“Does it Pay off to Introduce my Partner?” The Role of Stakeholder Cocreation in Consumers’ Willingness to Pay

Kazadi, Kande; Lievens, Annouk; Mahr, Dominik

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-08132-4_23

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consumers will therefore link a stronger relational embeddedness to a greater shared expertise and thus to a greater expertise of both partners to develop the new innovation (s) (Dhanaraj et al , 2004; Nielsen, 2005; Samuel et al , 2016). As mentioned with H1 , corporate credibility in turn benefits purchase intentions (Jacobson et al , 2011; Lafferty, 2007; Park et al , 2007) and willingness to pay for the innovation (Erdem et al , 2002; Kazadi et al , 2015; van Dijk et al , 2014).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Except for willingness-to-pay, all variables were measured on multi-item seven-point Likert or semantic differential scales. Corporate credibility was measured through both its dimensions, perceived trustworthiness (Sinclair and Irani, 2005) and perceived expertise in innovation (Kazadi et al , 2015) (six items in total, e.g. The firm makes very innovative products, α = 0.911).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Next, all other relevant variables for our study were measured on multi-item seven-point Likert or semantic differential scales. Corporate credibility was measured through the same measures as in Study 1, including a scale for perceived trustworthiness (Sinclair and Irani, 2005) and perceived expertise in innovation (Kazadi et al , 2015) (six items in total). In this case, we measured the corporate credibility of both partners: STC (α = 0.917) and Tech Mobile (α = 0.927).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with previous research on innovation adoption, we argue that willingness-to-pay is an appropriate measure for consumer adoption of new products. On the one hand, the willingness-to-pay expresses how potential customers value a new product, driving adoption (Kazadi et al , 2015). On the other hand, it is directly linked to the firm’s pricing strategy and hence the profitability of the innovation (Parry and Kawakami, 2015).…”

Section: Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, it is directly linked to the firm’s pricing strategy and hence the profitability of the innovation (Parry and Kawakami, 2015). As a result, willingness-to-pay is of particular interest for both research and practice (Homburg et al , 2005; Kazadi et al , 2015). At the same time, the product in question (a tablet) is a low frequency purchase product, co-created by two unfamiliar organizations.…”

Section: Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Quid pro quo

Roosens

Dens

Lievens

2019

European Journal of Marketing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to assess the effects of explicit partner brand mentions (as opposed to a mere partnership mention) in communications by brand allies on consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for an innovation, as mediated by the perceived relational embeddedness of the allies and their respective perceived corporate credibility. In Study 1, the authors investigate the effects of (reciprocal) explicit brand mentions by both allies (as opposed to by a single ally) and further test whether explicit brand mentions moderate spillover effects from the ally. In Study 2, the authors investigate the effect of reciprocity of explicit brand mentions and whether this is moderated by a company’s experience. Design/methodology/approach The authors conduct two online experiments. Study 1 (N = 216) is a four-level between-subjects experiment (single communication by Partner A with explicit brand mention, single communication by Partner B with explicit brand mention, explicit brand mentions by both allies and mere partnership mention by both allies) where participants judge a social alliance related to a new tablet. Study 2 (N = 376) builds upon these findings in a 4 (explicit brand mentions by both allies; mere partnership mention by both allies; explicit brand mention by Partner A, mere partnership mention by Partner B; explicit brand mention by partner B, mere partnership mention by Partner A) × 2 (Partner A experience: established vs startup) between-subjects experimental design for a co-created battery. Findings Spillover effects from one ally to the other are stronger with explicit brand mentions than with a mere partnership mention. There is no added value of two allies communicating over one, provided that both partners explicitly mention their partner brand. However, when allies do communicate separately, it is crucial that an explicit brand mention is reciprocated. This effect is explained by an increase in the perceived relational embeddedness of the partners, which in turn positively influences their corporate credibility. This effect does not differ depending on a company’s experience. Originality/value This research is one of the first to study effects of how a brand alliance is communicated and extends previous studies on the effects of communication about brand and co-creation alliances by demonstrating that communications moderate spillover effects, that brand mention reciprocity is crucial, and by introducing the concept of perceived relational embeddedness.

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Quid pro quo

Roosens

Dens

Lievens

2019

European Journal of Marketing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of Partners’ Communications on Consumer Perceptions of Joint Innovation Efforts

Roosens

Dens

Lievens

2019

Int. J. Innov. Mgt.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper assesses the effects of aligning co-creation partners’ communications on consumers’ perceptions of joint innovation efforts. Two online experiments are conducted. Study 1 ([Formula: see text]) investigates message content alignment (partners stating identical versus complementary messages) and visual alignment (partners assimilating the visual design of their communications versus autonomous designs). Results reveal a positive effect of using complementary over identical message content on consumers’ perceptions of the co-created product. The latter effect is reinforced by autonomous visual designs. Study 2 ([Formula: see text]) shows that the effect of content alignment on both the lead firm and co-creation partners are mediated by the perceived fit between partners and the perceived corporate credibility of the lead firm. This research is one of the first to study effects of communication by multiple co-creation partners and demonstrates the positive effects of adequately aligning partners’ communications about joint innovation efforts.

show abstract

Influencia del capital social y la planificación adaptativa sobre la innovación en una comunidad agroindustrial en el Perú. Caso CITEvid

Ortega¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“Does it Pay off to Introduce my Partner?” The Role of Stakeholder Cocreation in Consumers’ Willingness to Pay

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

Quid pro quo

Quid pro quo

Effects of Partners’ Communications on Consumer Perceptions of Joint Innovation Efforts

Influencia del capital social y la planificación adaptativa sobre la innovación en una comunidad agroindustrial en el Perú. Caso CITEvid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About