Although the literature has documented the positive effects of empowerment strategies (empowerment to create and to select) for companies, the relative evaluation of these strategies as perceived by participants and nonparticipants has been neglected. Based on two qualitative studies (N = 23), we show that participants engaged in empowerment campaigns value the empowerment to select (vs empowerment to create) more if they have low self-confidence and limited expertise relating to the requested task. In addition, we emphasize that the empowerment to create provides a richer overall experience for participants compared with the empowerment to select. Nonparticipants have a better evaluation of empowerment-to-create campaigns because of a stronger authenticity of the brands launching them and a more positive evaluation of participating consumers’ motivations. This research provides managerial recommendations for the successful deployment of empowerment strategies.
AartsHGollwitzerPMHassinRR (2004) Goal contagion: Perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87(1): 23–37.
2.
AcarOA (2018) Harnessing the creative potential of consumers: Money, participation, and creativity in idea crowdsourcing. Marketing Letters29(2): 177–188.
3.
AcarOA (2019) Motivations and solution appropriateness in crowdsourcing challenges for innovation. Research Policy48(8): 103716.
4.
AfuahATucciCL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review37(3): 355–375.
5.
AllenBJChandrasekaranDBasuroyS (2018) Design crowdsourcing: The impact on new product performance of sourcing design solutions from the “crowd.” Journal of Marketing82(2): 106–123.
6.
AuhSMengucBKatsikeasCSJungYS (2019) When does customer participation matter? An empirical investigation of the role of customer empowerment in the customer participation–performance link. Journal of Marketing Research56(6): 1012–1033.
7.
BachoucheHSabriO (2019) Empowerment in marketing: Synthesis, critical review, and agenda for future research. Academy of Marketing Science Review9(3): 304–323.
BournoisFPointSFourboulC (2002) L’analyse des données qualitatives assistée par ordinateur. Revue Française de Gestion28: 71–84.
10.
BrdarIRijavecMMiljkovićD (2009) Life goals and well-being: Are extrinsic aspirations always detrimental to well-being?Psihologijske Teme18(2): 317–334.
11.
CappaFOrianiRPinelliMDe MassisA (2019) When does crowdsourcing benefit firm stock market performance?Research Policy48(9): 103825.
12.
ChaudhuriA (1999) Does brand loyalty mediate brand equity outcomes?Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice7(2): 136–146.
13.
ChenCCHuangCCChenYJ (2017) Effects of negative information on team image, fan identification, and purchase intention among Chinese professional baseball league fans. International Journal of Organizational Innovation10(2): 95–105.
14.
ChenLXuPLiuD (2020) Effect of crowd voting on participation in crowdsourcing contests. Journal of Management Information Systems37: 510–535.
15.
CrittendenKS (1983) Sociological aspects of attribution. Annual Review of Sociology9: 425–446.
16.
DahlDWMoreauCP (2007) Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoy constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research44(3): 357–369.
17.
DahlDWFuchsCSchreierM (2015) Why and when consumers prefer products of user-driven firms: A social identification account. Management Science61(8): 1978–1988.
18.
DikGAartsH (2007) Behavioral cues to others’ motivation and goal pursuits: The perception of effort facilitates goal inference and contagion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43(5): 727–737.
19.
DionD (2008) A La Recherche Du Consommateur: Nouvelles Techniques Pour Mieux Comprendre Le Client. Paris: Dunod.
20.
DjelassiSDecoopmanI (2013) Customers’ participation in product development through crowdsourcing: Issues and implications. Industrial Marketing Management42(5): 683–692.
21.
EtgarM (2008) A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science36(1): 97–108.
22.
FaullantRHolzmannPSchwarzEJ (2016) Everybody is invited but not everybody will come the influence of personality dispositions on users’ entry decisions for crowdsourcing competitions. International Journal of Innovation Management20(6): 1–20.
23.
FrankeNShahS (2003) How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy32(1): 157–178.
24.
FreyKLüthjeCHaagS (2011) Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning44(5–6): 397–420.
25.
FuchsCSchreierM (2011) Customer empowerment in new product development*. Journal of Product Innovation Management28(1): 17–32.
26.
FuchsCPrandelliESchreierM (2010) The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumer’s product demand. Journal of Marketing74(1): 65–79.
27.
FuchsCPrandelliESchreierMDahlDW (2013) All that is users might not be gold: How labeling products as user designed backfires in the context of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Marketing77(5): 75–91.
28.
GirotraKTerwieschCUlrichKT (2010) Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science56(4): 591–605.
29.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
30.
GuptaSVajicM (2000) The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences. In: FitzsimmonsJFitzsimmonsM (eds) New Service Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 33–51.
31.
Hamdi-KidarLKeinzPLe NagardEVernetteE (2019) Comparing lead users to emergent-nature consumers as sources of innovation at early stages of new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management36: 616–631.
32.
HassinRRBarghJAUlemanJS (2002) Spontaneous causal inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38(5): 515–522.
33.
HastariRAdelaZAlkhairHWibowoI (2020) Direct and indirect effects of operant resources on cocreation experience: Empirical evidence from Airbnb consumers. Business: Theory & Practice21(1): 92–103.
34.
HofstedeG (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
35.
HofstetterRZhangJZHerrmannA (2018) Successive open innovation contests and incentives: Winner-take-all or multiple prizes?Journal of Product Innovation Management35(4): 492–517.
36.
InnocentMGabrielPDivardR (2017) Comprendre l’expérience de participation des meilleurs contributeurs dans un contexte de crowdsourcing d’activités inventives. Recherche et Applications en Marketing32(1): 3–21.
37.
JonesEEDavisKE (1965) From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology2: 219–266.
38.
KatzEBlumlerJGGurevitchM (1973) Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly37(4): 509–523.
39.
KavaliovaMVirjeeFMaehleNKleppeIA (2016) Crowdsourcing innovation and product development: Gamification as a motivational driver. Cogent Business & Management3(1): 1128132.
40.
KrugerJWirtzDVan BovenLAltermattTW (2004) The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology40(1): 91–98.
41.
KullAJHeathTB (2016) You decide, we donate: Strengthening consumer–brand relationships through digitally co-created social responsibility. International Journal of Research in Marketing33(1): 78–92.
42.
LejeuneC (2019) Manuel D’analyse Qualitative. Analyser Sans Compter Ni Classer, 2e édition. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.
43.
LiljedalKT (2016) The effects of advertising consumer cocreated new products: A brand-alliance framework model can predict perceptions about cocreated brands and their creators. Journal of Advertising Research56(1): 53–63.
44.
LiljedalKTBergH (2020) Consumer responses to pictures of cocreating consumers in marketing communications. Journal of Consumer Marketing37(7): 775–784.
45.
LiljedalKTDahlénM (2018) Consumers’ response to other consumers’ participation in new product development. Journal of Marketing Communications24(3): 217–229.
46.
LoerschCPayneBK (2011) The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science6(3): 234–252.
47.
McClureJ (2002) Goal-based explanations of actions and outcomes. European Review of Social Psychology12(1): 201–235.
48.
MartinezMG (2017) Inspiring crowdsourcing communities to create novel solutions: Competition design and the mediating role of trust. Technological Forecasting and Social Change117: 296–304.
49.
MeißnerMHaurandMDStummerC (2017) With a little help from my customers: The influence of customer empowerment on consumers’ perceptions of well-established brands. International Journal of Innovation Management21(6): 1750048.
50.
MoayedikiaAYeohWOngKLBooYL (2019) Improving accuracy and lowering cost in crowdsourcing through an unsupervised expertise estimation approach. Decision Support Systems122: 113065.
51.
MorgesonFPHumphreySE (2006) The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology91(6): 1321–1339.
52.
NambisanSBaronRA (2009) Virtual customer environments: Testing a model of voluntary participation in value cocreation activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management26(4): 388–406.
53.
NishikawaHSchreierMOgawaS (2013) User-generated versus designer-generated products: A performance assessment at Muji. International Journal of Research in Marketing30(2): 160–167.
54.
NishikawaHSchreierMFuchsCOgawaS (2017) The value of marketing crowdsourced new products as such: Evidence from two randomized field experiments. Journal of Marketing Research54: 525–539.
55.
OertzenASOdekerken-SchröderGBraxSAMagerB (2018) Cocreating services – Conceptual clarification, forms and outcomes. Journal of Service Management29(4): 641–679.
56.
OgawaSPillerFT (2006) Reducing the risks of new product development. Sloan Management Review47(2): 65–71.
57.
PahariaNSwaminathanV (2019) Who is wary of user design? The role of power-distance beliefs in preference for user-designed products. Journal of Marketing83(3): 91–107.
58.
PiazzaMMazzolaEPerroneG (2022) How can I signal my quality to emerge from the crowd? A study in the crowdsourcing context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change176: 121473.
59.
PoetzMKSchreierM (2012) The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new products ideas?Journal of Product Innovation Management29(2): 245–256.
60.
PointSFourboulC (2006) Le codage à visée théorique. Recherche et Applications en Marketing21: 61–78.
61.
PrahaladCKRamaswamyV (2004) Cocreation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing18(3): 5–14.
62.
RamaniGKumarV (2008) Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of Marketing72(1): 27–45.
63.
RamaswamyVGouillartF (2010) Building the cocreative enterprise. Harvard Business Review88(10): 100–109.
64.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist55(1): 68.
65.
RyanRMDeciEL (2008) A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology49(3): 186–193.
66.
SalgadoSHemonnet-GoujotAHenardDHDe BarnierV (2020) The dynamics of innovation contest experience: An integrated framework from the customer’s perspective. Journal of Business Research117: 29–43.
67.
SchreierMFuchsCDahlCD (2012) The innovation effect of user design: Exploring consumers’ innovation perceptions of firms selling products designed by users. Journal of Marketing76(5): 18–32.
68.
ShawGBaileyAWilliamsA (2011) Aspects of service-dominant logic and its implications for tourism management: Examples from the hotel industry. Tourism Management32(2): 207–214.
69.
ShawIHollandS (2014) Doing Qualitative Research in Social Work. London: SAGE.
70.
SheldonKMKasserT (1995) Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68(3): 531–543.
71.
SheldonKMMcGregorHA (2000) Extrinsic value orientation and “the tragedy of the commons.”Journal of Personality68(2): 383–411.
72.
ShiXEvansRPanWShanW (2022) Understanding the effects of personality traits on solver engagement in crowdsourcing communities: A moderated mediation investigation. Information Technology & People35(2): 750–780.
73.
SpeerPWPetersonNAArmsteadTLAllenCT (2013) The influence of participation, gender and organizational sense of community on psychological empowerment: The moderating effects of income. American Journal of Community Psychology51(1–2): 103–113.
74.
SteilsNHanineS (2016) Creative contests: Knowledge generation and underlying learning dynamics for idea generation. Journal of Marketing Management32(17–18): 1647–1669.
75.
StewartDW (2009) Marketing accountability: Linking marketing actions to financial results. Journal of Business Research62(6): 636–643.
76.
ThompsonDVMalaviyaP (2013) Consumer-generated ads: Does awareness of advertising cocreation help or hurt persuasion?Journal of Marketing77(3): 33–47.
77.
UlemanJSNewmanLSMoskowitzGB (1996) People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology28: 211–279.
78.
UllahAZhangQAhmedM (2021) The influence of intellectual property rights protection on contribution efforts of participants in online crowdsourcing contests. Computers in Human Behavior123: 106869.
79.
Van DijkJAntonidesGSchillewaertN (2014) Effects of cocreation claim on consumer brand perceptions and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Consumer Studies38(1): 110–118.
80.
VerleyeK (2015) The cocreation experience from the customer perspective: Its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management26(2): 321–342.
81.
VernetteEHamdi-KidarL (2013) Cocreation with consumers: Who has the competence and wants to cooperate. International Journal of Market Research55(4): 539–561.
82.
VernetteETissier-DesbordesE (2012) La participation du client, la co-production, la cocréation: Un nouvel eldorado pour le marketing?Décisions Marketing65: 5–8.
83.
VernetteEBeji-BecheurAGolletyMHamdi-KidarL (2013) Les lead-users en marketing: Interrogations et nouvelles contributions psychométriques. Recherche et Applications en Marketing28(4): 3–27.
84.
Von HippelE (1998) Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Science44(5): 629–644.
85.
Von HippelEVon KroghG (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science14(2): 209–223.
86.
WangHSNobleCHDahlDWParkS (2019) Successfully communicating a cocreated innovation. Journal of Marketing83: 438–457.
87.
WormSBharadwajSUlagaWReinartzW (2017) When and why do customer solutions pay off in business markets?Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science45(4): 490–512.
88.
ZhuHDjurjaginaKLekerJ (2014) Innovative behaviour types and their influence on individual crowdsourcing performances. International Journal of Innovation Management18(6): 1–18.
89.
ZimmermanMARappaportJ (1988) Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology16(5): 725–750.
