Tasked with a greater role in the coproduction of expert services, consumers often face an immense burden in coproducing service and well-being outcomes. While some prior research has explored customer work, we delineate unique aspects of expert services and articulate consumer efforts that transpire outside the dyadic service interaction. Through netnographic inquiry in a health care context, we find that coproduction efforts are job-like and require job crafting efforts. Upon this foundation, three major themes emerged: (1) consumers leverage their context expertise by adapting content expertise to their unique circumstances, (2) consumers develop and deploy strategies (hacks) through affordances in order to manage their coproduction jobs, and (3) consumers move through the expert service journey in a variety of ways that shift them toward or away from well-being outcomes. After assessing the transferability of our results by analyzing a second expert service context (financial services/debt management), we suggest implications for theory, practice, and future research.

Purpose This paper offers key methodological insights for scholars new to qualitative transformative service research (TSR). Design/methodology/approach The paper offers ten lessons on conducting qualitative TSR that the authors have gleaned, across more than 30 years (combined) of qualitative inquiries and engagement with other scholars conducting and publishing what may be now termed TSR. Findings The key lessons of conducting qualitative TSR work include: displaying ethics in conducting and presenting qualitative TSR; preparing for and understanding the research context; considering design, mechanics and technical elements; being participant-centric; co-creating meaning with participants; seeking/using diverse types of data; analyzing data in an iterative fashion, including/respecting multiple perspectives; presenting evidence in innovative ways; and looking inward at every stage of the research process. Social implications The paper provides implications for addressing the vulnerability of both research participants and researchers with the aim of improving research methods that lead to improved service research and well-being outcomes. Originality/value Clearly, the complexity and importance of the social problems TSR scholars investigate – poverty, war, disaster recovery, inadequate healthcare – requires preparation for how to engage in transformative service research. Importantly, the paper fits with recent persistent calls within the broader literature of services marketing to: use service research and design to create “uplifting changes” within society and broaden the paradigmatic underpinnings of service research to include dynamic, process-oriented approaches, which capture the dynamic and relational aspects of service ecosystems.

Many Americans living in poverty rely on a constellation of social services to meet their consumption needs. This article explores the conditions under which social service programs enhance or detract from holistic well-being, from recipients’ perspectives. Depth interviews with 45 rural and urban recipients reveal, through a power–justice–access model, that holistic well-being extends beyond access to social service programs to include power to choose and control resource outcomes and justice (respect) in recipients’ experiences with elements of the social service ecosystem (design, practices, actors, resources). Theoretically, focusing on the social service ecosystem allows a broader understanding of holistic well-being than is possible through a resource-based or dyadic perspective. In terms of policy, the findings suggest the need to include subjective, versus solely objective, approaches in assessing the performance of the social service ecosystem in meeting consumption needs. Finally, the authors offer a practical principle termed “sensitized standardization,” whereby, at the local level, needs are addressed in relation to the context of recipients’ daily lives and the macro structure of the social service ecosystem.

Healthcare exchange often contains peril for consumers because of numerous barriers to financial well‐being (FWB). Rather than ruing specific agendas of healthcare policy, we embrace a neutral and immediately actionable approach. The authors promote gains in healthcare's current composition by empowering consumers to be proactive, where possible, in reducing power inequities and improving their own FWB. As such, the authors identify primary barriers to the FWB of healthcare consumers and propose individual opportunities within the existing healthcare structure that are likely to improve fiscal outcomes. Moreover, the current research demonstrates collaborative paths wherein power‐holders (i.e., practitioner, researcher, consumer, government) can collaborate toward and/or contribute to the same financial health. A proposed theoretical framework, with foundations of power‐responsibility equilibrium and transformative service research, gives rise to future research directions. This research is intended to provide a foundation for healthcare and FWB thought/action, and to guide coming scholarly offerings.

Driven by social media to capture each moment in life and to “keep up with the Joneses,” nearly every ritual is now cause for luxury consumption, fostering a culture in which bigger and grander is better. However, this commentary raises questions about these practices. How much is too much? What is truly better? Macromarketers must continue to weigh in on these issues. This commentary melds literature on consumer rituals, transformative luxury, and consumer well-being to explore what happens when consumers begin incorporating elements of luxury into more mundane and personal, but highly visible, ritual consumption practices, such as gender-reveal celebrations, divorce parties, and preschool graduations. We elucidate the field of transformative luxury research, examining the ways new and adapted rituals (infused with luxury) transform individual lives and culture, the impact of ritual disruptions, the roles of external influencers (e.g., social media, marketing), and the positive and negative impacts of these practices on consumer well-being.