Resource integration and co-creation: a customer journey approach

Catia Jesus and Helena Alves

Introduction

Resource integration (RI) is a key dimension of value co-creation, but has been insufficiently explored, applied, or articulated (Baron & Warnaby, 2011; Edvardsson, Skalen, & Tronvoll, 2012). The present chapter enhances understanding with regard to the role of consumers as integrators of resources in the co-creation process, seeking to understand factors that explain their direction, disposition, and involvement in co-production and interaction with organizations (Bolton & Saxena-Iyer, 2009; Dong, Evans, & Zou, 2008; van Doom et al., 2010).

To fill this gap, this chapter addresses RI in a context of all the direct and indirect interactions involved in the consumer value co-creation process between actors and occurrences at a cultural event, thereby providing new insights and research scenarios regarding events. By giving priority to the experiential and processual aspects of the service (Edvardsson, Gus- tafsson, & Roos, 2005; Folstad & Kvale, 2018; Ostrom, Parasuraman, & Bowen, 2015), this chapter uses the customer journey (CJ) map as a methodological technique contributing to a more innovative, detailed, and applicable approach. In other words, it provides a less abstract approach to the topic, highlighting the importance and detailed understanding of consumer resources use at events.

This chapter aims for detailed understanding of what types of resources consumers integrate throughout their CJs, how they are integrated, and how this influences their experiences at a particular event. It examines how consumers interact with the multiple actors and then mobilize, adapt, and integrate different resources (both operand and operant) over the phases of their experience (pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase). It also considers the essential elements and touchpoints at which consumers integrate their resources in the cocreation process. Understanding these phenomena helps organizations to produce better results regarding innovation and consumer satisfaction.

The chapter is structured in five sections: following this introduction, the second section presents a brief review of the literature on key topics. The third section deals with the research methodology, focusing on the methodological procedures of CJ mapping. The fourth section presents and discusses the results, and the final section presents the main conclusions, implications, and limitations of the study.

Value co-creation and Rl

Vargo and Lusch (2016) showed value creation to be a process of integrating and transforming resources that requires interaction and networks, with this being the fundamental basis of exchange. With the evolution of service-dominant logic (S-DL), value-in-use stands out, recognized as the result for the actors or a goal to achieve through the service. The application of resources, including competencies, skills, and knowledge, can make changes that have value for another, according to Macdonald, Wilson, Martinez, and Toossi (2011) and Gron- roos (2011). Therefore, value can represent various forms and meanings for actors. Depending on the context, it can mean, for instance, “cheaper,” “more personalized,” “more convenient,” “more information,” “quicker,” or “a good choice” (Campbell, Maglio, & Davis, 2011). In an economy dominated by service, the participation of actors and processes integrated in value creation is considered essential (Gronroos & Voima, 2013; Williams, 2012). Furthermore, value-in-use is always contextual and gives the necessary meaning to the exchange process (Ballantyne & Varey, 2008; Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008). The growing interest in the phenomenological aspects of the service experience, wherein all experiences are unique and dependent on context (Akaka, Vargo, & Lusch, 2013), gave rise to the need to create a wider, more dynamic, realistic, and holistic perspective of value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Therefore, this chapter suggests that value-in-context and highlighted elements of context are decisive for actors’ effective value creation.

The literature demonstrates that RI is essential for value creation. The RI focus on forming interactive value relates to the actors and all their integration actions and activities (McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, Sweeney, & Kasteren, 2012; Peters et al., 2014). RI is a continuous process, through which consumers implement resources and commit themselves to a set of activities that create value directly or facilitate their consumption and use (Hib- bert, Winklhofer, & Temerak, 2012). This integrative process does not depend only on the juxtaposition of resources, but rather requires the aggregation and combination of resources that result in contextual configurations (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011; Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Integration refers to the incorporation of an actor’s resources in the social and cultural processes of other actors, allowing them to become members of a network. Thus, value co-creation occurs through RI, according to expectations, needs, and capacities of the actors (Gummesson & Mele, 2010).

Integration can take three forms: (a) complementarity — resources complement each other, and as such should be incorporated appropriately to add what is needed to form a whole; (b) redundancy - through sharing redundant information, actors are able to facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge, which contributes to co-operation and integration of common knowledge and other resources; and (c) mixing — actors can have similar and different resources, requiring both redundancy and complementarity. Zhang (2014) mentions the existence of two types of actors’ RI: the dominant integration of external resources — a process in which actors depend more on other actors than on their own resources — and the dominant integration of internal resources — in which actors need their own resources above all. In all of these situations, resources, processes, and results are combined aiming to co-create value (Hibbert et al., 2012).

According to Gronroos and Helle (2010) and Andreu et al. (2010), correspondence can be interpreted as the agreement or adjustment between resources, activities, and processes, contributing to potential value, which is at the heart of RL The principle of correspondence is based on the creation of joint value for resource integrators, which does not occur simply as propositions and co-production of value, but as co-creation of benefits for the various actors (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2010; Pels, Moller, & Saren, 2009).

The nature of actors' resources

According to Kleinaltenkamp (2015), the resources integrated by actors are tangible and intangible characteristics of the focal and other actors which are accessible at the moment of deciding to incorporate resources; they are used by actors in order to achieve intended goals relating to integration processes. Therefore, it is not imperative for actors to have ownership of resources, their ability to use or access them being sufficient (Kleinaltenkamp et ah, 2012; Wittkowski, Moeller, & Wirtz, 2013). Whether products, knowledge, or competencies, Vargo and Lusch (2004, p. 2) claim that “resources are not, they become,” acquiring that status if they are able to contribute to a system’s improved or increased viability' (Vargo et al., 2008) or even an entity’s viability (Akaka, Vargo, & Lusch, 2012). Therefore, a resource effectively becomes a resource according to the context of its use: it may be useless for some actors in certain contexts but crucial for other actors in other contexts (Frery, Lecocq, & Warnier, 2015). Resources have the potential to be produced or used by actors allowing/promoting RI; they can also impact value cocreation (Aal, Pietro, Edvardsson, Renzi, & Mugion, 2016; Edvardsson & Tronvoll, 2013). Therefore, the narrow view of resources is not considered as it is linked only to supply; instead, this chapter concentrates on facilitators of the service ecosystem, including information, knowledge, values, skills, physical products, brands, experimental laboratories, and natural resources. Chandler and Vargo (2011), Kleinaltenkamp (2015), and Pie (2016) characterize resources as valuable, because they are central to S-DL and intrinsic and inherent to actors.

One premise of S-DL states that actors are resource integrators aiming to co-create value (Arnould, Price, & Malshe, 2006; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). As such, Altinay, Sigala, and Waligo (2016) defended the existence of operant resources — which act on other resources - and operand resources — which are tangible resources that are put into practice. Rodie and Kleine (2000) divided resources into mental, emotional, and physical categories; Hobfoll (2002) highlighted that an individual’s resources can include material, conditional (social status), personal (self-esteem and self-efficacy), and social resources; also underlining the existence of‘energies’ (time, money, knowledge) as resources with no intrinsic value but of value in acquiring other resources. In turn, Arnould et al. (2006) classified operant resources into physical resources (physical and mental resources such as energy', strength, and emotion), social resources (family and commercial relationships and brand or consumer communities), or cultural resources (knowledge and aptitudes, as well as life experiences, histories, and imagination).

The consumer who actively engages in a number of roles over a life cycle, and in different social contexts at the same time, develops a number of life projects and describes a narrative that varies in terms of complexity, according to Arnould et al. (2006). These authors also underline the existence of operand resources that are tangible resources, particularly' regarding culturally formed economic resources (rents, inherited wealth, coupons, vouchers, and credits) and raw material/goods, which the consumer can allocate to perform certain behaviours (including social roles or life projects). These resources include a complement of material objects that vary in terms of quantity and quality; they' can be objects acquired in commercial exchanges, gifts, inherited possessions, or found/created objects. Subject to legal restrictions and social norms, customers have the right to allocate those objects and places. Therefore, the quantity and quality of operand resources affect the exchange behaviour between actors.

The accessibility to a resource depends on how, when, and where a service can be provided (Akaka et al., 2012). These authors associate this concept with the dependency of the relationship that allows the application of resources at appropriate times; this requires awareness of potential resources and understanding of how they can be accessed. However, the possession of large amounts of resources doesn’t mean that the actors have the skills or abilities to integrate them and obtain value. Therefore, Lusch and Vargo (2014) identify the concept of “resourceness” as the quality and the realization of potential resources obtained through processes of evaluation and transformation. In short, RI occurs in complex and dynamic actor-to-actor (A2A) environments, in which actors seek to be effective and efficient in creating and integrating such resources in order to improve the viability of their relevant ecosystems. In this way, increasing viability depends on increasing density (through the creation of new tangible and intangible resources), on more learning and innovation (through the creation of knowledge and development of new skills), and on greater accessibility (through access and transformation of potential resources into realized resources).

Kleinaltenkamp (2015) distinguished between intellectual inputs such as actors’ capacities to receive, process, and deliver relevant information for the creation and use of a service. Emotional inputs describe actors’ affective willingness to collaborate and deal with situations, so that the creation and use of a service occurs, but physical inputs require actors’ presence, time, and physical stamina. These are influenced by their lifestyles, levels of education, and individual personality characteristics. Rodie and Kleine (2000) and Baron and Harris (2008) showed that the level of inputs varies according to actors’ involvement/performance. Pie, Lecocq, and Angot (2010) joined behavioural (interpersonal interaction), temporal (time spent), and financial resources with relational inputs, highlighting that in exchange actors receive benefits that vary according to the value of expenditures. Edvardsson and Tronvoll (2013) distinguished between human and non-human resources. The former represent aspects strictly related to the actors involved (communication, objectives, competencies, and status) and their contributions to the development of structures. Non-human resources are also incorporated into service structures and social systems.

Underlying S-DL is a focus on operant resources, because these resources produce desired effects (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & flic, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Operant resources are mostly invisible and intangible, allowing actors to multiply the value of natural resources and the creation of additional operant resources (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Edvardsson et al. (2011) highlighted these as dynamic and likely to change, unlike operand resources which are inert. Operant resources are linked to cultural schemes consisting of generalized procedures applied in disseminating social life (Gidden, 1984). This is because they are essential to activating operand resources and obtaining strategic benefits; thus, they allow for value propositions (Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2012; Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Many authors have considered operand and operant resources separately; however, this distinction, which suggests the superiority of operant resources, has been questioned by several authors, as described below.

Penaloza and Mish (2011) claimed that the borders between operand and operant resources are less and less well defined. In the same way that operand resources are not only material consumer goods, operant resources are not limited to representing actors’ interests and competencies (Penaloza & Mish, 2011; Yngfalk, 2013). These authors emphasized that operant resources can simultaneously serve as operand resources. For example, community supporters develop their lifestyles and create identities by being part of a community, and the meanings that are created by being part of that community can be seen as operant resources. At the same time, clubs and sponsors make use of the supporters (e.g., for marketing purposes). Hence, supporters’ engagement can also be treated as an operand resource (Yngfalk, 2013). The challenge is theorizing Rl by multiple agents, as one’s operant resources become operand for others (Penaloza & Mish, 2011).

As such, the nature of a resource is relative and dynamic, evolving according to when and how it is perceived (Pie, 2016). Despite this distinction falling short of the context of its use, and various calls for research on the specific nature, types of resources, and contextual uses, the majority of authors adopt a separation of operant and operand resources (Arnould et al., 2006; Baron & Harris, 2008; Edvardsson, Kleinaltenkamp, Tronvoll, McHugh, & Windahl, 2014; Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012; Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Ng & Smith, 2012). However, the mere presence of resources does not imply integration per se (Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Peters, 2016). It is when resourceness is recognized and put into practice that potential resources become real; this justifies the importance of RI. This chapter assumes that actors activate both operant and operand resources, with the purpose of pursuing projects/roles.

Resource integrators: consumer rotes

RI is a key mechanism in value creation and a process that is exclusive to each actor (Gum- rnesson & Mele, 2010; Mele & Polese, 2011). As such, RI efforts provide fundamental contributions to value creation (Chen, Drennan, & Andrews, 2012). However, with little grounding in the literature, some authors consider both RI and consumer efforts as actors’ specific investments in order to achieve their objectives, highlighting the active role of actors as a central question in service research (Hibbert et al., 2012).

In S-DL, value is linked to the meaning of value-in-use, wherein the role of producers and consumers is not distinct, meaning that value is always co-created, jointly and reciprocally, in the interactions between providers and beneficiaries resulting from RI and application of competencies (Vargo et al., 2008). Human beings emerge in the nucleus of RI and the value creation process, where they behave as cultural and social actors (Taillard, Peters, Pels, & Mele, 2016). Thus, both organizations and consumers are considered resource integrators, together with other economic agents (Edvardsson et al., 2014; McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, & Sweeney, 2009; Merz, He, & Vargo, 2009; Vargo & Lusch, 2008, 2011). Each actor can apply and/or use available resources, with the (direct or indirect) multidirectional interaction being expected to contribute to creating reciprocal benefits and values (Gummesson & Mele, 2010; Pie & Caceres, 2010).

Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2012) and Aal et al. (2016) stress the importance of actors holding appropriate resources and sharing them with others, through collaborative and integrative processes. Thus, resource integrators are actors (organizations and individuals) with agency, who use operant resources to act on operand resources during the RI process. Actors transform and integrate acquired resources and micro-specialized competencies in value propositions (Edvardsson et al., 2014; Gronroos & Voima, 2013; Gummesson & Mele, 2010; Lusch, Vargo, & Tanniru, 2010). Actors prefer a density of resources to increase the viability of their systems and, for that reason, they integrate resources, co-create value, and assess value phenomenologically from their perspectives and contexts (Lusch & Vargo, 2014; McColl- Kennedy et al., 2012).

Consumers possess a great variety of operant resources they can use and integrate in cooperative relations with organizations to satisfy their needs and fulfil projects (Arnould et al., 2006). As such, they have been recognized by the wealth of personal resources they actively use in value creation and by the resulting unpredictability of the process (Arnould et al., 2006; Baron & Harris, 2008; Rodie & Kleine, 2000). Consumers are active entities able to co-develop and personalize their relations with other customers and suppliers. To do so, they adopt a diversity of roles, and performance depends on the capacity of other actors, in terms of abilities, skills, and competencies, to add new resources and use the available resources efficiently and effectively (Nuttavuthisit, 2010; Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008). Thus, each actor performs distinct and dynamic social roles that serve as exchange resources in seeking socially desirable positions and in obtaining new resources within value networks (Akaka & Chandler, 2011; Edvardsson et al., 2011; Frow et ah, 2014; Hibbert et ah, 2012). Arnould et al. (2006) emphasized that consumers actively perform multiple roles, during their life cycles and in society, at the same time as engaging in diverse projects. By contributing their knowledge and efforts, consumers can be defined as a fundamental operant resource, or as a productive resource that integrates the production process (Baron & Harris, 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

The perspective that has dominated in provider-centric literature must be more comprehensive, because the roles of the actors may be marked as open-ended and an inherently relational discovery, highlighting the need to approach value propositions for a set of actors as propositions of reciprocal value (Truong, Simmons, & Palmer, 2012). Thus, the commonly adopted classifications used to describe exchange relationships differentiated by the nature of the business should be unified (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). This makes sense because all beneficiaries of service exchanges are actors having dual roles as both provider and beneficiary, for service exchanges occurring in an A2A environment. According to Gronroos and Voima (2013), in an A2A relationship, a single, generic actor can be described as an initiator or provider of the service. However, Ekman, Raggio, and Thompson (2016) consider that actors can take on the role of both provider and beneficiary.

The actor who becomes involved in developing a service, to provide a new value proposition, has the function of initiator. The initiator begins with an invitation to co-create; after the service is developed, the actor supplying value is a provider and the actor receiving value is a beneficiary. After a generic actor’s initial invitation, there is heterogeneity among actors that are involved in various behaviours, as they take on distinct co-creation functions in the process of defining the value proposition. Thus, actors can simultaneously portray distinct roles that swing, unconsciously, between being active and passive (Edvardsson et al., 2011; Ekman et al., 2016). Over time, the actors involved can discover new ways of using a service, and thereby understand new forms of value; they may be satisfied with their understanding of the current level of value, or they may understand that the service no longer corresponds to their advanced level of knowledge or need (Truong et al., 2012). Due to changing roles, actors’ level of involvement can also vary over time, and it is possible that inactive actors who decline/accept the invitation to co-create may opt not to participate going forward (Chandler & Lusch, 2015; Ekman et al., 2016; Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014).

A consumer’s investments (i.e., skills, time, money, psychological efforts) are essential to co-creation activities (Hoyer, Rajesh, Dorotic, Krafft, & Siddharth, 2010). Although the literature on consumer effort is still relatively limited, many authors have identified efforts spent by the consumer to obtain a service as physical, mental, and/or financial (Soderlund & Sagfossen, 2017; Sweeney, Dagger, & McColl-Kennedy, 2015). Furthermore, these efforts are defined in terms of the consumer’s perception; specifically, efforts are positively associated with the consumer’s global assessment of the object. (This assumes that the consumer’s great effort in relation to an object is a sign of its importance, usefulness, temptation, attractiveness, and value.) Therefore, the assumption that effort is positively related to perceived value is extremely relevant for Soderlund and Sagfossen (2017), who also demonstrate its positive impact on global assessment, such as consumer satisfaction. The opposite view — aversion to effort — is also described in the literature, because consumers prefer to minimize the effort involved in information processing, especially for purchases of convenience products (Berry' et al., 2002; Srivastava & Kaul, 2014). According to Sweeney et al. (2015), most consumers prefer activities involving low levels of effort, because effort has a negative impact and can result in a less pleasant, more tiring, and more frustrating activity.

From the point of view of service ecosystems, RI is stimulated by actors’ efforts to create value in a particular context. Value co-creation depends on actors’ capacity to access, adapt, and integrate resources, always considering the influence of the context (Akaka et ah, 2012). Access to resources is obtained through developing exchange relationships, which provide a variety of resources for actors to adapt to specific contexts as well as to integrate within a broader social context. This results in unique experiences in developing new meanings and norms, contributing once again to the social context with the derived value. Thus, social context shows the importance of operant resources, as well as actors’ skills in accessing, adapting, and integrating these resources.

Actors not only have access to value propositions, but should know how to adapt and integrate them. They should focus on seeking out resources that are advantageous, which allow the development of learning and adaptation processes so that meaningful relationships are sustained and maintained through economic and social exchanges (Frow et al., 2014; Hilton, Hughes, & Chalcraft, 2012). Because RI efforts allow the construction of something different, resulting in the creation of innovations and solving major problems (Lusch & Spohrer, 2012), exchanges are implemented to improve the context and value of all actors, highlighting the RI process as continuous and dynamic.

In a service ecosystem, exchanges take place because no actor possesses all the resources necessary to act in isolation (Akaka et al., 2012; Frow et al., 2014; Pie & Caceres, 2010; Skalen, Gummerus, Koskull, & Magnusson, 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2011). When confronted with insufficient personal resources, actors take advantage of other actors’ resources to create and obtain value (Baron & Harris, 2008). The resource activation process can be more effective when consumers are in some way connected to each other, contributing successfully to immersion in active experiences.

CJ maps

According to the literature, CJ mapping is a visual method, oriented toward a process that conceptualizes and structures consumer experiences (CEs) (Folstad & Kvale, 2018; Nenonen et al., 2008). CJs can be described in various ways, from an involved story about a customer’s interaction with a service, to a brief set of touchpoints and interactions between service providers and customers. Zomerdijk and Voss (2010) characterized this method as including the activities and events related to the service provision but from the customer perspective. Folstad and Kvale (2018) related it to the process through which the consumer passes to reach a specific objective, involving one or more actors. CJ maps are used, therefore, to “reflect thought patterns, considerations, processes, paths and experiences that individuals enjoy in their life” (Nenonen et al., 2008, p. 49). That is, they allow understanding of how customers behave and feel; they identify motivations or attitudes along the journey, and they consider consumer mental models, the flow of interactions, and different touch- points (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Therefore, the CJ map is a systematic and schematic representation that, through diverse contact episodes, facilitates understanding and profiling the consumer experience (CE) (Hagen & Bron, 2014; Nenonen et al., 2008). Such experiences are formed based on perceptions of all moments of contact with the various actors on a given journey, and do not refer exclusively to the interactions and points of contact during the service encounter, but also to the entire value co-creation process before, during, and after (Folstad & Kvale, 2018; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Wolny & Charoensuksai, 2014).

The consumer journey

Consumers make continuous efforts to satisfy specific needs and desires. However, the majority of individuals do not have sufficient resources to fully achieve the desired results, and therefore need to engage with other specific actors and processes (Keyser, Lemon, Klaus, & Keiningham, 2015). Thus, consumers obtain the multiple options necessary to achieve desired results (Huang & Zhang, 2013; Srivastava & Kaul, 2014). Therefore, the CE can be understood as the journey consumers are willing to make together with other actors, over time and various points of contact (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Stein & Ramaseshan, 2016).

Саш and Cova (2008) mention that the consumption experience is no longer limited to some pre- and post-purchase activities; instead, it is a diverse set of activities influencing consumers’ decisions and future actions. Arnould et al. (2006) state that all interactions with marketing objects could result in experiences, classifying these ‘consumption interactions’ into four stages: (a) anticipated consumption experiences, including seeking information, planning, desires, and fantasies; (b) purchase experiences relating to choices, decisions, payment, atmospheres/environments, and service encounters; (c) basic consumption experiences considering sensorial experiences, satisfaction/dissatisfaction reactions, and transformations; and (d) memorable and nostalgic consumption experiences, which are related to reliving past and nostalgic experiences through memory or other mementos.

Early research in management and marketing concentrated on the first two phases of the CE — consumption expectation and purchase experience (Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2013). However, over the past two decades, interest in how consumers experience and remember their interactions has increased considerably, highlighting the importance and relevance of the CE. In this context, most authors consider the CE as a dynamic, interactive experience, which flows through the pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase processes (Puccinelli et al., 2009; Rosenbaum, Otalora, & Ramirez, 2017; Schmitt, 2009). Keyser et al. (2015) also utilize a cyclical process of three phases, but the stages are called anticipation, realization, and reflection. For the purposes of this chapter, the former terminology was chosen.

• Pre-purchase phase: pre-purchase is the first phase of the service process; it involves aspects of the consumer’s interaction with the brand, attributes, and environments before the purchase occurs, and it refers to the CE before entering the service encounter (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Rosenbaum et al., 2017). The traditional marketing literature considers this first stage to include the recognition of needs/objectives, search, impulses, considerations, and reflections that indicate the consumer’s choices and preferences for a specific path (Keyser et al., 2015; Pieters, Hans, & Doug, 1995). Thus, consumers select a set of actors to contribute to achieving the desired results (Chandler & Lusch, 2015).

This phase is assessed based on a consumer’s available resources and willingness to buy, in relation to the past, present, and future (Anderson, Hakan, & Johanson, 1994; Helk- kula, Kelleher, & Pihlstrom, 2012). Such assessments can be challenging, because customers have access to only a limited number of options for comparison, so they may use simple heuristics to make their choices (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998; Dar-Nimrod, Rawn, Lehman, & Schwartz, 2009). Therefore, they are led by a ‘minimum threshold of acceptability’ that results from satisfaction or emotions, as opposed to deliberate and conscious reasoning about the various existing options (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2002). The intensity and level of conscious perception through which this process occurs depend on the prominence of the service exchange and context in which the consumer is immersed (Keyser et al., 2015).

Purchase phase: the second stage has received significant attention in the consumer behaviour and service literatures, and highlights consumer interactions with the brand and the environment during the purchase event (Keyser et al., 2015; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Rosenbaum et al., 2017). Following reflection and a choice, the process to achieve objectives begins and consumers engage actively in a series of events whereby each event or action becomes a specific experience and consequently contributes to the result of the immediate service encounter. Chandler and Lusch (2015) characterize the purchase phase as the specific and immediate experience of events occurring as the result of a customer’s involvement in a service exchange. This involvement acquires various intensities over the journey, because it depends on determination in relation to a given objective, the occurrence of other interfering factors/forces and, above all, the consumer’s hedonic desires (Andajani, 2015; Brodie et al., 2011; Higgins & Scholer, 2009; Sansone & Thoman, 2006).

Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) show that customer preferences are not only based on the functional characteristics of goods or services, but on their symbolic elements. Because of this, there is a hedonic view of consumption, which gives special relevance to personal differences between individuals, including factors that influence motivating emotions and fantasies. Ahtola (1985) pointed out that utilitarian aspects of consumption refer to the usefulness and perceived value of a product and the consumer’s prudence when purchasing, whereas hedonic aspects relate to the pleasure felt or anticipated front the purchase. It is of note that, despite the differences identified, the division into purely utilitarian or hedonic motives becomes difficult, because nearly all consumption situations involve both. In summary, the CE during the purchase phase depends on the consumer’s resources, the conditions in which the event occurs, and the dynamic flow between previous and subsequent events (Keyser et al., 2015). Post-purchase phase: the third stage involves consumer interactions with a service brand and its environment after a purchase is completed; therefore, this stage covers postpurchase aspects of the CE (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Rosenbaum et al., 2017). Each event is marked by an individual reflection or judgement about the real value obtained (Keyser et al., 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). According to Higgins and Scholer (2009), it is possible to distinguish between consumer value that arises from the purchase process and that from the final state or outcome. Process value is based on the activities experienced that go toward fulfilling objectives. The final state value reflects the nature and experience of the outcome.

Huang and Zhang (2013) emphasized that difficulties in fulfilling a purchase objective can result in a negative value for the process, but also in a negative reflection on the value of the outcome, bringing consequences for both CE and future involvements. Keyser et al. (2015) warned that the intensity and conscious perceptions of value depend on consumers, their situations, and progress while pursuing an objective. Consequently, some events/actions may have low impact on the process value and the result value, but others may contribute to positive and significant reflections on CE.

Methodology

To provide an example using CJ mapping, a specific event was chosen for study: this was the Obidos Christmas Town (OCT¹) event. The goals were to understand, describe, and portray in detail the experience, RI, and co-creation processes of consumers at this event. Using an exploratory, interpretative, and descriptive approach, the intention was to identify how and what resources are integrated by consumers and understand how and when the cocreation process occurs over the stages of an event. As consumers sequentially narrated all of the events and activities they experienced during the purchase process, they were able to freely express thoughts, opinions, wishes, attitudes, and expectations (Nenonen et ah, 2008). These were then used to create the CJ map. This research technique is valuable and increasingly necessary, because it contributes to inductive research regarding CE in real life situations, and allows development of ideas from patterns obtained.

Data collection and selection processes

Considering the exploratory nature of this qualitative research, it was decided to hold semi- structured interviews with consumers who had attended the event in December of 2016. The interviews were adapted and structured into four distinct parts: (1) pre-purchase phase,

(2) purchase phase during the event, (3) post-purchase phase, and (4) information about the interviewee. It is important that the interview questions served only as a check-list in collecting data about the various topics of the three purchase phases, because it was considered more pertinent for interviewees to guide the dialogue toward the specific directions of their experience and RI. Thus, interviewers did not strictly follow the open-ended questions forming the interview guide. This approach emphasized participants’ free expression and allowed flexibility. Thus, the interviews can be described as in-depth, but adjusted to the nature of consumers and the specific context of the event, contributing to more detailed insights and assessments of the phenomena in question.

One of the greatest challenges of this method concerns the interviewer’s understanding of the resulting content, specifically, how it is understood and what it really means to the interviewee. To reduce the impact of mental frameworks on the interviewer’s perceptions, especially in the most ambiguous situations, there was an attempt to validate the responses by asking interviewees to elaborate slightly on their points of view. This approach allowed immediate confirmation of the content obtained. With the consent of those involved, the interviews were audio-recorded. This solution allowed for better interview flow, better capture of details, and facilitated transcription, coding, and analysis.

According to DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006), the sample should share critical similarities related to the research question. Thus, the selection of interviewees should be established based on an interactive process of intentional sampling. Because participants were required only to have attended the 2016 OCT event, they were selected with the support of a personal contact network. Because the CJ mapping method does not require a large sample, interviews were held until reaching information redundancy (i.e., the “saturation point”) suggested by experts such as Glaser and Strauss (1967). This was accomplished with 18 consumer interviews.

Analysis and interpretation of data

The data were treated and analysed (using NVivo 1 i Phis software) based on the stated objectives, which allowed the data to be categorized. According to DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006), this is an editing approach whereby researchers check and identify segments of text to organize content and recognize patterns. Excerpts from the interviews were grouped according to types of resources used throughout the various phases and stages of the purchase process, generating important insights into RI and consumer co-creation processes.

As mentioned above, the instrument used to analyse and discuss the results was the CJ map. Although many platforms allow the download of templates for construction of the CJ map, none was found to be suitable for the research. Therefore, construction of the schemes oriented to CEs at cultural events was carried out by the authors, based on the existing

Figure 18.1 Phases and stages used in the research.

literature. The first step was to construct a diagram demonstrating the path typically followed by a customer when involved in the service process. The majority of previous authors seem to consider the experience a dynamic, interactive process, flowing from pre-purchase to purchase and post-purchase (Barwitz & Maas, 2016; Chandler & Lusch, 2015; Keyser et al., 2015; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Puccinelli et ah, 2009; Rosenbaum et ah, 2017). The present research included the three purchase phases, divided into seven more specific stages, as shown in Figure 18.1. An oriented scheme describing the consumer’s experience allows representation of different contacts characterizing a consumer’s interaction with the event.

Consumer journey maps can take different forms, but must contain certain key elements. This chapter includes:

• • Consumer motivations/objectives: what incentivizes consumers to pass to the next stages/phases? What are the objectives?
• • Consumer thoughts/expectations: what do customers think about the various stages? What are their primary expectations?
• • Consumer activities: what are the primary activities consumers perform over the various stages/phases?
• • Recommendations: what improvements do consumers consider important in the various stages/phases? At what level are they important?
• • CE: to convey visually the interaction with the service and the emotions felt over the CJ, the Hagen and Bron (2014) emotional curve was applied, using three icons:

Results

Sample characterization

In order to achieve the objectives of this qualitative research, eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted with consumers who attended the 11th annual OCT event. Table 18.1 presents information about the sample.

Table 18.1 Sample information

Rl and co-creation processes

The information obtained from the interviewees confirmed the relevance of seven stages over the three phases of the purchase process. The pre-purchase phase was formed of three stages, including: (1) Awareness and discovery, (2) Consideration, comparison, and search/collection of information, and (3) Decision-making and online purchase. There were also three stages included in the purchase phase: (1) Arrival /decisions and purchase oti location, (2) Entry to the ground, and (3) Use and choices during the event. The ‘feedback’ stage alone formed the postpurchase phase. To obtain a better understanding of consumers’ RI and co-creation processes, data from the various phases and stages of the purchase process were analysed.

Pre-purchase phase

Social resources (family/commercial relationships or brand communities) were important in the ‘awareness and discovery stage of the event. The relationships and communication among actors were essential in consumer discover)’ and decision-making. Here, sharing of experiences and information are the basis of learning for and during the value-creation process, as described by Gummesson and Mele (2010). The incorporation of friends, family, and acquaintance resources was crucial in the interviewees’ process. Allied to these resources is the power of social networks and advertising. Most of the interviewees said they gained “knowledge through Facebook,” but some highlighted the event’s communicative elements, above all regarding “the media they have used over the years.” Thus, loyalty marketing is seen to involve co-creation with the consumer (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Through advertising and promotions, the organization persuades consumers and creates emotional involvement in the co-production.

The importance of cultural resources was found to be shared by two moments: memories of past experiences and use of consumer knowledge and capabilities. Consumers who were already familiar with the event resorted to their memories of past experiences to participate once again: “as the previous experience tvas pleasant, we wanted to repeat it.” Therefore, consistent with Payne et al. (2008), experience of the past relationship led to consumer learning. Consumer cognition is an extremely important resource, because it focuses on processing information related to activities that are in the memory. In that context, consumers are willing and able to assess the benefits and sacrifices of maintaining a relationship with the service, confirming that cognitive processes are important in interpreting and assimilating experiences.

Highlighted in the “consideration, comparison, and seeking/gathering information” stage are consumer cultural resources, which depend on capacities, skills, and knowledge. Nearly all of the interviewees were concerned about obtaining up-to-date information, advantageous solutions, and the opinions of people they did not know. In seeking information, consumers sought to clarify the requirements of the service and satisfy cognitive needs: “I looked for information on the internet, I consider myself an expert at looking for special offers.” According to Yi and Gong (2013), looking for information is pertinent to consumers for two reasons:

• 1) To reduce uncertainty, and thereby be able to understand and control the cocreation environment/context: “this year I thought about going to the Perlim event [an identical event that takes place in the north of the country at the same time], but after looking it up on the internet we ended up abandoning the idea” (this statement reveals the consumer’s proactiveness in seeking information, i.e., actors seek, compare, and consider various possibilities).
• 2) To master the role of value co-creator, becoming more integrated into the value cocreation process:

I paid attention to the discounts announced on the event’s website. I looked there more than once and got tickets at a discount; I think it was 30%. But later I contacted BOL [i.e., the online ticket office] to find out if entrу was limited to the date printed on the tickets. The answer came quickly and was positive, which is always good! (this statement reveals initiative in seeking clarification, acting in anticipation according to circumstances).

Information can be obtained directly from the organization or from other consumers (directly or indirectly): “I read other people’s comments because that gives an idea of what you’ll find and their reactions ... they persuaded me to try it.” This scenario ties in with the three forces identified by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) leading to value co-creation: omnipresent connectivity, convergence of new technology, and globalization of information, allowing actors to remain interlinked.

At the “decision-making and online purchase" stage, consumer cultural resources gain greater prominence. Some interviewees demonstrated their aptitudes/skills with new technology, resulting in the purchase of admission tickets online: “I’m a fan of this type of online purchase. I managed to buy the tickets for half price on Black Friday.” Consumers who, because of their family groups, always seek more beneficial solutions, became actively involved in the process. In this context, the consumer is a co-producer, which reduces costs and increases satisfaction and loyalty (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). According to Nuttavuthisit (2010), consumers extend their involvement with the organization to acquire value for themselves, in terms of lower costs, greater suitability, speed, or convenience. Thus, “participation for oneself’ is related to consumers seeking a better match with their needs and desires. In this case, the interviewees were able to reduce costs (time and energy) with economic rewards, thereby obtaining psychological benefits of satisfaction and confidence in their ability to cocreate value for themselves (Nuttavuthisit, 2010).

Consumer physical resources relate to the amounts of energy expended in buying tickets online and in seeking information over the various stages. Equally important are the operand resources consumers possess or can access. Economic resources were found, through discount coupons and vouchers, but the existence of, and need for, tangible materials can also be helpful for consumers to actively perform the role of co-creators. For instance, they needed computers, mobile phones, or other personal electronic devices. Table 18.2 summarizes cocreation resources and processes included in the pre-purchase phase.

Table 18.2 Contextual elements, consumer resources, and co-creation processes in the pre-purchase phase

(Continued)

Table 18.2 (Cont.)

Purchase phase

The “arrival, decisions, and purchase on-site” stage showed great differences between interviewees. Some consumers revealed technological competencies and skills, purchasing admission tickets in advance, but this did not happen with other consumers, who acquired tickets on the event day without any discount. The differences are notable for consumers (without children) who do not utilize technological elements but prefer elements of context and employee—consumer interaction. Emerging as determinant factors of purchase on-site are: certain limitations regarding new technology (including online purchases), lack of trust in the ticket platform, and even a lack of knowledge about these practices at the event. In this case, the elements of employee—customer interaction acquire an essential role: “I don’t have much faith iti machines and technology; I prefer to he in direct contact with people.” However, this does not always have the desired effect/result: “for the time you’ve got to wait I think the employees could, or rather, should he nicer to people” or “the employees could he faster ... there was an enormous queue.” Standing out is their preference for commercial social resources to satisfy their fundamental objective. Value co-creation in a service context occurs in a social environment, and as such it is necessary for consumers to resort to social resources, which require courtesy, friendliness, and respect between the different actors (Yi & Gong, 2013). If the actors are in a more pleasant and positive social environment, they will naturally engage more easily in the value co-creation process (Lengnick-Hall, Claycomb, & Inks, 2000).

The results of the “entry to the ground” stage did not demonstrate great differences between interviewees, who resorted to physical resources, specifically energy and emotions, and social resources, specifically relations with employees. Most interviewees said that “entry to the ground was relatively fast” underlining that “things move at a good pace,” especially for those buying tickets online. Allied to this factor is employees’ attitudes, which seem not to have pleased some interviewees: “the staff in charge of security and entry to the ground don’t give any information and were even rather unpleasant.” This statement shows once more the relevance of elements of the employee—customer interaction, demonstrating that perceptions and interpretations of actors’ behaviour can change consumer expectations, with a potentially negative influence on the co-creation experience.

According to Karpen et al. (2012), a company’s capacity to improve its social and emotional links with consumers and other partners in the value network is considered essential. This is true because that dimension represents actions destined to establish or improve the social and emotional connection that actors greatly appreciate and assess during the service interaction (Neghina, Caniels, Bloemer, & Birgelen, 2015). The social relations and contexts of the interactions are essential matters for consumers. Joint actions can understand and explore similarities between actors, share common interests, adopt perspectives, and/or establish a personal bond that creates a mutual basis for comprehension, representing an important process of value co-creation that generates social and emotional value during interaction at the event (Neghina et al., 2015).

Consumers seem not to disregard functional and decorative elements. One interviewee highlighted: “entry is over uneven ground, in poor condition due to the rain of the last few days, which is unsuitable for small children and even less so for prams”', giving great importance to the physical conditions in the ground. Decorative and thematic efforts were also aspects referred to by most of the interviewees:

I liked looking at the walls with a medieval feel, but the most fantastic thing was immediately meeting some unforgettable characters from our childhood ... We were approached right away by Puss in Boots who really looked the part ...I loved it all!

Consumers underlined the importance of those feelings: “I liked right away feeling all activity and smells!,” resorting also to memories: “I began to feel all that magic and emotion I had felt in previous years. From the moment you enter the ground you enter into the spirit of things and make the most of it."

The third stage designated ‘use and choices during the event’ is the most complex, because it refers to actual consumer participation and experiences, particularly in sensorial, emotional, relational, behavioural, and cognitive terms. The information obtained from the interviewees revealed great differences between them, with implications regarding the principal touch- points. However, consumers value, use, and integrate all of their operant and operand resources. The results are analysed by resource type:

Physical resources: these resources are extremely important during the service purchase phase, when actors use their energies and forces to benefit from the event. Consumers with children were found to be the most active throughout the event and the various attractions: “I seemed like a big child myself. I went on the ice and buoy with my children. We saw two and a half shows ... and basically went wherever we wanted, which in fact was just about everywhere (laughter.” Consumers’ active participation is possible due to the attractions on the ground, and for these interviewees “the entertainment options are vast, and the shows are also very varied.” However, they consider elements of the process, such as waiting times, as influencing their experience throughout the event. In these circumstances, actors willing to participate in the activities activate and employ greater physical resources (especially effort) than actors who do not wait; with consumer physical and mental differences being visible.

Despite the positive scenario, in general the interviewees without children and couples consider the event “very targeted at children” highlighting that “for adults that can’t participate in most of the entertainment, it ends up being a little boring ... the event is designed to captivate children, who certainly seem to make the most of it and have a magical day.” Thus, some dissatisfaction is shown by these interviewees who say: “I didn’t participate actively.” A consumer stated:

as it had rained recently the main attractions (that is, the only ones adults could go on) were closed ... not to mention that I also wanted to go on the wheel, when I realized it was for children. My thought was: but why didn’t we go to Lisbon Wonderland?

[an event that takes place in Lisbon/.

With this statement, the consumer showed she was alert to new things appearing in the media and regrets the decision/choice made, because the experience did not live up to expectations; confirming that the absence of process elements, regarding attractions/ activities, harms the experience of the consumer. One interviewee considered that “even the activities for children are commonplace. I haven’t seen big differences over time, apart from being extremely expensive.” This highlights two important elements influencing actors’ choices and decisions: the novelty factor and the price factor. Various studies have suggested that dynamic effects of the CE occur due to consumer personal characteristics; consumers change over time and may react differently after repeated experiences with a particular good or service (Lemon & Verhoefi 2016). Although some consumers develop relationships with brands that have lasting effects, others constantly demand more extraordinary experiences.Consumer emotions emerge as a very important resource and are constantly mentioned. In general, consumers consider that “the Town is totally transformed. There is magic and joy everywhere, heightened by all the scenarios and structures created. Everything is thought out in detail and this is conveyed to the people.” That is, “it’s a very nice, welcoming event targeted at family enjoyment” with a “perfect atmosphere and a real Christinas spirit that delights everyone with the decoration and animation.” These statements demonstrate that atmospheric stimuli, through the organization’s scene-setting and decoration, influence consumer emotional states, stimulating their participation (Puccinelli et ah, 2009). Schmitt (2009) argues that more than the value of the brand, consumers seek something distinctive that can provide attractive experiences, something that arouses the senses and touches their hearts, something that excites or engages them, something real and authentic.The absence of those moments contributes to actors’ dissatisfaction and can even harm the whole experience:

I was bothered that I couldn’t let my little sou see Santa Claus, but the queue would have taken hours! It’s one of the most important highlights of the experience! I don’t think you can go to the Christmas Town and not see Santa Claus, but that’s what happened, and I was a bit disappointed.

Similarly, a consumer underlined: “I admit I didn’t feel the most positive and expected emotions. Perhaps my physical illness influenced this, and together with a cloudy sky ... even worse!,” adding: “/ was very disappointed.” This statement recognizes that the external, dynamic environment influenced the experience significantly.The idea that external environments (externalities) can act as influencing drivers of CE has been defended by Verhoef et al. (2009) and by Lemon and Verhoef (2016). In this specific case, bad weather diminished the value of an open-air event, influencing the purchase value of the service. Another consumer emphasized: “it bothered me a lot having to have lunch inside the room of the show. I wasn’t at all satisfied. The restaurant space is tiny.” Besides the dissatisfaction, capacities were found to be contextualized within cultural models and transposed to new contexts when necessary, consistent with Arnould et al. (2006).In general, consumers consider that “everything’s fine as long as people go with the idea of enjoying themselves” with clear implications for actor emotional states: “I felt like a child again ... I was happy, in a good mood and lively all day. Without realizing it, we spent almost a whole day there!” The emotions triggered also contributed to future memories: “it was really good. I was reliving moments and creating others. The joy of our little one was contagious!" As experiential consumption is based on emotional, contextual, and symbolic aspects, the value of the consumption experience includes feelings, enjoyment, and fantasy (Payne et al., 2008). So, feelings/emotions influence consumer attitudes and their RI.

Social resources: as observed above, social resources are common among actors. An interviewee who attended the event with friends admitted that “the frst stop was for the typical group photograph ... we were approached by the event’s official photographers, who in fact were very nice, and took the opportunity to mark our presence,” indicating the importance of memories about the service experience and the influence that elements of the employee—consumer interaction might exert on the consumer’s purchase decisions and experience. This situation was found throughout the event with the service provided by the various employees, who generally speaking were considered “professional and friendly.” The exception was revealed by older interviewees who considered there was “poor service and attitude to the consumer.” Thus, employee characteristics were found to be important and to indicate the quality of the service (Baker, Para- suraman, rewal, & Voss, 2002).

The interpersonal nature of the interaction between employees and visitors contributes to satisfaction in an event experience and to developing the consumer cocreation processes (Puccinelli et al., 2009; Verhoef et al., 2009). The statement of one consumer draws attention to the shortcomings in, and/or absence of, communicative elements between staff and consumers: “not having a single traditional restaurant within the grounds is a negative aspect, but at least they could inform people at the entrance that they can leave and come in again with a stamp, but nobody gives that information.” The consumer said she was very annoyed about the situation and went to the organization to share what she considers a recommendation for other actors: “I went to the ticket office, explained what had happened and advised them to pass on the information to the other visitors." The consumer co-operated with the event organization to benefit others.

This idea is consistent with the quadrant of ‘participation for others’ of Nuttavuthisit (2010), in which customers interact with the organization for the benefit of other actors. Value creation by consumers is intended to share their experiences and influence other actors’ purchase decisions. Consumer involvement in co-creation is related to sharing consumption experiences, which provides a source of information so that the organization can reorganize its goods/service portfolio (Kristensson et ah, 2008). Furthermore, it allows other consumers to integrate a cognitive process to form appreciations and judgements based on those experiences.

The interactivity and professionalism of those performing character roles were also elements referred to by all interviewees: “we interacted with the driver and Santa Claus’ reindeer on the joy train; in fact, I think it was one of our most enjoyable moments. It was very good to see and experience," highlighting that “the characters are professional, they’re at ease in the role, with the public, and are very extroverted ... that interactivity is very positive. We loved it.”

Consumer-consumer interaction also played a crucial role in the CE and RI. One interviewee said:

there was one show I would like to have seen very much, the one about ghosts, which took place in the mythical house where the whole true story happened, but as my family don’t like tales of the supernatural, I ended up not going.

This statement demonstrates the influence of other consumers’ resources in the focal consumer’s decision and behaviour. The idea that customers act on resources produced by the company (led by the company or other actors) to fulfil, retrieve, or create favourite cultural structures is not always confirmed and in their absence there is some dissatisfaction (Arnould et ah, 2006).

Cultural resources: this stage is related to forming experiences in which the organization builds contexts and the consumer is part of them; specifically, the consumer is involved, but the context is directed by the organization (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The specialized animation, through characters that move about the ground, is an element that contributes to creating an atmosphere and experience for consumers: “I interacted with almost all of them. They’re very funny, friendly and professional. They delight everyone ... without them it would be difficult for people to let their imagination nut loose and enter into the spirit.” In this connection, a consumer admitted: “I felt I was living the tales of my childhood and those of my children. I admit I was surprised by the characterisation and interpretation; they were fantastic and contributed right away to exceeding my expectations.” The statement indicates that consumers with greater cultural resources (in terms of knowledge, stories, and imagination) gain greater satisfaction from the experience. That is, someone who does not know the characters and the underlying story will not understand the context of the event and will not contribute with such favourable resources and cocreation processes for other actors.

The interviewees who had visited the event in previous years had great knowledge of the event’s format: “above all, my children wanted to see Santa Claus and as I knew the queue would grow throughout the day we went there right away.” This type of thinking was shared by the other consumers because the main factor in their decisions and choices throughout the event was the queues for the activities/attractions and the respective waiting times, which also contributed to others’ discontent: “there are queues everywhere ... it’s a big problem,” to the extent of admitting “I began to feel a bit stressed ... at that time there were still queues for all the activities/” Despite this, consumers are prepared to put up with the wait for the sake of the experience: “that didn’t prevent my children from going on what they liked most.” Actors’ experiences depend on the context, and vary according to socio-cultural configurations (Arnould et al., 2006).

• Operand resources: in this stage, consumers resort primarily to their economic resources to be able to use the goods and services provided by the event. All of the interviewees commented on the price of the various activities/attractions, considering them “excessive” and “above average.” A consumer stated that: “entry to the ice rink and train was iticluded in the BOL pack, but I still had to pay for the climbing, abseiling, roundabout ... and everything twice and when it wasn’t only once,” considering that: “it would be great to pay for entrу to the ground and then not pay anything else for the most captivating attractions for children."

It is important to underline the link between actors’ physical resources and operand resources. This type of event requires this analogy, because consumer participation means some monetary sacrifices, with a proportional relationship: the greater the participation, the greater consumer monetary sacrifices. It is also important to highlight that the amount of operand resources affects the consumer exchange behaviour with the organization (Arnould et al., 2006). As a rule, consumers consider that “there are lots of stalls with a great variety” showing the power of sensory reactions in the consumers’ experience:

there are lots of nice little things that are tempting. I wasn’t immune to the smell of the crepes and I had to try them. My children wanted the hot chocolate ... and they got to keep some very nice mugs of the castle;

pointing out the importance of atmospheric and process elements in the CE and RI.

Operant and operand resources were therefore found to be all related and reflect consumers’ individual capacities in the context, where they are faced with different socially interactive and dynamic capacities. Table 18.3 presents consumer resources and co-creation processes in this stage of the purchase.

Post-purchase phase

The information obtained showed that, in a phase subsequent to actually using the service, consumers use and value social resources when sharing the experience in conversations with family and friends (in a word-of-mouth context) but also in making recommendations for improvements to the event’s organizers. It is essential for consumers to share information, so that they can convey details of their experiences to other consumers as well as conveying information to actors about what displeased them most during the experience (e.g., consumers were clearly dissatisfied with the prices set by the event’s organizers). These examples of sharing form and provide a service that goes toward exclusive and specific needs of consumers, as argued by Yi and Gong (2013).

Cultural resources are also valued, through sharing the experience and respective photographs on social media and other virtual platforms: “I’ve already posted photos on Facebook (it’s an addiction) ... and I’m going to devote a whole post to the Obidos Christmas Town event in

Table 18.3 Contextual elements, consumer resources, and co-creation processes in the purchase phase

Table 18.3 (Cont.)

my travel blog.” Physical resources are used because they do not mind spending energy and efforts on sharing information and spreading appreciation, which are generally favourable, with other actors. So, the last stage of the purchase process — ‘feedback’ — concerns actors’ recommendations, repeated participation, and sharing of photos. The results confinn that the operand resources consumers own or have available are crucial for spreading their experiences. Therefore, just as in the pre-purchase phase, consumers resort to computers or other electronic devices to share information. Table 18.4 presents a summary of the results.

Conclusions and implications

The results of the qualitative study reveal the existence of certain elements as essential for actors to activate, use, and integrate the different types of resources they own, whether operant (cultural, physical, and social) or operand (monetary resources and tangible goods). All of the direct and indirect interactions with actors, and occurrences at the event, resulted in the integration of resources and fundamental processes of value co-creation. However, the importance of the different resources varied over the purchase stages.

Consumers make various continuous efforts (from cognitive, physical, and psychological efforts to monetary ones) to satisfy specific needs and desires. As mentioned in the literature review, consumers do not possess sufficient resources to achieve the desired results over the three phases of purchase, and therefore it is necessary for them to engage with other specific actors and processes in experiencing the OCT event. Aggregating and combining other actors’ resources resulted in contextual configurations that contributed to consumer satisfaction, concluding that integration is closely linked to incorporating an actor’s resources in the social and cultural process of other actors (Edvardsson et al., 2011; Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Consumer (operant and operand) resources are all related and reflect actors’ individual

Table 18.4 Contextual elements, consumer resources, and co-creation processes in the post-purchase phase

knowledge and capacities in a given context when faced with various socially interactive and dynamic capacities, with clear implications for co-creation and RI processes.

This chapter contributed to S-DL literature by detailing understanding of the resources consumers integrate and the respective value co-creation processes followed over the various phases and stages of the CE, using a cultural event as an example (Tables 18.2, 18.3, and 18.4). Thus, this chapter contributes by applying a detailed qualitative approach to CJ mapping.

Event organizers should always consider actors’ experiences as a whole. That is, they should bear in mind the three purchase phases, but above all pay attention to each stage included in each purchase phase. The information obtained from the interviewees confirmed the relevance of seven stages in the context of cultural events. The initial pre-purchase phase is formed of three stages: (I) awareness and discovery of the event, (2) consideration, comparison, and seeking/gathering information, and (3) decision-making and online purchase. The purchase phase at the event itself should also be formed of three stages, noting the importance of the third stage: (?) arrival, decisions, and purchase on-site; (2) entry to the ground, and (3) uses and choices at the event. The final post-purchase phase is formed of only one stage designated as feedback.

Through these specific stages, consumers activate, adapt, and use different resources according to their motivations and specific objectives. That is, the importance of the various resources was found to vary over the experience, the circumstances, and the different moments lived by consumers; it is important to note that these vary from consumer to consumer. For each specific stage, event organizers must consider the characteristics of the consumers attending the event and provide the elements they appreciate so as to satisfy their expectations and needs. In the case of the OCT event, and considering the information provided by the interviewees, four personas were identified, having different aims and behaviours concerning RI: (1) friends, (2) couples, (3) families with children, and (4) families without children. These categories represent personas,~ which, although fictitious, attempt to represent an archetype of consumer groups based on their interactions with the event.

The most obvious difference was found at the moment of buying admission tickets, where the ‘friends’ and ‘family with children’ personas purchased in advance using the ticket platform and benefited from significant discounts, whereas the ‘couple’ and family without children’ personas acquired tickets at the entrance to the ground, had to cope with queuing, and did not get any discount, because they preferred to interact with other actors to using new technology. The ‘friends’and ‘family with children’ personas demonstrated their skills and became actively involved in the process, highlighting the use of their cultural (knowledge and skills) and physical (energy and effort) resources, thus requiring communication and process elements of the organization with regard to online ticket platforms and social networks. The ‘couple’ and ‘family without children’ personas activated primarily their social resources, due to their technological limitations and preferences for elements of interaction with employees (requiring relational aspects such as courtesy, friendliness, and respect shown by staff).

Participation throughout the event was another notable difference between the personas. The friends’ and ‘family with children’ personas showed themselves to be participative and active by nature (having children in the group also contributed to this aspect), whereas the ‘couple’ and ‘family without children’ personas showed the opposite. These examples can alert event organizers to the differences between consumers and their resources throughout their experiences at the event. It is extremely important for companies to focus on analysing their consumer groups and providing the elements they value most. This way, consumers can consequently activate and use their respective resources in favourable co-creation processes, increasing their satisfaction and loyalty.

Regarding limitations, it is important to mention the great interpretative requirements, which became a complex and potentially imprecise task due to the crossing of themes and selection of the primary focus. (Of course, this is always true of qualitative research.) Even so, all of the resources were identified and coded in categories supported by the existing literature. The sample was a quota sample from the target market, and because the event was targeting families, primarily those with children, the results should be considered bearing all of these factors in mind.

Notes

• 1 OCT is an event taking place annually in the town of Obidos in Portugal. It runs during the month of December in the open air outside a castle, which is a setting with unique characteristics. It is visited by people of different ages from the entire country.
• 2 Persona is a semi-fictional profile representing a company’s ideal customer. These profiles are created to help the business understand who customers are and what they need, allowing more focused marketing strategies. In this research, there are four persona: ‘friends’ when attending the event with friends; ‘couple’ attending the event with the partner, spouse, boy/girlfriend; ‘family with children’ when attending the event with relations including at least one child no older than 12; and ‘family without children’ when attending the event with relations but without children.

References

Aal, K., Pietro, L., Edvardsson, B., Renzi, M. & Mugion, R. (2016). Innovation in service ecosystems: an empirical study of the integration of values, brands, service systems and experience rooms. Journal of Service Management, 27(4), 619—651.

Ahtola, О. T. (1985). Hedonic and utilitarian aspects of consumer behavior: an attitudinal perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), 7—10.

Akaka, M. & Chandler, J. (2011). Roles as resources: a social roles perspective of change in value networks. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 243-260.

Akaka, M., Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2012). An exploration of networks in value cocreation: a service-ecosystems view. Review of Marketing Research, 9(1), 13—50.

Akaka, M., Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2013). The complexity of context: a service ecosystems approach for international marketing, journal of Marketing Research, 21,4.

Altinay, L., Sigala, M. & Waligo, V. (2016). Social value creation through tourism enterprise. Tourism Management, 54, 404-417.

Andajani, E. (2015). Understanding customer experience management in retailing. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211,629—633.

Anderson, J., Hikan, H. &Johanson,J. (1994). Dyadic business relationships within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 1—15.

Andreu, L., Sanchez, 1. & Mele, C. (2010). Value co-creation between retailers and consumers: an application to the furniture market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 217, 241—250.

Arnould, J., Price, L. & Malshe, A. (2006). Toward a cultural resource-based theory of the customer. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The New Dominant Logic in Marketing Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe (pp. 91-104).

Bagozzi, R., Gopinath, M. & Nyer, P. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184—206.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. & Voss, G. (2002). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120-141.

Ballantyne, D. & Varey, R. (2008). The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 11—24.

Baron, S. & Harris, K. (2008). Consumers as resource integrators. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(1-2), 113-130.

Baron, S. & Warnaby, G. (2011). Individual customers’ use and integration of resources: empirical findings and organizational implications in the context of value co-creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 211-218.

Barwitz, N. & Maas, P. (2016). Value creation in a multichannel world understanding the customer journey. 6th Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy Conference (GIKA) — Valencia, Spain.

Berry, L., Carbone, L. & Haeckel, S. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 85—89.

Bettman, R., Luce, M. & Payne, J. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes,. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217.

Bolton, R. & Saxena-lyer, S. (2009). Interactive services: a framework, synthesis and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 91—104.

Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. & llic, A. (2011). Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252—271.

Campbell, C., Maglio, P. & Davis, M. (2011). From self-service to super-service: a resource mapping framework for co-creating value by shifting the boundary between provider and customer. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 9(2), 173—191.

Card, A. & Cova, B. (2008). Small versus big stories in framing consumption experiences. Qualitative Market Research: An International journal, 11(2), 166—176.

Chandler, J. & Lusch, R. (2015). Service systems: a broadened framework and research agenda on value propositions, engagement and service experience. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 6—22.

Chandler, J. & Vargo, S. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35—49.

Chen, T., Drennan, J. & Andrews, L. (2012). Experience sharing. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13-14), 1535-1552.

Dar-Nimrod, I., Rawn, C., Lehman, D. & Schwartz, B. (2009). The maximization paradox: the costs of seeking alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5-6), 631—635.

DiCicco-Bloom, B. & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.

Dong, B., Evans, R. & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created service recover}'. Journal oj the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 123—137.

Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. & Roos, I. (2005). Service portraits in service research: a critical review. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(1), 107—121.

Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P. & Windahl, P. (2014). Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 291-309, 10.1177/ 1470593114534343.

Edvardsson, B., Skiilen, P. & Tronvoll, B. (2012). Service systems as a foundation for resource integration and value co-Creation. Review of Marketing Research, 9(1), 79—126.

Edvardsson, B. & Tronvoll, B. (2013). A new conceptualization of service innovation grounded in S-D logic and service systems. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 5(1), 19-31.

Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327-339.

Ekman, P., Raggio, R. & Thompson, S. (2016). Service network value co-creation: defining the roles of the generic actor. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 51—62.

Folstad, A. & Kvale, K. (2018). Customer journeys: a systematic literature review. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-ll-2014-0261.

Frery, F., Lecocq, X. & Warmer, V. (2015). Competing with ordinary resources. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(3), 69—77.

Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J., Hilton, T., Davidson, A., Payne, A. & Brozovic, D. (2014). Value propositions: a service ecosystems perspective. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 327—351, https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1470593114534346.

Gidden, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Gronroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 279-301.

Gronroos, C. & Helle, P. (2010). Adopting a service logic in manufacturing: conceptual foundation and metrics for mutual value creation. Journal of Service Management, 21, 5.

Gronroos, C. & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(3), 133—150.

Gummesson, E. & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4(4), 181—198, 10.1007Л12087-010- 0044-2.

Hagen, M. & Bron, P. (2014). Enhancing the experience of the train journey: changing the focus from satisfaction to emotional experience of customers. Transportation Research Procedia, 1, 253—263, 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.07.025.

Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C. & Pihlstrom, M. (2012). Characterizing value as an experience: implications tor service researchers and managers .Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 59—75.

Hibbert, S., Winklhofer, H. & Temerak, M. (2012). Customers as resource integrators: toward a model of customer learning .Journal of Service Research, 15(3), 247—261.

Higgins, T. & Scholer, A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: the science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100-114.

Hilton, T., Hughes, T. & Chalcraft, D. (2012). Service co-creation and value realization. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13—14), 1504—1519.

Hirschman, E. & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92—101.

Hobfoll, S. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324.

Hoyer, W., Rajesh, C., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. & Siddharth, S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283—296.

Huang, S. & Zhang, Y. (2013). All roads lead to Rome: the impact of multiple attainment means on motivation. Journal of Personality anti Social Psychology, 104(2), 236—248.

Jaakkola, E. & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: a service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 1—15.

Karpen, I., Bove, L. & Lukas, B. (2012). Linking service-dominant logic and strategic business practice: a conceptual model of a service-dominant orientation. Journal of Service Research, 86(12), 50—59.

Keyser, A., Lemon, K., Klaus, P. & Keiningham, T. (2015). A framework for understanding and managing the customer experience. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series.

Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2015). Value creation and customer effort: the impact of customer value concepts. I'he Nordic School, Service Marketing and Management for the Future, Hanken, CERS, 283—294.

Kleinaltenkamp, M., Brodie, J., Frow, P., Hughes, T., Peters, D. & Woratschek, H. (2012). Resource integration. Marketing Theory, 12(2), 201—205.

Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. & Johansson, N. (2008). Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. Journal of Service Management, 19(4), 475-491.

Lemon, K. & Verhoef, P. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey.

Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69—96.

Lengnick-Hall, C., Claycomb, V. & Inks, W. (2000). From recipient to contributor: examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 359—383.

Lusch, R. & Spohrer, J. (2012). Evolving service for a complex, resilient, and sustainable world. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13—14), 1491—1503.

Lusch, R. & Vargo, L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lusch, R., Vargo, L. & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning .Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 19—31.

Macdonald, K., Wilson, H., Martinez, V. & Toossi, A. (2011). Assessing value-in-use: a conceptual framework and exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 671-682.

McColl-Kennedy, J., Vargo, S., Dagger, T. & Sweeney, J. (2009). Customers as resource integrators: styles of customer co-creation. Paper presented at The 2009 Naples Forum on Services. Italy: 16-19.

McColl-Kennedy, J., Vargo, S., Dagger, T., Sweeney, J. & Kasteren, Y. (2012). Health care customer value cocreation practice styles .Journal of Service Research, 15(4), 370-389.

Mele, C. & Polese, F. (2010). Key dimensions of service systems in value-creating networks. In The science of service systems (pp. 37—60). Springer.

Merz, M., He, Y. & Vargo, L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: a service dominant logic perspective.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 328—344.

Neghina, C., Camels. M., Bloemer, J. & Birgelen, M. (2015). Value cocreation in service interactions: dimensions and antecedents. Marketing Theory, 15(2), 221-242.

Nenonen, S., Rasila, H., Junnonen, J-M. & Kama, S. (2008). Customer journey - a method to investigate user experience. In European Facility Management Conference 10.-11.6.2008, Manchester, UK, 54-63.

Nenonen, S. & Storbacka, K. (2010). Business models design: conceptualizing networked value co-creation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(1), 43—59.

Ng, I. C. L. & Smith, L. A. (2012). An integrative framework of value. Review of Marketing Research, 9(1), 207-243.

Nuttavuthisit, K. (2010). If you can’t beat them, let them join: the development of strategies to foster consumers’ co-creative practices. Business Horizons, 53(3), 315-324.

Ostrom, L., Parasuraman, A. & Bowen, E. (2015). Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127—159.

Payne, F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83—96.

Pels, J., Moller, K. & Saren, M. (2009). Do you really understand business marketing? Getting beyond the RM and BM matrimony. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 322—336.

Peiialoza, L. & Mish, J. (2011). The nature and processes of market co-creation in triple bottom line firms: leveraging insights from consumer culture theory and service dominant logic. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 9-34.

Peters, D., Lobler, H., Brodie, J., Breidbach, F., Hollebeek, D., Smith, D. & Varey, J. (2014). Theorizing about resource integration through service-dominant logic. Marketing theory, 14(3), 249—268.

Peters, L. (2016). Heteropathic versus homopathic resource integration and value co-creation in service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2999—3007.

Pieters, R., Hans, B. & Doug, A. (1995). A means-end chain approach to consumer goal structures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 227-244.

Pie, L. (2016). Studying customers’ resource integration by service employees in interactional value cocreation. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(2), 152—164.

Pie, L. & Caceres, R. (2010). Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 6.

Pie, L., Lecocq, X. & Angot, J. (2010). Customer-integrated business models: a theoretical framework. M@n@gement, 13(4), 226—265.

Prahalad, C. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Со-creating unique value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Puccinelli, N.. Goodstein, R., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P. & Stewart, D. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: understanding the buying process. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 15-30.

Rodie, A. & Kleine, S. (2000). Consumer participation in services production and delivery. In Swartz, T. & iacobucci, D. (Eds.), Handbook of services marketing and management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 111-126.

Rosenbaum, M., Otalora, M. & Ramirez, G. C. (2017). How to create a realistic customer journey map. Business Horizons, 60(1), 143—150.

Sansone, C. & Thoman, D. (2006). Maintaining activity engagement: individual differences in the process of self-regulating motivation. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1697—1720.

Schmitt, B. (2009). The concept of brand experience. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 7.

Schmitt, B. & Zarantonello, L. (2013). Consumer experience and experiential marketing: a critical review. Review of Marketing Research, 10, 25—61.

Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K. & Lehman, D. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197.

Skalen, P., Gummerus, J., Koskull, C. & Magnusson, P. (2015). Exploring value propositions and service innovation: a service-dominant logic study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 137—158.

Sdderlund, M & Sagfossen, S. (2017). The consumer experience: the impact of supplier effort and consumer effort on customer satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 219—229, http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.019.

Srivastava, M. & Kaul, D. (2014). Social interaction, convenience and customer satisfaction: the mediating effect of customer experience. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21, 1028—1037, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.04.007.

Stein, A. & Ramaseshan, B. (2016). Towards the identification of customer experience touch point elements. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 8—19.

Sweeney, J., Dagger, T. & McColl-Kennedy, J. (2015). Customer effort in value cocreation activities: improving quality of life and behavioral intentions of health care customers. Journal of Service Research, 18(3), 318-335.

Taillard, M., Peters, L., Pels, J. & Mele, C. (2016). The role of shared intentions in the emergence of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2972-2980.

Truong, Y., Simmons, G. & Palmer, M. (2012). Reciprocal value propositions in practice: constraints in digital markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 197—206.

van Doom, J., Lemon, K., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pimer, P. & Verhoef, P. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.

Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1—17.

Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2008). Why service? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 25—38.

Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2011). It’s all B2B and beyond: toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181—187.

Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logi c. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.

Vargo, S., Maglio, P. & Akaka, M. (2008). On value and value со- creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145—152.

Verhoef, P., Lemon, K., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. & Schlesinger, L. (2009). Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31-41.

Williams, J. (2012). The logical structure of the service-dominant logic of marketing. Marketing Theory, 12(4), 471-483.

Wittkowski, K., Moeller, S. & Wirtz, J. (2013). Finns’ intentions to use nonownership services. Journal of Service Research, 16(2), 171—185.

Wolny, J. & Charoensuksai, N. (2014). Mapping customer journeys in multichannel decision-making. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 15, 317—326.

Yi, Y. & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1279-1284.

Yngfalk, A. (2013). It’s not us, it’s them!’ Rethinking value cocreation among multiple actors .Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9—10), 116.3—1181.

Zhang, J. (2014). Customer resource integration: antecedents and its impact on intent to co-create value.

11th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, June 25-27, Beijing, China, 1—5, doi: 10.1109/ICSSSM.2014.6874023.

Zomerdijk, G. & Voss, A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67-82.