Firms increasingly use innovation tournaments to crowdsource innovation ideas from customers. This article uncovers antecedents and consequences of customers’ participation intensity over the course of a tournament. More specifically, the authors theorize on the effects that the type and timing of moderating feedback have on tournament participants’ participation intensity, as well as the effect of the latter on idea quality. Through two longitudinal experiments using a commercial innovation tournament platform, the authors show that moderating feedback stimulates ideators’ participation intensity. They find that negative feedback increases participation intensity, as compared to no feedback and positive feedback. Moreover, negative feedback, either provided in isolation or together with positive feedback, is more effective during the early stages than in the later stages of a tournament. Using a large-scale managerial survey, the authors show that higher participation intensity leads to higher idea quality and better business performance. The effect of participation intensity on idea quality is stronger than the effect of number of ideas and as strong as the effect of number of participants on idea quality.
AfuahAllanTucciChristopher L. (2012), “Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search,” Academy of Management Review, 37 (3), 355–75.
2.
AiChunrongNortonEdward C. (2003), “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models,” Economics Letters, 80 (1), 123–29.
3.
BanduraAlbertCervoneDaniel (1983), “Self-Evaluative and Self-Efficacy Mechanisms Governing Motivational Effects of Goal Systems,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (5), 1017–28.
4.
BayusBarry L. (2013), “Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community,” Management Science, 59 (1), 226–44.
5.
BockstedtJesseDruehlCherylMishraAnant (2016), “Heterogeneous Submission Behavior and its Implications for Success in Innovation Contests with Public Submissions,” Production and Operations Management, 25 (7), 1157–76.
6.
BoudreauKevinLaceteraNicolaLakhaniKarim (2011), “Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis,” Management Science, 57 (5), 843–63.
7.
BoudreauKevinLakhaniKarim (2009), “How to Manage Outside Innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 50 (4), 69–76.
BurnhamKenneth P.AndersonDavid R. (2004), “Multimodel Inference: Understanding the AIC and BIC in Model Selection,” Sociological Methods Research, 33, 261–304.
10.
CameronA. ColinTrivediPravin K. (2005), Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ChandyRajesh K.TellisGerard J. (1998), “Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (4), 474–87.
ChenYuboQiWangXieJinhong (2011), “Online Social Interactions: A Natural Experiment on Word of Mouth versus Observational Learning,” Journal of Marketing Research48 (2), 238–54.
14.
ChurchillGilbert A.Jr. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64–73.
15.
CohenWesley M.LevinRichard C. (1989), “Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure,” in Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 2, SchmalenseeR.WilligR.D., eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1059–61.
EagleNathanPentlandAlex (Sandy)LazerDavid (2009), “Inferring Friendship Network Structure by Using Mobile Phone Data,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (36), 15274–78.
18.
FinkelsteinStacey R.FishbachAyelet (2012), “Tell Me What I Did Wrong: Experts Seek and Respond to Negative Feedback,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 22–38.
19.
FishbachAyeletDharRavi (2005), “Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 370–77.
20.
FishbachAyeletDharRaviZhangYing (2006), “Subgoals as Substitutes or Complements: The Role of Goal Accessibility,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (2), 232–42.
21.
FishbachAyeletEyalTalFinkelsteinStacey R. (2010), “How Positive and Negative Feedback Motivate Goal Pursuit,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4 (8), 517–30.
22.
FishbachAyeletZhangYingKooMinjung (2009), “The Dynamics of Self-Regulation,” European Review of Social Psychology, 20 (1), 315–44.
23.
GillManpreetSridharShrihariGrewalRajdeep (2017), “Return on Engagement Initiatives: A Study of a Business-to-Business Mobile App,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (4), 45–66.
24.
GinoFrancescaArgoteLindaMiron-SpektorEllaTodorovaGergana (2010), “First, Get Your Feet Wet: The Effects of Learning from Direct and Indirect Experience on Team Creativity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111 (2), 102–15.
25.
GirotraKaranTerwieschChristianUlrichKarl T. (2010), “Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea,” Management Science, 56 (4), 591–605.
GneezyUriNiederleMurielRustichiniAldo (2003), “Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (3), 1049–74.
28.
GreeneWilliam H. (2003), Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
HattieJohnTimperleyHelen (2007), “The Power of Feedback,” Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.
30.
HeckmanJames J. (1979), “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error,” Econometrica, 47 (1), 153–61.
31.
HigginsE. Tory (1987), “Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect,” Psychological Review, 94 (3), 319–40.
32.
HoetkerGlenn (2007), “The Use of Logit and Probit Models in Strategic Management Research: Critical Issues,” Strategic Management Journal, 28 (4), 331–43.
33.
HoffmanDonna L.KopallePraveen K.NovakThomas P. (2010), “The ‘Right’ Consumers for Better Concepts: Identifying and Using Consumers High in Emergent Nature to Further Develop New Product Concepts,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 854–65.
JaworskiBernard J.KohliAjay K. (1993), “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53–70.
38.
KlugerAvraham N.DeNisiAngelo (1996), “The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory,” Psychological Bulletin, 119 (2), 254–84.
39.
KornishLaura J.UlrichKarl T. (2011), “Opportunity Spaces in Innovation: Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas,” Management Science, 57 (1), 107–28.
40.
KornishLaura J.UlrichKarl T. (2014), “The Importance of the Raw Idea in Innovation: Testing the Sow’s Ear Hypothesis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 14–26.
41.
KurtDidemJeffrey InmanJ.ArgoJennifer J. (2011), “The Influence of Friends on Consumer Spending: The Role of Agency–Communion Orientation and Self-Monitoring,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (4), 741–54.
42.
LuoLanToubiaOlivier (2015), “Improving Online Idea Generation Platforms and Customizing the Task Structure on the Basis of Consumers’ Domain-Specific Knowledge,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (5), 100–114.
43.
MallapragadaGirishGrewalRajdeepLilienGary (2012), “User-Generated Open Source Products: Founder’s Social Capital and Time to Product Release,” Marketing Science, 31 (3), 474–92.
44.
MoormanChristine (1995), “Organizational Market Information Processes: Cultural Antecedents and New Product Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (3), 318–35.
45.
MuthénBengtAsparouhovTihomir (2012), “Bayesian SEM: A More Flexible Representation of Substantive Theory,” Psychological Methods, 17 (3), 313–35.
46.
NishikawaHidehikoSchreierMartinFuchsChristophOgawaSusumu (2017), “The Value of Marketing Crowdsourced New Products as Such: Evidence from Two Randomized Field Experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (4), 525–39.
47.
NunnallyJum C.BernsteinIra H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
48.
RansbothamSamKaneGerald C.LurieNicholas H. (2012), “Network Characteristics and the Value of Collaborative User-Generated Content,” Marketing Science, 31 (3), 387–405.
RyanRichard M.DeciEdward L. (2000), “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78.
51.
SandeJon BingenGhoshMrinal (2018), “Endogeneity in Survey Research,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35 (2), 185–204.
52.
SchmeichelBrandon J.VohsKathleen (2009), “Self-Affirmation and Self-Control: Affirming Core Values Counteracts Ego Depletion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (4), 770–82.
SpiegelhalterDavid J.BestNicola G.CarlinBradley P.van der LindeAngelika (2002), “Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64 (4), 583–639.
56.
SpillerStephen A.FitzsimonsGavan J.LynchJohn G.Jr.McClellandGary H. (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277–88.
57.
StephenAndrew T.ZubcsekPeter P.GoldenbergJacob (2016), “Lower Connectivity is Better: The Effects of Network Structure on Redundancy of Ideas and Customer Innovativeness in Interdependent Ideation Tasks,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (2), 263–79.
58.
TerwieschChristianUlrichKarl T. (2009), Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional Opportunities. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
59.
VeronaGianmarioPrandelliEmanuelaSawhneyMohanbir (2006), “Innovation and Virtual Environments: Towards Virtual Knowledge Brokers,” Organization Studies, 27 (6), 765–88.
60.
WetzelHauke A.HammerschmidtMaikZablahAlex R. (2014), “Gratitude versus Entitlement: A Dual Process Model of the Profitability Implications of Customer Prioritization,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (2), 1–19.
61.
WootenJoel O.UlrichKarl T. (2017), “Idea Generation and the Role of Feedback: Evidence from Field Experiments with Innovation Tournaments,” Production and Operations Management, 26 (1), 80–99.
62.
ZelnerBennet A. (2009), “Using Simulation to Interpret Results from Logit, Probit, and Other Nonlinear Models,” Strategic Management Journal, 30 (12), 1335–48.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
