarity salient attributes of the co-creator (based on same vs. opposite gender, age, ethnicity, etc.) with the target of the co-created product. In a fourth study, we plan to expand understanding of the effects of the congruence seen between a brand and its use of co-creation practices with users. Indeed, further work should be conducted to better understand why consumers have negative reactions when it comes to a brand with a high level of awareness. Is it due to a lack of credibility and expertise allocated to the co-creator? The results of moderated mediation tests during this research suggest it. Are there other factors to take into account to better fit this type of advertising? Then, another opportunity exists to extend research into the question of attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions after exposure to advertisements highlighting a single co-creator (our case) vs. a community of co-creators (with the image of the innovation Community Local Motors whose main project, the Rally Fighter, is the fruit of the creativity of a community of volunteers motivated by a common ambition: creating an uncommon crossover). Finally, a major limitation is inherent to the experimental methodology in terms of external validity (context of exposure to the ad, biases of self-selection of subjects, measures following the exposure, etc.). It would be interesting to provide additional empirical evidence in testing other advertising formats and media to increase the potential of generalization of the results obtained.