Gamification and Consumer Engagement: Creating Value in Context of ICT Development 9783030542047, 9783030542054

Citation preview

Progress in IS

Rimantas Gatautis Jūratė Banytė Elena Vitkauskaitė  Editors

Gamification and Consumer Engagement Creating Value in Context of ICT Development

Progress in IS

“PROGRESS in IS” encompasses the various areas of Information Systems in theory and practice, presenting cutting-edge advances in the field. It is aimed especially at researchers, doctoral students, and advanced practitioners. The series features both research monographs that make substantial contributions to our state of knowledge and handbooks and other edited volumes, in which a team of experts is organized by one or more leading authorities to write individual chapters on various aspects of the topic. “PROGRESS in IS” is edited by a global team of leading IS experts. The editorial board expressly welcomes new members to this group. Individual volumes in this series are supported by a minimum of two members of the editorial board, and a code of conduct mandatory for all members of the board ensures the quality and cutting-edge nature of the titles published under this series.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10440

Rimantas Gatautis • Jūratė Banytė • Elena Vitkauskaitė Editors

Gamification and Consumer Engagement Creating Value in Context of ICT Development

Editors Rimantas Gatautis Kaunas University of Technology Kaunas, Lithuania

Jūratė Banytė Kaunas University of Technology Kaunas, Lithuania

Elena Vitkauskaitė Kaunas University of Technology Kaunas, Lithuania

ISSN 2196-8705 ISSN 2196-8713 (electronic) Progress in IS ISBN 978-3-030-54204-7 ISBN 978-3-030-54205-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

In memory of Rimantas Gatautis

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rimantas Gatautis, Jūratė Banytė, and Elena Vitkauskaitė The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina Virvilaitė and Aistė Dovalienė Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . Jūratė Banytė, Rita Kuvykaitė, and Asta Tarutė Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rimantas Gatautis, Agnė Gadeikienė, and Elena Vitkauskaitė The Conceptual Model of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rimantas Gatautis, Jūratė Banytė, Rita Kuvykaitė, Regina Virvilaitė, Aistė Dovalienė, Žaneta Piligrimienė, Agnė Gadeikienė, Elena Vitkauskaitė, and Asta Tarutė

1

7 33

69

99

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in the Context of ICT Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Žaneta Piligrimienė Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in the Context of ICT Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Žaneta Piligrimienė, Agnė Gadeikienė, Rimantas Gatautis, and Elena Vitkauskaitė

vii

viii

Contents

Conclusions and Further Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Rimantas Gatautis, Jūratė Banytė, Rita Kuvykaitė, Regina Virvilaitė, Aistė Dovalienė, Žaneta Piligrimienė, Agnė Gadeikienė, Elena Vitkauskaitė, and Asta Tarutė Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Introduction Rimantas Gatautis, Jūratė Banytė, and Elena Vitkauskaitė

The search for new possibilities has always been a challenging task for companies in order to get established and maintain the position in the market. Over the past decade, fast development of technologies has created new possibilities for companies and consumers. Information communication technologies (ICT) are among the most dynamically developing and widely applied. Active ICT development and adaptation have inspired new processes and changes in conventional approaches. Consumers, like companies, tend to extensively use possibilities provided by ICT. The use of ICT in professional and personal life has become obligatory rather than a matter of choice. From the consumer perspective, the use of ICT is associated with consumer value. With the growing amount of ICT-related decisions and possibilities enabled by the use of ICT, creation of value through ICT is becoming particularly important. ICT development has caused extensive changes in consumer behaviour, i.e. consumers have become readily accessible and active. One of the changes in consumer behaviour has been associated with the development of laptops, tablet PCs and smartphones. According to research studies, many consumers make use of more than one gadget (We Are Social 2015). Thus, ICT has enabled companies to reach consumers and communicate different content in any place at any time. Another change in consumer behaviour is associated with their active role in the use of digital content. Web 2.01 has created conditions for consumers to actively engage in the creation of content and services, communication or even service provision. Wide usage of ICT is confirmed by the fact that consumers spend less time on television, radio, traditional books, journals or newspapers and more time on activities in virtual 1 Web 2.0—Webpages that are based on consumer-created content, applicability to consumer needs and interaction (O’Reilly 2005).

R. Gatautis · J. Banytė (*) · E. Vitkauskaitė Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Gatautis et al. (eds.), Gamification and Consumer Engagement, Progress in IS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4_1

1

2

R. Gatautis et al.

reality. Following current tendencies and consumer priorities, companies try to digitise their offers and invest more in online communication. Despite the emergence of new possibilities, consumer activity does not meet the expectations of companies and is not what it might be if technologies were employed. An active consumer’s role manifests through the use of content or realisation of activities that require short-term consumer engagement and non-complicated decision-making. Such consumer behaviour is conditioned by growing amounts of digital content and consumer possibilities to discover digital content (increasing numbers of content providers, popularity of websites aggregating digital content) and engage in heuristic activities (sharing, liking, assessing etc.). Such a situation does not satisfy expectations of companies, because they attempt to develop long-term relationships with consumers. In the context of marketing, relationships with consumers are becoming an important condition for development of consumer loyalty; therefore, the aim of companies to establish and develop such relationships is economically expedient and sound. In order to deal with emerging challenges, companies are forced to search for new ways and methods not only how to call attention of consumers, but also how to engage them in activities resulting in a long-term relationships. Gamification was first recognised as a prospective solution on the Gartner Hype Cycle of Emerging Technologies. Since then the possibilities of using gamification were explored in increasing number of areas, in 2019 making its way to politics and civic institutions, the areas that were reluctant to use gamification so far (Angelovska 2019). This is based on the prognosis made by Gartner that 80% of gamification-based solutions would fail before 2014 as companies would not be able to achieve their aims. Gartner indicated the major reason for failure to be insufficiently substantiated gamification solutions (Gartner 2012). According to recent reports by Gartner (2014), gamification is advancing from the stage of maximised expectations to another stage requiring deep and well-grounded research. Such research studies will establish conditions for the emergence of profitable gamification-based solutions. Considering transformations in the market and tendencies in gamification development, this monograph is aimed at contributing to a deeper and more profound understanding of the gamification phenomenon and disclosure of possibilities of its use by companies. The concept of gamification, although with its deep and gamebased origins, is still understudied; there is a lack of research studies to help understand and conceptualise gamification. Gamification is associated with the use of game elements in non-game situations (Deterding et al. 2011c). In the marketing, gamification has been used by businesses to improve advertising performance, engage customers and enhance perceived brand value (Xi and Hamari 2019). Research shows that gamification is effective for increasing customer engagement, enhancing their creativity, initiating learning, changing behaviours, fostering technology adoption and providing customers with enjoyable experiences (Hammedi et al. 2019). These advantages of gamification are useful to companies, as they encourage more active engagement of consumers through more frequent and longer interactions. Such interactions provide conditions

Introduction

3

for long-term relationships to develop. Though gamification research is growing, the empirical evidence of gamification impact on consumer engagement and brand success is still lacking (Seaborn and Fels 2015; Xi and Hamari 2019). In the context of marketing, gamification is important in ensuring consumer engagement in a certain object. Research into the phenomenon of consumer engagement has started only recently and has most often been associated with an active consumer’s role in emotional or cognitive engagement in a specific object, consumer behaviour beyond purchase or participation in the shared value creation process (Brodie et al. 2013; Cheung et al. 2011; Gambetti and Graffigna 2010; Hollebeek et al. 2014; Vivek et al. 2012; etc.). Rapidly expanding research studies on consumer engagement have defined a broad variety of consumer engagement objects—from the company, product, brand or advertising (Hollebeek 2011a, b; Hollebeek et al. 2014; Mollen and Wilson 2010; So et al. 2014; Sprott et al. 2009) to virtual brand communities (Algesheimer et al. 2005; Brodie et al. 2013; Chan et al. 2014) or social media platforms (Cheung et al. 2011; Di Gangi and Wasko 2009). In understanding consumer engagement in a certain object, engagement dimensions also become important. One-dimensional (Van Doorn et al. 2010; Sprott et al. 2009) or multidimensional (Brodie et al. 2011; Hollebeek 2011a, b; Mollen and Wilson 2010; Patterson et al. 2006) approaches are employed to explain it, which shows that there is a need for an in-depth theoretical and empirical substantiation of consumer engagement dimensions. As based on Hamari et al. (2014), an assumption is made that the use of gamification as a motivating possibility produces a psychological effect—consumer engagement that causes changes in consumer behaviour and the shared value thereof. Through gamified activities, companies aim at encouraging expedient consumer behaviour to create value for both the consumer and the company. The value for a consumer who is affected by intrinsic and/or extrinsic motives is created by different benefits: fun time, knowledge, awards, etc. Gamified activities become attractive to consumers and create both expected and added value for companies. Gamification provides an opportunity for consumers to take an active role, i.e. their actions may be associated with creation (product development), sharing knowledge (marketing research), distribution of messages (communication) or even more intensive use of services. Actions of consumers are beneficial for a company. However, when consumers are engaged in gamified activities, they also create added value for themselves. Researchers studying gamification note the importance of gamification in value creation (Werbach 2014; Blohm and Leimeister 2013; Huotari and Hamari 2012); however, gamification is interpreted as creating value itself (Seaborn and Fels 2015); however, no further research in the respect has been conducted. Importance of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation for a consumer and a company and the significance of the phenomena of gamification, consumer engagement and shared value creation have determined the topic analysed in this monograph. The study of this topic requires an interdisciplinary approach, based on marketing, psychology, information system creation and game creation theories. The monograph seeks to address the following research questions: How

4

R. Gatautis et al.

does gamification affect consumer engagement in value creation in the context of ICT development? What value does this create for a company and a consumer? The questions to be addressed presuppose the aim of the monograph, which is to substantiate gamification-based consumer engagement in shared value creation in the context of ICT development. In order to achieve the aim set in the monograph, the following objectives are formulated: • To conceptualise the constructs of shared value, consumer engagement and gamification. • To prepare a conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation. • To prepare research methodology that will enable empirical testing of the applicability of the conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation. • To generalise complex empirical research results, disclosing the effects of gamification on consumer engagement in value creation in the context of ICT development and identifying the value created during this process for a company and a consumer. The context of the current research is related to ICT development. The authors maintain the position that ICT development is an essential condition that has determined the popularity and applicability of the concept of gamification. Companies seeking to gamify their activities need to make specific ICT decisions. Their absence or wrong choice limits the possibilities for a company to achieve its aims. In the monograph, ICT is considered a universal technology (Gatautis and Vitkauskaitė 2009), and ICT development is interpreted as the context without which effective and economically sound application of gamification in the activities of companies is impossible. For this reason, the monograph does not separately analyse ICT development and particular technological solutions but focuses on the main theoretical concepts, i.e. gamification, consumer engagement and shared value. In the monograph, the authors maintain the view that gamification by engaging consumers in the brand and making them create value may be applied in order to expediently change consumer views and behaviour and to create value for both consumers and companies. The authors of the monograph define gamification as an activity when game elements are used in non-game situations. Gamification is interpreted as a construct that connects game elements used in gamification of activities and consumer motivation to play games thus engaging in gamified activities, and guides the consumer to the flow state as an outcome of successful gamification. Game elements are stimuli invoking extrinsic and intrinsic motives and establishing conditions for consumers to engage in gamified activities. Games elements are based on the gamification pyramid approach. In the context of gamification, the flow state is related to consumer engagement in gamified activity. In the monograph, the analysis of consumer engagement is based on the approach that the flow state is an antecedent of consumer brand engagement.

Introduction

5

The flow state is analysed as a one-dimensional construct. Consumer brand engagement is analysed from the multidimensional perspective, which allows getting a deeper understanding of this construct. Consumer brand engagement determines long-term mutually beneficial relationship between the consumer and the company. The relationship is characterised by shared—consumer-perceived and company-received—value. Shared value, as analysed in the monograph, is a complex, multidimensional construct, which unites both consumer and company perspectives. The novelty of the monograph is to be associated with conducted theoretical research on shared value, consumer engagement and gamification constructs and methodological approaches towards gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation in the context of ICT development as well as the empirical results thereof. The theoretical novelty of the monograph reflects through both the developed concept of gamification integrating different positions of researchers who analysed gamification and an original integrative approach towards the constructs of gamification, consumer engagement and shared value. This approach is original because it discloses the use of gamification as a motivating possibility (game elements and motivation to play games) in achieving a psychological effect, i.e. consumer engagement manifested through engagement in gamified activities (characterised by the consumer flow state) and brand engagement, which determines changes in consumer behaviour, as well as shared value creation for both the consumer and the company. The methodological research novelty of the monograph is to be associated with the original inventory instrument used in the quantitative research, integrating not only the recognised measurement scales on gamification, engagement and consumer perceived value, found in the scientific literature, but also new indicators measuring the research constructs formulated by the authors of the monograph. The empirical research confirms the positive influence of gamification on shared value. The conducted empirical study reveals that the analysis of consumer perceived value in the context of engagement in gamified activities should distinguish not only theoretically identified company/brand-related economic, emotional, functional and social values, but also engagement-related social and functional values. The impact of gamification on the consumer perceived value manifests both directly and indirectly through the intermediate consumer engagement construct. The second to fourth chapters of the monograph are devoted to conceptualisation of the main theoretical constructs—gamification, consumer engagement and shared value. The second chapter analyses the concept of shared value in the context of the newest marketing theories, introduces the main views towards shared value creation, and distinguishes shared value dimensions. In the third chapter, a critical analysis of theoretical approaches towards the concept of consumer engagement is performed, peculiarities of consumer engagement behaviour in traditional and virtual environments are substantiated and consumer engagement causing factors, as well as consumer engagement dimensions, are identified. The fourth chapter provides an overview of genesis and development of the concept of gamification, identification of associations between gamification and other theories, distinction of game

6

R. Gatautis et al.

elements and motives to play games, as well as criticism related to the concept of gamification. The fifth chapter of the monograph is devoted to modelling of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation in the context of ICT development by integrating into the model the main theoretical constructs of gamification, consumer engagement and shared value. The sixth chapter of the monograph focuses on the empirical research methodology in relation to gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation in the context of ICT development, defines methodological research approaches, and substantiates the choice of the mixed method approach (qualitative and quantitative). The seventh chapter of the monograph provides empirical research results. The qualitative research (interviews of experts and analysis of gamification cases) results serve as the basis for future research through specification of the gamification construct and identification of the value for the company created by gamification. The results of the quantitative research (survey) reveal how gamification of activities determines consumer engagement, how consumer engagement manifests through gamified activities, and what perceived value consumers identify by engaging in shared value creation through gamified activities. Rimantas Gatautis (1974–2018) was a Principal Investigator leading Digitalization Research Group at Kaunas University of Technology. He had wide-ranging experience of implementing international research projects. His latest research focused on IST influence on enterprise transformation in the transition economies, e-business models, socio-economic aspects of IST adoption, and gamification. Jūratė Banytė has Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management). She is a Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. Her research interests include consumer behavior, sustainable consumption, consumer engagement and value management. She has participated in different international and national research and study projects. Elena Vitkauskaitė is a Researcher of Digitalization Research Group and a Lecturer of Digital Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She works in research projects related to e-Business, e-Government. Research interests relate to cross-cultural issues on the web, social network sites, gamification, and digital transformation.

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories Regina Virvilaitė and Aistė Dovalienė

1 Research Analysis of the Concept of Value Consumer perceived value is the basis of all marketing solutions. The creation of an exceptional value for a consumer is considered to be the main factor that enhances competitiveness and ensures consumer loyalty. It is not at all surprising that studies on the concept of value have been given special attention over the past few decades. Despite this, however, research in this field is still relevant since results and their interpretations differ due to different methodological approaches analysing the construct of value and its content, due to fragmented research, due to the context of the phenomenon and aims of the researcher. The analysis of results of foreign researchers on the topic of value and value creation shows that despite attempts to achieve a holistic approach towards the concept of value (Khalifa 2004; Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonilla 2007; Boksberger and Melsen 2011; Gummerus 2013), the term value has been treated in many diverse ways in the scientific literature, and this variety depends on the subject of value (i.e. receiver of value) and the analysed context (especially in the case of the term customer value). The concept of value is considered as an object of interdisciplinary research: this concept has been analysed from the perspectives of management, finances, strategic management, process management, information systems, economics, consumer behaviour and, of course, marketing. According to Ramsay (2005), economists discussed the differences between value and exchange value already in the eighteenth century; they treated value as benefit or pleasure that consumers experience when they make use of the product or the service, and considered exchange value to be the amount of income generated through exchange.

R. Virvilaitė · A. Dovalienė (*) Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Gatautis et al. (eds.), Gamification and Consumer Engagement, Progress in IS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4_2

7

8

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

In the literature on marketing, the concept of value was not clearly defined until 1980s (Ramsay 2005), and the first definitions of value from the perspective of marketing emerged from the neoclassical economics theory emphasising the relationship between the benefits received by the consumer from the product or the service and the experienced costs in purchasing and using the product or the service. The importance of the concept of value on the marketing theory has been highlighted by Gallarza et al. (2011), who emphasised the meaningful application of the concept from the epistemological point of view. The authors associated the significance of the concept of value with the studies on consumer behaviour, and distinguished two central aspects in consumer behaviour: the economic dimension (value is associated with the perceived price of the product through the transaction value) and the psychological dimension (value is associated with cognitive and emotional factors determining the consumer’s decision to purchase a specific product or choose a specific brand). Gallarza et al. (2011) point to the complex and multifaceted nature of the concept of value. These characteristics have been noted as important by many researchers (Petrick 2002; Lindgreen and Wynstra 2005; Rintamäki et al. 2006; Prebensen et al. 2012). Gallarza et al. (2011) explained that the main reasons complicating the research on the concept were associated with the above-mentioned characteristics, causing insufficient reliability of the research. The following reasons were distinguished: • Conceptual obstacles (lack of consistency in conceptualising value, different meanings assigned to the concept of value by various researchers and practitioners). • Methodological problems (different treatment of value as a multidimensional construct). • Limitations of measurement (Empirical research cannot fully disclose the multidimensional nature of value; it has been noted that different studies in different contexts also depend on the studied service/product characteristics (type); besides, a gap between conceptualisation of value and empirical analysis has been noticed). Various theoretical and empirical research directions also contributed to the absence of the consensus in treating the concept of value. Gummerus (2013) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature on the topic of value and distinguished two main research directions on the topic: 1. Analysis of value creation processes, and 2. Definition of value outcomes In respect to these directions, the author proposed seven categories in relation to value. Value creation processes include activities, resources and transactions that generate value; they are further subdivided into three categories: value creation at the company level, value creation at the consumer level, and shared value creation based on the logic of dominant services. Value outcomes define how the consumer perceives the benefits of the value proposal. Value outcomes are subdivided into

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

9

four categories: related to measures and aims, related to benefits and expenses, experiential and phenomenological. Gummerus (2013) emphasises that value creation processes are continuous and value outcomes are associated with a certain limited time. Khalifa (2004) defines value in a different way. In a detailed research study on the topic of the concept of value, the researcher claims that in the management-related literature value is classified into the following three categories: • Shareholder value, analysed by financing specialists and economists. • Customer value, analysed by marketing specialists. • Stakeholder value, mostly emphasised by researchers who study issues of cooperation and relation development with all the interested parties. Namely, customer value, according to Khalifa (2004), is the source of all other values. However, there is a consensus in the scientific literature that customer value is in itself a very subjective, ambiguous and hard-to-define phenomenon (Woodruff 1997; Huber et al. 2001; Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo 2007; Gallarza et al. 2011). The situation is aggravated by the fact that customer value is a dynamic concept which changes and develops over time (Slater and Narver 1994; Parasuraman 1997). The term customer value has been used in many different ways in marketing literature. The conducted analysis of the scientific literature allows claiming that customer value has been mostly analysed as consumer perceived value understood through the relation between benefits and costs (Petrick 2002; Wang et al. 2004; Smith and Colgate 2007) or through consumer perceived value dimensions (Sheth et al. 1991; Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Smith and Colgate 2007; Park and Ha 2015) or as value for consumers analysed through company’s decisions that determine perceived benefits in the customer decision-making stage (Woodruff 1997; Rust and Oliver 2000). The term customer value is also used in foreign research works to define the consumer value for company, which is often understood as customer profitability over the life cycle (Sargeant and West 2002; Venkatesan and Kumar 2004; Kumar et al. 2010; Verhoef and Lemon 2013). In analysing customer value, it is important to distinguish two concepts: value-inexchange and value-in-use. These two terms refer to two different approaches towards value and its creation (Vargo et al. 2008). Value-in-exchange refers to a traditional approach towards value creation (Vargo and Lusch 2004) that is typical of the goods-dominant (G-D) logic. Here, value is created and provided by companies most often through the exchange of goods or money between various parties. The roles of the producer and the consumer are, in this case, completely different, and value itself is the outcome of various activities conducted by a company. Thus, value is produced when there is an exchange of goods produced by a company in the market (Vargo et al. 2008). Contrary to the concept of the goods-dominant logic, Vargo and Lusch (2004) proposed a concept of service-dominant (S-D) logic. The goods-dominant logic separates the consumer from the value proposal creation process, as the main focus is on the productivity; however, Vargo and Lusch (2004) claim that consumers

10

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

should in principle always be engaged in value creation, because even manufacture of tangible goods does not end with manufacture processes only. Due to the services component that exists practically in any sphere, such an approach may be applied not only in the provision of services but also in the manufacture of goods (Grönroos and Ravald 2011; Vernette and Hamdi-Kidar 2013). The idea to create value together with consumers is not new in the marketing of services. According to Vernette and Hamdi-Kidar (2013), this idea emerged 30 years ago. Services essentially differ from physical goods since they may often be perceived as the source of value only because of consumer’s active participation in the service provision process. Out of the mentioned service-dominant logic emerges an alternative approach towards value as consumed value (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008a). In creating this value, the producer’s and the consumer’s roles are not separated, and the value itself is co-created together with the consumer through interactions between the value provider and the receiver by integrating resources and applying appropriate competences. Thus, according to Vargo et al. (2008), value is always unique and phenomenologically defined by the recipient of the benefit and created through interaction of parties, integrating resources of both sides. Grönroos (2008) claims that value-in-exchange becomes meaningless if value-inuse is not ensured, as the consumer perceives the benefit only in consuming, and consumer satisfaction may only be judged after consuming. A similar idea is maintained by Vargo and Lusch (2006, p. 44) who claim that value is not received until the proposal is not being used, since only experience and perception allow defining value. This way, value-in-exchange becomes important not only for the consumer but also for the company. The importance of value-in-use is obvious for both parties, although in the short-term it is hard to observe and measure from the managerial position. Increased sales due to value-in-exchange may shortly mask consumer dissatisfaction arising out of low value-in-use. This dissatisfaction, consequently, causes lower consumer retention. In agreement with this view, Gallarza et al. (2011) emphasise that consumer value should be analysed in all the spheres of consumer decision-making (in choosing goods, repeatedly purchasing them and becoming loyal). The latter view is to be associated with the main assumptions of new marketing theories oriented towards the retention of relationship. These assumptions emerged when the importance of consumer retention was evidenced and acknowledged by researchers and when there was a transition in the orientation of business from exchange to long-term relationship development. Researchers started focusing on the need to provide the best/ distinguishing value for consumers in all stages of the life cycle. This aspect of value is reflected in the theories of relationship retention (Egan 2011), direct and interactive marketing (Sargeant and West 2002), and customer relationship management (CRM) (Payne and Frow 2013; value is treated broadly, not only as a system of customer relationship management, i.e. a measure to develop long-term relationship with all interested parties). Through the use of information technologies, effective application of these theories becomes feasible not only in business-to-business marketing but also in business-to-consumer marketing. In the context of new marketing theories, the focus is on the establishment, development and enhancement

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

11

of relationship that is beneficial for both sides, and the efficiency of all these decisions can be ensured through the creation of the best consumer value together with consumers themselves. The importance of the consumer in the process of value co-creation highlighting their engagement in consumer value creation is obvious in new marketing theories, e.g. in the explanations of relationship marketing provided by Egan (2011) and Payne and Frow (2013). The importance of the consumer’s role in value co-creation has been underlined by Payne et al. (2008). They emphasise the transition of the consumer’s role in the process of value co-creation from passive to pro-active, where the consumer performs a series of actions to achieve the desired outcome. In highlighting the importance of the consumer and developing the servicedominant logic proposed by Vargo and Lusch (2008a), Heinonen et al. (2013) put forward the customer-dominant logic and distinguish five main characteristics: • Value cannot be created consciously in advance with both parties equally participating; instead, value is to be treated as a process happening in the present time. • Value cannot be treated only as a process which depends on the company and occurs in the interaction with the company; instead, it occurs in the consumer’s reality and ecosystem. • Value has to be analysed from the long-term and multicontextual perspective encompassing many different value systems related to an individual and service. • Value is not analysed from the cognitive or resource perspective only; it may be socially interpreted and analysed from the phenomenological perspective. • Value is not isolated, because one consumer’s reality is related to another consumer’s reality, and value to some extent is always collective and shared, and multipersonal in nature. In distinguishing these value characteristics, Heinonen et al. (2013) seek to draw attention to the fact that traditional consumer perceived value research studies should be modified and results should be revised; the research should be focused on the consumer who should be given a priority. A change in the approach towards the roles of the consumer and the company roles is also reflected in the concept of value co-creation proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b). The researchers have introduced the term value co-creation and have inspired a wave in the research and publications on the topic. A series of research papers were published where the focus was transferred from economic value creation in a company to interaction between a company and a consumer in value creation. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) define value co-creation as a form of marketing or a business strategy emphasising reciprocal company and consumer value generation and realisation. In this respect, markets are treated as forums where companies and active consumers share, negotiate and renew each other’s resources and possibilities in creating shared value through new forms of interactions, services and learning mechanisms. According to the researchers, the created shared value emerges out of personalised, unique experience on the consumer’s part and revenue, knowledge and better marketing results on the company’s part. Value is created together with consumers, when they are able to personalise

12

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

their experience using company’s goods or services and performing specific company’s tasks, and the company receives a greater value from its investment in terms of new knowledge, greater revenue, greater brand value or customer loyalty. Therefore, value co-creation is an important part of current marketing changes, since consumers more and more often cooperate with companies and participate in the process of value definition and creation in order to enhance customer experiencebased value (Albinsson et al. 2011). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) also agree that high-quality interaction allows an individual consumer to co-create unique experience together with the company, which is key in disclosing new sources of the competitive advantage (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b). The same idea is maintained in Porter and Kramer’s (2011a) shared value approach. The paper by Porter and Kramer (2006) Strategy & Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility published in Harvard Business Review is to be associated with the beginning of the research on the concept of shared value. The main idea of shared value creation, according to the researchers, lies in the interdependence between company’s competitiveness and welfare of the surrounding community. Assessment of decisions and possibilities in terms of shared value may lead to a new approach that will generate innovations and revenue growth for a company together with greater benefit for society. The idea of the concept has clear origins from and associations with the concept of corporate social responsibility. Porter and Kramer (2011b) further develop the shared value idea and claim that corporate social responsibility programmes are mostly oriented towards the management of reputation and have no clear associations with business results, which aggravates the long-term maintenance of this initiative. However, shared value creation is integrated into the company’s profitability and competitive position and allows creating economic value along with social value (Porter and Kramer 2011b). This view is also maintained by Pinho et al. (2014) who claim that in the context of a new business environment it is essential to move from single customer-supplier dyads to the many-to-many principle, where consumer networks interact with supplier networks. From the value creation perspective, all the stakeholders cooperate by integrating their resources in order to create value for themselves and others (Pinho et al. 2014, p. 471). The view is also maintained by Moore (2014) who claims that the concept of shared value is aimed at changing the main business processes—strategies, structure, people, processes and awards; it is also aimed at ensuring the triple bottom line returns—social, economic and environmental. The idea of shared value is not new in the marketing literature. The need to create value that would satisfy all the stakeholders and would determine sustainable relationship development has been emphasised by Peck et al. (1999), Christopher et al. (2002), Ballantyne et al. (2003) and later by Payne and Frow (2013) who proposed a six markets model integrating consumer market, internal market, referral market, supplier and alliance market, influence market and recruitment market. This approach also reflects in the value creation process model proposed by Payne et al. (2001). The authors introduce a cyclical value creation process integrating

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

13

consumers, employees and other stakeholders, and emphasise value creation through attraction and retention of these three subjects. The idea of shared value is also expressed in two of the three types of value identified by Ballantyne et al. (2003). The first type is managed value. From the management perspective, this type is the classical treatment of value, which is created as a proposal for consumers in order to satisfy their needs and is provided through repeated transactions in order to develop long-term relationship managed by the supplier. The second type is interactive value, which is created by way of the reciprocal interactive social process determining economic output and is shared on mutual understanding of stakeholders. The third type is emergent value, which is created together with consumers and other stakeholders outside the limits of an ordinary organisation. In this case, value is co-created through transactions emerging out of networking. According to Payne and Frow (2013), only such created value which satisfies all stakeholders involved into the process of its creation allows companies to establish long-term relationship with customers and ensure the competitive advantage in the market. In summary of the conducted literature analysis, it could be claimed that shared value may be analysed from two different perspectives: • The macro-level where unique value emerges as a result of co-creation by business and society, and • The micro-level where value co-creation is analysed in the marketing context, i.e. with the focus on integration of efforts on both the company’s and the consumer’s part. However, in both cases, experience in value co-creation serves as the basis of shared value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004a, b). The above-mentioned factors and results of scientific literature analysis confirming that no consensus has been achieved regarding the concept of shared value itself and its dimensions or regarding the conditions of consumer engagement in value co-creation presuppose the need for in-depth research on the issue of shared value creation. In order to distinguish shared value dimensions, first, it is essential to understand the mechanism of its creation, i.e., to understand the principles of co-creation and to explain the decisions needed for implementation of these principles.

2 Principle Assumptions on Shared Value Creation Abundance of research studies on different aspects of shared value creation highlights the multifaceted nature of the concept. In order to better understand the analysed phenomenon, Saarijärvi et al. (2013) suggest finding out whose value position needs to be analysed in the context of shared value creation; what is meant by ‘co-creation’, i.e. whose resources are used in the creation process and

14

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

Fig. 1 Value co-creation

Consumer resources

Company resources

Integration

For a consumer

VALUE For a company

what mechanisms are employed for co-creation to occur. Figure 1 illustrates the main principle of value co-creation: value is co-created at least by two stakeholders through the process of their resources integration, and the outcome of this process— the created value—is received and perceived by each participating party individually. In order to achieve the best outcomes in value co-creation, it is necessary to understand what consumer value and company value are to be achieved, how value is created, what resources are needed and what is the mechanism of resources integration (Saarijärvi 2012; Saarijärvi et al. 2013). Therefore, according to Payne et al. (2008), Vargo and Lusch (2006), Rampen (2011) and Albinsson et al. (2011), the traditional business model where a producer manufactures a product and consumer purchases the product is changed; instead, the model of value co-creation together by the company and the consumer emerges, where due to constant exchange of useful information the mutual learning process takes place resulting in better understanding of consumers and improvement of internal processes. Despite the benefits of value co-creation for all stakeholders emphasised by many researchers, Saarijärvi (2012) notes that not all companies receive benefits from value co-creation; some of them sustain heavy losses. Such circumstances encourage a detailed analysis of the value co-creation process, finding out what resources the process may require in certain cases and what consequences it may lead to for a company. This approach is also maintained by Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres (2010) who underline the fact that the value co-creation process may not only create value but may also undermine the company or consumers. Such a situation is described using the term co-destruction. This may happen when one of the stakeholders

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

15

participating in value co-creation is not able to appropriately integrate/employ the resources in possession, which may result in failures of processes or resource management and inability to accordingly realise the expectations of co-creation stakeholders (e.g. customers, employees). Consequently, some stakeholders participating in co-creation face unexpected value co-creation outcomes. Following Payne et al. (2008), Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres (2010) claim that knowledge of all value co-creation processes and the ability to properly control them and stakeholders are essential in order to avoid negative outcomes in the value co-creation process. As it has already been mentioned, the phenomenon of value co-creation has emerged out of a change in the approach to business, and especially to consumers. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) explain these changes by highlighting two paradoxes typical of the twenty-first century economics: • Customers have more possibilities to choose, but this results in their lower satisfaction. • Managers of companies may choose from a number of strategic alternatives, but this leads to lower value. This situation has inspired a change in a traditionally established value creation system, where a company always took the main role. Now, this role is transferred on to consumers in order to create exceptional value together. Therefore, it might be said that the understanding of the importance of co-creation is a consequence of a change in the consumer’s image, which has been determined by globalisation and development of technologies making information readily available, having broadened consumer views and their possibilities to participate in social networks, resulting in inexhaustible opportunities for consumers themselves to experiment, create products and services or improve them. All this has influenced the changes in the approach towards the market and initiated unconventional relationships between companies and consumers. Vargo and Lusch (2004) support this claim and emphasise that internet- and new ICT-initiated and consumer-oriented culture underscoring interactivity, speed, individuality and openness predisposes enhancement of the consumer’s role in the entire chain of the value creation process (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Thus, consumer engagement in value creation processes has become a major challenge for companies. If earlier companies worked orienting their activity to consumers as a passive audience, now they have to reconsider their orientations and look for possibilities to engage consumers in value creation in order to create unique shared value. Value co-creation is defined in many different ways in the scientific literature. The analysis of literature sources reveals that in defining value co-creation most often universal or specific—typical of particular spheres—definitions are used. The definitions depend on the stakeholders involved in co-creation: consumers, suppliers, etc. Different concepts used in the studies focusing on various business sectors in the context of value co-creation only confirm that both value and value co-creation depend on the context. Therefore, the results of various studies have to be interpreted in terms of the context, the specifics of each country, business, etc. and

16

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

the related consumer behaviour peculiarities. The views of different authors towards co-creation are summarised in Table 1. Payne et al. (2008) define value co-creation as the entirety of three interdependent processes where both the company and consumers learn from each during their interaction. According to the researchers, there are three levels of value co-creation processes: customer co-creation, company co-creation and co-creation interaction (Payne et al. 2008): • Customer co-creation involves a series of actions performed by a customer in order to achieve a certain goal. For this, customers use resources and their experience. How a customer will be able to create value depends on the amount of information, knowledge, capacities and resources that are available and could be used. In order to completely engage in tasks, customers need to be accommodated with necessary measures and knowledge, i.e. a platform where they could act without hindrance is needed. This way, customers will not only perform tasks designed for them, but will also seek to participate actively further on. In the process of created value, customers may feel different emotions, develop their understanding or participate actively sparing no effort and time. According to the researchers, these processes cannot be interpreted in the traditional engineering perspectives; they need to be addressed as dynamic, interactive, non-linear and frequently subconscious (spontaneous) processes. • Company co-creation processes contribute to co-creation through projection, provision of particular customer experience and empowerment of continuous learning of the organisation. These processes associate resources and experience and serve as the basis for managing the relationship with customers. Company created value processes include determination possibilities for value co-creation, planning, testing, the establishment of possibilities for value co-creation together with customers, empowering customer decision-making, management of customer competition, and assessment of relevant values offered by a company for customers. • Co-creation interaction is a series of interactions and transactions between a company and a customer. It is a process when customer capacities and possibilities coincide with company’s capacities and possibilities. In this process, cooperation that is beneficial for both sides and exchange based on customer’s and company’s cooperation takes place, and resources are integrated. In the value creation process, interaction is possible in the fields of communication, consumption, services or maintenance. These interactions may be classified as emotions, cognition and behaviour or actions. Payne et al. (2008) note that not all the mentioned interactions are equally important in creating shared value. They claim that some interactions are essential in creating customer experience; meanwhile, others are more important for a company itself. However, unlike Payne et al. (2008), Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) introduce the principle value co-creation scheme, which underlines the inseparability of consumer experience from value co-creation where an individual is the central

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

17

Table 1 The concept of value co-creation by different authors Authors Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b)

Vargo et al. (2008)

Grönroos (2008) Payne et al. (2008) Zhang and Chen (2008) Fujioka (2009)

Hoyer et al. (2010)

Gebauer et al. (2010)

Zwass (2010)

Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010) Gustafsson et al. (2012) Lambert and Enz (2012, p. 1590)

Vega-Vazquez et al. (2013)

Nysveen and Pedersen (2014, p. 808) Grönroos and Gummerus (2014, p. 210)

Definition/characteristics of the co-creation concept Value co-creation through equal participation of a company and a consumer. A form of marketing or business strategy emphasising mutual value generation and implementation on the part of a company and a consumer through dialogue, transparency and risk management. Value creation through integration of efforts by companies, employees, consumers, owners, governmental organisations or other subjects. Joint efforts of a consumer (or another recipient of benefits) and a service provider through their direct interaction. The entirety of three mutually interdependent processes—consumers, suppliers and their transactions. Consumer integration into value creation through the integration of value co-creation activities and new possibilities. Reciprocal sharing of information through transactions ensuring a possibility for retailers to communicate with consumers and providing revenue for retailers and satisfaction for consumers. Co-creation in new product development—creation of new products based on cooperation of the company and consumers, granting consumers an active and the main role in the process of new product development. The process of integrating consumer engagement, their selfservice, consumer involvement, problem-solving and co-design creation. Orientation towards market value enhancement reflecting the need to create together with other co-creators through the use of information technologies in completing tasks. Concern with the needs of all stakeholders and the focus on their experience and reciprocity. Frequent mutual immediate communication process intended to solve a certain problem. The economic and social process where individuals have certain roles determining their behaviour and understanding. This understanding is dynamic and exceptional and may be affected through direct interactions with other individuals or through indirect information sources. Shared value creation through the participation of both the service provider and the consumer. Consumers not only contribute to service creation as sources of idea generation, but also participate by providing resources in possession and by controlling the outcome of the service. Consumer value co-creation together with the brand, new value co-creation with the brand and value co-creation together with other consumers in the context of the brand. Value co-creation is a joint process involving a service provider and a consumer and taking place in a platform of co-creation where the process of service ‘production’ and the process of consumption on the consumer’s part as well as the value creation process (continued)

18

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

Table 1 (continued) Authors

Definition/characteristics of the co-creation concept converge into one single process during direct interaction. Co-creation is a process when something is created during direct interaction between two or more actors, and the processes of different actors converge into one communication-based dialogue process.

figure establishing experience in value co-creation. The authors identify the following conditions essential for co-creation: • Value is created when a company and a consumer interact. • Experience caused by co-creation is the basis of value. • Consumer experience is most important in value co-creation. Only when both the company and the consumer participate, an interaction may take place involving the consumer into the process of shared value creation and leading to a variety of co-creation experiences, conditioned by these heterogeneous interactions and resulting in personalised co-creation experience. However, maximum results may be achieved through orientation to the quality of interactions between the company and the consumer, to the environment ensuring innovative experience and to diversity of experience itself (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004a, b). Researchers agree that for value co-creation to occur a mutual initiative to realise changes in the traditional process of integrating resources on all sides should exist (Saarijärvi et al. 2013). Rampen (2011) has modified a Business Model Canvas proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), which illustrates the possibilities of integration of the resources where the major role is given to consumer experience. Namely, integration of resources allows creating a unique consumer experience, and value for company and consumer value are co-created by the company and the consumer together through consumer experience. Kalaignanam and Varadarajan (2006) developed a theory of ICT effect on value co-creation. The authors claim that the constant development of information communication technologies allows consumer to create value in cooperation with companies. According to Kalaignanam and Varadarajan (2006), consumer participation, the emergence of new communities, and easy and abundant communication establish conditions for consumers to cooperate and even create new innovative products. The importance of acknowledging changed roles of consumers and companies has been noticed by Vernette and Hamdi-Kidar (2013) who maintain that value co-creation may take place upstream and/or downstream. The researchers also claim that more and more companies seek to have consumers participating in value co-creation downstream. In other words, companies that introduce a new product to the market seek to receive more comprehensive reviews about the consumer experience. Value co-creation downstream is based on consumer remarks in their everyday consumption cycle.

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

19

According to Vernette and Hamdi-Kidar (2013), it is possible for a consumer to take part in co-creation upstream, i.e. from the idea to the concept, as well as in the stage of product testing and even in the advertising campaign. Interactive platforms may integrate measures that may be used to create a new design or a new product. Such a principle of value co-creation is useful in seeking to generate ideas for a new product or service together with consumers, in creating product prototypes and in the final stages of product or service communication. To illustrate the principles of co-creation processes, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) introduced DART—the model that is most often cited in the scientific literature (Payne et al. 2008; Zhang and Chen 2008; Romero and Molina 2011; Dervojeda et al. 2014). One of the authors, Ramaswamy (2008, 2009a) later developed and supplemented the model with examples of various practical situations. The DART model, illustrating value co-creation with consumers, consists of four major dimensions defining the interaction between consumers and the company. The dimensions, according to the researchers, identify the main and essential conditions for value co-creation: dialogue, access, risks/benefits and transparency. Based on the research results (Ramaswamy 2008, 2009a), the DART model exists in all cases when there is value co-creation between companies and their consumers. However, the expression of elements comprising the model and their combinations depend on the specifics of the analysed context. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a) note that the ability to understand and apply the principles of value co-creation described in the model helps to ensure constructive cooperation in the value creation process and to achieve the desired result for both sides. The first dimension in the DART model—dialogue—means interactivity, consumer engagement and disposition to act on the company’s and the consumer’s part. Dialogue is much more than only listening to consumers. Dialogue involves continuous reciprocal learning and communication between two equal problem-solving parties (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b). According to the researchers, only dialogue can help to maintain the loyalty of the community. Ramaswamy (2008) illustrates the importance of dialogue giving an example of NikePlus and distinguishing the following important dialogues: between the runner and the Nike company; between the runner–listener to the music and the Apple player that the runner uses; between the runners themselves; between the runners and the running sport experts. Runners may get involved into a simultaneous virtual conversation, groups of runners may present challenges to each other, and friends may congratulate each other on progress or goals achieved. The second dimension—access to the information—is essential in order to ensure the success of such a complex dialogue. For the parties to have access to information and communicate, certain instruments are necessary, and the information itself may involve specific knowledge about the activity of a company and processes of service provision; on the other hand, it may include the information that consumers provide to the company and other consumers through engagement in value creation. Thus, companies have to ensure all the necessary value creation platforms for consumers. According to Ramaswamy (2009a), it is possible to ensure the needed access due to

20

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

especially effective new-generation technical and social infrastructure allowing consumers to co-create experience giving them the best value. The third dimension—risk assessment—defines possible harm for the consumer. Despite all discussions about the limits of responsibility of the consumer who participates in value co-creation, consumer participation in co-creation develops and extends to all spheres; therefore, information about possible personal and social risks for the consumer should be provided in the most acceptable way, i.e. by introducing not only pure information but also comprehensible methodologies for evaluation of the possible risk associated with goods or services (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b). The fourth dimension of value co-creation is transparency. Traditionally, information asymmetry between the company and consumers used to be beneficial for the company. However, this asymmetry is disappearing fast with the changing approaches to the market. Information about products or services, employed technologies and business systems are becoming more and more easily accessible; thus, transparency of the company’s activity is an essential condition for value co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b). Besides, in order to ensure an effective shared value creation process, information that consumers submit to the company about themselves is also crucial. From the company’s point of view, value co-creation together with the consumer requires fast and continuous learning from each interaction with consumers. Although the DART model is oriented towards consumer needs and wishes, it helps companies to understand what they need to satisfy consumer expectations and to ensure the development of sustainable long-term relationship with consumers. On the other hand, Ramaswamy (2009a) says that effective co-creation is only possible if state-of-the-art technologies are employed and consumer-oriented infrastructure supporting their active participation is ensured. The objectives of companies in employing the DART model and elements of the model used in various contexts may differ, like different combinations of these elements that may cause different consumer behaviours (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b), for example, encourage investing resources (a combination of access and transparency), team into communities of fans of products or services (a combination of access and dialogue) or trust the company and its products or services (a combination of transparency and risk assessment). Cova et al. (2015), who have studied consumer participation in brand value co-creation, claim that consumers may engage in value co-creation by generating new ideas related to products, creating and defining the meaning of the brand, sharing information and experience with other consumers. Hoyer et al. (2010) approach value co-creation from a different point of view. They analyse consumer participation in co-creation of new products and distinguish four degrees of value co-creation: idea creation, product creation/improvement, commercialisation and actions taken after product introduction to the market. The degree to which consumers participate in co-creation depends on consumer motives (financial, social, psychological and technological) and possibilities provided by the company for consumers to engage in co-creation. The impact of the company on

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

21

co-creation depends on stimuli (the wish to provide greater benefit to consumers and to reduce transaction costs) and obstacles (giving away secrets, fear of losing intellectual property, excess of information, failure to keep to the productions plants). Interplay of all these factors, according to Hoyer et al. (2010), affects co-creation outcomes that are important for both the company (effectiveness, efficiency, greater variety) and consumers (meeting consumer needs, development of relationship, engagement and satisfaction). Kaasinen et al. (2012) claim that at the beginning of value co-creation the level of formalisation is low and the level of uncertainty is high, which makes consumers to reveal more information about themselves. In their opinion, direct consumer participation in idea generation is becoming more and more relevant; therefore, the newest ICT technologies need to be employed in order to continue to successfully create value satisfying all parties. Gouillart (2014) distinguishes common processes that help companies to ensure a competitive advantage in the market in shared value creation: • Community creation (deciding what the community will be in terms of its size, difference of employees and customers). • Platform creation (the company has to decide whether value co-creation will take place in virtual or real environment). • Interaction (conditions for implementation of large-scope, frequent and economically effective interactions of the parties should be ensured). • Secured experience (finding out whether value co-creation influences individual experience of each party). • Economic value (finding out whether in value co-creation there is economic value for the parties). According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a), the process of value co-creation causes especially many challenges for company managers. Zhang and Chen (2008) agree to this idea and distinguish the following principles of co-creation: (1) integration of consumers into value co-creation through interactive co-creation activities; (2) adequate relationship ensured between co-creation activities and the existing possibilities of the system. Orientation of activities towards co-creation with consumers may contribute to the development of new competences, thus providing the company with more competitive advantages. According to Gentile et al. (2007, p. 397), a traditional company that seeks to become oriented towards value co-creation needs to understand that the role of the company also changes: instead of the empowering traditional product or service marketing decisions, the company employs the holistic and experiential marketing-engaging approach (and provides engaging experience through active consumer participation) in the co-creation stage when it provides consumers with all the necessary material and respective conditions for consumers to create their own experience. Grönroos and Voima (2013) explain co-creation principles and emphasise that the roles of the consumer and the company vary depending on the sphere of value creation. The company is responsible for the production process (involving creation, development, production, distribution, storage, service, etc.), and supplies to the

22

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

consumer all resources and access to essential processes in the supplier sphere, thus establishing conditions for value creation. In the joint sphere, the role of the consumer is twofold: that of the creator of resources and processes together with the company and that of the value co-creator. In direct interactions with consumers, the company has a possibility to engage in the process of consumer value creation and take the role of the value co-creator. In the consumer sphere, which is close to the provider, the consumer creates value-in-use (by using the product or the service) regardless of the provider and in the absence of direct interactions. In summary, it could be claimed that researchers have different views towards the activities that are assigned to value co-creation; their detailed descriptions also differ. Besides, causes determining the companies’ wish to involve consumers, the consumer’s wish to engage in shared value creation and the consequences of the value creation process, i.e., the value received by the parties, are also analysed differently. However, despite all the listed differences, researchers agree that only if consumers participate in the value creation process can companies make better, higher value-generating offers to consumers. All this has contributed to showing topical relevance of the studies on customer value from the point of view of both the consumer and the company.

3 Identification of Shared Value Dimensions The authors of publications on the issue of value co-creation agree on the need to involve the consumer in the process of value creation. Only if the consumer participates, reciprocal, unique and experience-based value can be created. However, despite the focus on the reciprocal value, a plethora of research studies analyse the results of co-creation from the consumer’s point of view. There is a lack of discussion about shared value dimensions. Does value co-creation affect utilitarian or hedonistic value? Or maybe shared value is characterised in terms of other dimensions? Despite the orientation of research towards value co-creation, many scholars (Gupta and Lehman 2003; Grönroos and Helle 2010; Saarijärvi et al. 2013) agree with Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004a) idea that interaction between a company and a consumer is pivotal in value creation and provision. However, in respect of the fact that value is always unique and is defined by the recipient of benefit (Vargo and Lusch 2004), it is obvious that consumers receive different value than companies during value co-creation. Thus, shared value creation should be analysed from the perspective of the company as value for company and from the perspective of the consumer as consumer perceived value. Consumer Perceived Value Consumer perceived value is one of the most extensively analysed topics in the marketing literature. However, the analysis of scientific literature showed that the degree to which the topic has been studied is insufficient. Researchers disagree as to

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

23

the conceptualisation of consumer perceived value, its dimensions and operationalisation of the dimensions. On the other hand, this could be explained by the contextual nature of the phenomenon (see Sect. 1). Inexhaustible relevance of this topic may also be confirmed by the fact that the topic of continuous value creation and provision was distinguished in the list of Marketing Science Institute (MSI) as one of the priority topics of research in 2014–2016 (MSI 2014). There is an opinion in scientific literature that value, if it is analysed from the consumer’s perspective, is understood as the relationship between two components: benefits and costs. This understanding is based on a definition introduced by Zeithaml (1988) following which the consumer perceived value is assessment of product utility grounded on the perceived benefit (what is received) and perceived costs (what is given). Such understanding of consumer perceived value is criticised by Boksberger and Melsen (2011) who consider it as well as the approach towards perceived value as a one-dimensional construct too much simplified and note the criticism in the scientific literature, since consumers are able to identify more than 50 different attributes determining value perception before, during and after consumption. The definition proposed by Prebensen et al. (2012) is quite close to the original definition of consumer perceived value. The authors define consumer perceived value as a ratio between received quality or exploitation, use of financial resources and behavioural intentions. Woodruff (1997) differently defines consumer value. The researcher emphasises product attributes that are given priority by the consumer who assesses those attributes and their operation as well as consequences thereof, which encourage (or maybe hinder) the consumers to achieve goals in certain situations. Lindgreen and Wynstra (2005) think that perceived value is ensured when consumers get high-quality services and individualised products, when they feel appreciated and their anxiety is reduced because they trust the company (producer); they feel social (e.g. friendly relations with the producer) and special care (e.g. custom-made products and their application for an individual consumer). The analysis of scientific literature on the topic of value co-creation demonstrates that consumer perceived value is analysed by studying different value dimensions that are distinguished depending on the research context and research aims (see Table 2). According to literature, the same dimensions are sometimes differently understood by different researchers. For example, Babin et al. (1994), who studied how consumers evaluate their own purchasing experience, distinguish two consumer perceived value dimensions: utilitarian and hedonistic. However, utilitarian value, identified by the researchers, together with the instrumental and rational component includes functional, cognitive value noted by other authors; the hedonistic value dimension, in the same way, involves the components of experiential and emotional value. Sheth et al. (1991) proposed a consumption value theory and distinguished functional, social, emotional, epistemic and conditional values. Meanwhile, Holbrook (1996) emphasised three dichotomies (self-oriented vs other-oriented; active vs reactive; extrinsic vs intrinsic) and accordingly identified eight types of value: efficiency (ratio of outputs to inputs or convenience); excellence (quality);

24

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

Table 2 Dimensions of consumer perceived value by various authors Author Sheth et al. (1991) Babin et al. (1994) Holbrook (1996) Grönroos (1997) Sweeney and Soutar (2001) Petrick (2002) Wang et al. (2004) Rintamäki et al. (2006) Sanchez et al. (2006)

Smith and Colgate (2007) Gentile et al. (2007) Ruiz-Molina and Gil-Saura (2008) Yang and Jolly (2009) Trasorras et al. (2009) Deng et al. (2010) Chen and Hu (2010) Miladian and Sarvestani (2012) Prebensen et al. (2012) Wang et al. (2013) Park and Ha (2015)

Sector Choices of cigarette consumers Retail (purchasing behaviour)

Value dimensions/components Functional, social, emotional, epistemic, conditional. Utilitarian, hedonistic.

Conceptual

Efficiency, excellence, politics, esteem, play/ leisure/fun, aesthetics, morality, spirituality. Major, additional.

Conceptual Products of long-term use (furniture and car stereo equipment) Leisure services (leisure and tourism) Security companies Supermarkets Tourism

Emotional, social, functional (quality), functional (cost). Quality, financial costs, behaviour costs, emotional, reputation. Functional, social, emotional value, perceived expenses. Utilitarian, social, hedonistic.

Various world famous brands

Functional (provided by a travel agency), functional (provided by staff—high-quality), functional value obtained from a trip (quality of a trip package), cost, emotional, social. Functional/instrumental, experiential/hedonistic, symbolic/expressive, costs/expenses. Utilitarian, hedonistic.

Various retail sectors in Spain

Quality, emotional value, cost, social value.

Mobile data services

Functional, social, emotional, monetary.

Professional services

Service, quality, image, cost.

Instant messaging

Functional, social, emotional, monetary.

Coffee market

Functional, symbolic.

Virtual community

Functional (product utility and quality), social (self-image and interpersonal relations), emotional (playfulness). Functional, social, epistemic.

Conceptual

Tourism Mobile applications Hotels

Functional, social, emotional value, epistemic. Utilitarian, hedonistic.

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

25

status (success); esteem (reputation); play (fun); aesthetics (beauty); morality (virtue); and spirituality (faith or ecstasy). According to Boksberger and Melsen (2011), although this typology was considered by some authors (Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo 2007) as one of the most comprehensively defining the consumer perceived value, there were only a few attempts to apply this classification in practice. The literature analysis demonstrated that functional, social and emotional values were dominant among the distinguished consumer perceived value dimensions. It was noticed that distinction and interpretation partially depended on the analysed contexts, e.g. researchers who studied consumer perceived value in the context of mobile communication services or virtual community (Yang and Jolly 2009; Deng et al. 2010; Miladian and Sarvestani 2012; Wang et al. 2013) all identified functional, social and emotional dimensions of value. However, their opinions regarding the fourth dimension differed. Miladian and Sarvestani (2012) who studied virtual communities noted only the three mentioned dimensions. Meanwhile, Yang and Jolly (2009) and Deng et al. (2010) highlighted the monetary value, and Wang et al. (2013) emphasised the importance of epistemic value. Along with the listed dominant dimensions of value, many researchers study economic aspects that are also important for consumer perceived value. On the other hand, these aspects are called in different ways: as ‘monetary value’ (Yang and Jolly 2009; Deng et al. 2010), simply as ‘price’ (Sanchez et al. 2006; Ruiz-Molina and Gil-Saura 2008; Trasorras et al. 2009); as ‘financial costs’ (Petrick 2002); as ‘perceived input’ (Wang et al. 2004) or simply ‘costs’ (Smith and Colgate 2007). Sweeney and Soutar (2001) analyse economic aspects—price—emphasising the importance of functional consumer perceived value, which they subdivide into two parts. They identify the consumer perceived values as follows: • Emotional value is emotional benefit that is obtained because of consumer feelings. Consumer feelings may be caused by consuming the product. • Social value is social utility for a consumer when the opinion of consumers in the same social environment about another consumer changes to the better due to the consumption of a product. • Functional value (price) is received value related to short-term or long-term reduction in consumer’s costs arising out of consumption of a product. • Functional value (quality) is value received because of the quality of a product when the consumer uses the product and understands the quality of the product and his/her expectations towards exploitation of the product are satisfied. The above-mentioned researchers operationalised the identified dimensions of value and created value measurement scales that were later widely used and adapted by other researchers in analysing consumer perceived value in different contexts. Park and Ha (2015) distinguish two dimensions of shared value, i.e. utilitarian and hedonistic, which are similar to the four dimensions discussed above: • Utilitarian value emerges when services are improved in the process of value co-creation and when the chances of failure are reduced. Utilitarian value

26

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

obtained by consumers reflects the consumer perceived effectiveness and utility as well as creation of proper relationships between consumers and the company. • Hedonistic value is consumer perceived value with respect to emotional and social experiences of the consumer in the process of shared co-creation. Consumers receive hedonistic value when they feel socially and emotionally satisfied because of activities improved during value co-creation. Quite an opposite view towards consumer perceived value is presented by Ramaswamy (2008) who illustrated the principles of the DART model using the NikePlus example. The researcher identified the economic value received because of consumer participation in co-creation. In the case of NikePlus, it includes improved capacity of the running results, reduced costs of search, reduced perceived risk of equipment purchasing, reduced costs of training and a better experience/price ratio. Another value distinguished by the researcher is that of participation in value co-creation, which includes the possibility to get a better product or service, for example, by integrating running and listening to music, the possibility to calculate the route precisely, participation in a new social activity, enhanced motivation, the possibility to closely cooperate with other participants involved into the activity, and enhanced emotional satisfaction. Despite the attempts to identify the universal dimensions of consumer perceived value that would be suitable for all business spheres, the conducted research studies in this field confirm the contextual nature of the concept of value. Based on the research of Smith and Colgate (2007), the majority of organisations in the travelling and entertainment sector are oriented towards the creation of emotional value (fun, joy, play, laughter, excitement, adventure, humour). Other organisations, like those that produce toys and games or provide professional services, and many others that operate in the business-to-business market, are oriented towards social, relationshipbased value in order to enhance trust, bind customers, cherish personal interactions, etc. Such companies as Disney, travel agencies and hotels eventually orient themselves towards epistemic value (curiosity, novelty, satisfaction of the need for knowledge, realisation of fantasies). The conducted literature analysis allows identifying the following consumer perceived value dimensions that are most frequently analysed and exhibit the strongest methodological framework: functional (some authors (see Table 2) call it utilitarian; meanwhile, others see it as quality only), social (others emphasise symbolic value), emotional (sometimes it is also referred to as psychological, or only one component—hedonistic value—is emphasised) and economic value (also explained through the prism of costs or referred to as financial). Value for Company Value received by the company in the process of shared value co-creation in order to ensure effective distribution of the company’s resources is analysed in parallel to the consumer value (consumer perceived value). Following the research results by Mencarelli and Rivière (2014), value for the company has been mostly analysed from the economic perspective; however, because of the orientation towards lasting

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

27

relationship with consumers, it is also important to analyse value for company not only by quantitative results (Kumar et al. 2010; Rampen 2011). In the context of new marketing theories, scholars highlight exceptional and appropriately differentiated offers that have to be given only to those consumers who give value for a company at present and/or hopefully in the future. Consumer value for company, also referred to in the literature as consumer profitability, has been extensively analysed by Kumar (2008), Kumar et al. (2010), Lambert and Enz (2012). However, admittedly, the value created by the consumer for a company through their participation in co-creation does not necessarily have to be measured economically (Kumar et al. 2013). Along with economic indicators, consumer knowledge, feedback, their contribution to innovations and new consumer attraction are important. In defining the value received by the provider or the company, Walter et al. (2001) underline the importance of value obtained because of the relationship with consumers and identify direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefits include revenue, enhanced sales, security conditioned by maintained sustainable relationship with consumers under the circumstances of the constantly changing competitive market. According to Walter et al. (2001), indirect benefits include the following: innovations and process improvement, which are also feasible through cooperation with consumers and generate greater value for both the consumer and other consumers in offering already improved products; market development because of the recommendations of existing customers; information about the market, obtained from existing customers; greater accessibility due to the possibilities of customers of a company to maintain relationships with influential institutions, associations, such as chambers of industry, commerce and crafts, banks, various trade associations, etc. Dervojeda et al. (2014) studied the benefit of co-creation for a company and, like Walter et al. (2001), noticed that various outcomes may be classified as two different types of socioeconomic outcomes, i.e. direct and indirect; however, the researchers have different views towards their components: • Direct outcomes—enhanced speed in the market, reduced input resulting in higher profits and lower costs for consumers, reduced risk that innovations will not satisfy consumer needs. • Indirect outcomes—increased consumer loyalty towards service providers, increased perceived value, increased possibilities because of positive word-ofmouth communication among customers. Dervojeda et al. (2014, p. 6) have conducted the case analysis of four companies in Finland, the USA, the Netherlands and Italy and found out that value created by way of co-creation was mostly reflected through the creation of new products or services (60%), competitive advantage (57%) and new customer attraction (42%) followed by greater market share (36%) and enhanced brand awareness (34%). Innovations are considered by Dervojeda et al. (2014) as one of the most important co-creation outcomes. Sources of innovative ideas are consumers who participate in the process of co-creation and share their expectations about the newly created products or services, knowledge, experience, etc. When consumers

28

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

contribute to idea generation and creation of new products, the chances are higher that they and other consumers who will use the products will feel greater value and greater satisfaction, which in turn will result in positive word-of-mouth recommendation (Hoyer et al. 2010) and repeated purchasing behaviour that will determine economic value for companies in terms of saved advertising costs and new consumer attraction. In line with the above-mentioned authors, Nätti et al. (2014) identify consumer contribution to innovative products or services and their improvement as one of the co-creation advantages for a company that also affect the economic value received by the company. Kumar et al. (2010) have introduced the term customer engagement value (CEV), which describes the value received by the company in the process of shared value creation. In analysing customer engagement value, Kumar et al. (2010) distinguish its four components: • Customer lifetime value (CLV)—customer purchasing behaviour expressed as quantitative indicators. • Customer referral value (CRV)—how much the value is related to the attracted new customers. The possibilities of research into this type have been in more detail analysed in Kumar et al.’s (2013) works. • Customer influencer value (CIV)—the customer’s ability to affect existing and new customers by way of word-of-mouth communication. • Customer knowledge value (CKV)—value which is obtained from feedback and which enhances value for company. It is obvious that the dimensions of customer engagement value identified by Kumar et al. (2010) reflect not only the economic component, although all the received values are economically expressed in the course of relationship development. Van Doorn et al. (2010) claim that involvement/engagement in co-creation has an impact on the financial outcomes of the company, its reputation, legal relations, competitiveness, competences of employees, and decision-making in relation to products. According to van Doorn et al. (2010), the following values for a company are distinguished: • Financial value. Consumer recommendations, word-of-mouth communication and experience sharing in virtual communities have an impact on the purchasing behaviour of existing and potential consumers and determine new consumer attraction for the company without additional efforts. All this influences consumer-generated value, which in turn affects financial indicators of the company. Kumar et al. (2010) analyse the financial benefits of co-creation for companies in this respect. • Reputation value. Consumers engaged in co-creation may contribute to the formation of a particular reputation of a company and/or acknowledgement of a brand in the market through participation in brand communities, sponsorship of brand-related events (e.g. charity organisations), initiation and spread of information about the company and the brand, thus creating strong reputation.

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

29

• Regulatory value. Negative consumer opinions and experiences related to legal regulation may cause lasting changes in the market. Consumer involvement into cooperation with companies may change the norms of legal regulation when the goal is to achieve a positive effect on society (e.g. in case of socially responsible consumption behaviour), rather than only on consumers. • Competitive value. Consumers engaged in cooperation with the company positively comment about the company or the brand, conduct positive word-of-mouth communication, which may attract new consumers and help to successfully develop relationship with the existing ones. • Employee value. By giving useful recommendations, customers may help the existing employees to improve their work quality. • Product-related value. Consumers engaged in value creation become an invaluable source of knowledge and ideas about the company, the brand and the possibilities of its improvement. Depending on the engagement level to co-creation, consumers may contribute to communication about the brand, improvement of products, and the creation of new designs or products. García Haro et al. (2014) have very similar views towards co-creation outcomes like van Doorn et al. (2010). Having conducted their research, the researchers generalise the results and claim that by engaging consumers into value co-creation the company receives the following benefits (García Haro et al. 2014): • Improvement of product quality. • Reduced business risk that is expressed not only by cost reduction, enhanced output and income, but also by provision of new offers and entry into new markets. • Improvement of skills needed to enhance competitiveness. • Higher recognition of products in the market and higher chances of selling the product. • Reduced uncertainty, improved image and reputation of the company or the brand. • Activated interpersonal consumer communication related to the brand or products of the brand. • Simplified image formation when consumers positively comment about the brand or products. • Enhanced consumer loyalty and trust in the brand, increasing revenues because of increasing numbers of loyal consumers. According to Hoyer et al. (2010), in value co-creation, the company receives not only company-related value, but also consumer-related value. Value related to the activities of the company is defined as enhanced efficiency and effectiveness due to cost reduction. Value related to consumers may be defined as adaptation to consumer needs, creation of relationship with consumers, and enhanced consumer satisfaction. Roser et al. (2009) underscore the tangible value associated with new technologybased innovations, received by the company in the process of co-creation. Such value includes faster provision for the market, reduced costs, higher profits, better

30

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

quality of products and services, reduced risk and greater customer satisfaction. The authors also identify intangible value received by the company through the involvement of consumers into value co-creation. Intangible value for the company is expressed as increasing consumer loyalty, consumers’ wish to participate in future value co-creation, greater satisfaction and commitment to the company, and positive consumers’ word-of-mouth communication. DeFillippi and Roser (2014), who agree to the views about the value received by the company has engaged consumers in value co-creation maintained by Roser et al. (2009), claim that value for company manifests as: • • • • • • • •

Enhanced speed of company’s development in the market Reduced chances of failure in the market Greater awareness of customer needs and interests Spread of positive word-of-mouth communication Better application of the business model in the company Early identification of situations in the market that may lead to negative outcomes Better understanding of consumer experiences and thinking Concentration on the creation of value rather than technological solutions

Ramaswamy (2008) analysed the co-creation of value for company in the case of NikePlus and clearly distinguished economic value from other values which are referred to as the strategic capital of the company developed during the co-creation process. This capital includes the possibility to learn directly through observation of consumer behaviour, the possibility to reach directly the contributions by consumers through reduction of existing preferences of consumers, the possibility to respond fast and generate new ideas, the possibility to experiment with new products or services, the possibility to establish stronger relations with the community and ensure their trust, and the possibility in parallel to create a more engaging brand. Economic value for company manifests through reduced costs because of positive word-of-mouth communication, reduced risk of product or service failure and unmet market needs because of more comprehensive information and insights about consumers, reduced risk of unmet customer needs, lower risks of capital investment because of constant experimenting and negotiating, and economic profits generated through partnership-based relationship with other (e.g. daughter companies) organisations. Larivière et al. (2013) analysed value fusion and identified a range of different value types obtained by participating in the co-creation process. The researchers emphasise additional profits because of stronger relations, reduced costs, consumer contribution to support and the brand itself (due to comments in virtual environment), market-related insights and knowledge about the customer, and the possibility to observe/control the consumer influence. Auh et al. (2007), who conducted an empirical study in the field of financial and medical services, note that the influence of co-creation (in fact, the authors use the term co-production as synonymous with co-creation) on the company results may not show immediately; and what is more, the association between co-creation and consumer loyalty is complex. The researchers have determined that co-creation

The Concept of Shared Value in the Context of Newest Marketing Theories

31

significantly effects on attitudinal loyalty, rather than on the behavioural loyalty. On the other hand, there is a strong statistically significant relation between attitudinal and behavioural loyalty, which shows that attitudinal loyalty may serve as a mediator between co-creation and behavioural loyalty. The results, according to the scholars, show that when companies engage in the co-creation process, financial benefits are not immediate. Like Larivière et al. (2013) and Auh et al. (2007), researchers Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) indicate lasting relationship as one of the most important outcomes in consumer engagement in value creation. They emphasise all the antecedents of a lasting relationship. According to Jaakkola and Alexander (2014), consumer engagement may affect consumer loyalty, satisfaction and trust with the brand, as well as commitment to the brand and the fan community of the brand. Interaction between consumers in such communities is considered as a source of value for both the company and the fan community of the brand. Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) claim that the outcomes of consumer engagement may manifest both directly and indirectly or become positive (e.g. innovations or expanded fan community of the brand) or negative (e.g. negative word-of-mouth communication). Brodie et al. (2011) analysed the co-creation value and identified the following values determined by co-creation and leading to loyalty: positively understood consumer-company communication, service provision process and dialogue. Following service-dominant logic, the scholars claim that additional values that have not been foreseen in advance may appear in the interaction process between co-creation actors. In their study, the researchers emphasise the importance of valueconditioning factors rather than separate dimensions of value for company and identify the following benefits of the participation in co-creation: • Loyalty—expressed as satisfaction and recommendations about the brand or the company. • Empowering—consumer awareness that they can and are able to be not only passive consumers, but also active consumers impacting on the activities and the image of the company or the brand. • Relations and emotional attachment—the feeling of consumers when they are satisfied with the participation in value co-creation, establish connections and get emotionally attached to the company or the brand. • Trust and commitment—feelings of consumers that they have during value co-creation when they are strongly engaged in value co-creation, because the company employees or the brand boost their trust and they are grateful for participation and the wish to contribute to value creation. Sweeney and Webb (2002) have a non-traditional view towards value for company. The researchers analysed various buyer–supplier dyads in different contexts and described seven identified benefits (symbiotic, psychological, operational, social, economic, strategic and customisation) for their recipients. Of note, the authors used the term ‘supplier perceived value’ in their study of benefits that the company gains through participation in the dyad relationship. The results of the conducted qualitative study confirm that value is understood by its different

32

R. Virvilaitė and A. Dovalienė

recipients differently, which serves as the grounds for classifying in various ways the values gained by a company seeking to develop a lasting relationship. The values may be classified according to meaning into different constructs with meaningful entitlements given. Thus, contextual analysis of the concept of value for company reveals a variety of dimensions of benefits/values for company identified in the scientific literature in the context of shared value creation. Along with traditionally analysed economic value for company (caused by consumer profitability, value over their life cycle, new consumers attracted by recommendations of other consumers (because the company does not need to invest into the consumer attraction campaign) and enhanced loyalty of existing consumers), two more types are distinguished: functional value for company (established in the process of co-creation and left to the company when the co-creation process ends because of consumer engagement, their recommendations, feedback, information about themselves as consumers, opinions about services, for improvement and modification of ideas and creation of new services) and social value for company (active consumer participation in co-creation allows ensuring their positive word-of-mouth communication forming a particular general opinion; it also establishes conditions for the company to participate in the activity of certain virtual communities together with consumers, thus engaging more consumers in co-creation). In summary, the conducted analysis of the scientific literature on the issue of shared value dimensions allows making a conclusion that shared value should be analysed from two perspectives: consumer perceived value and value for company. Both constructs should be studied as multidimensional and context-dependent. Their expression depends on the effectiveness of the value co-creation process, which in turn determines the level of consumer engagement. Regina Virvilaitė Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management and Administration), is Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business in Kaunas University of Technology, and she had participated in several international and national research projects. Her main fields of academic interests are marketing management, strategic marketing and value co-creation. Aistė Dovalienė is Associate Professor at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She has Ph.D. in Social Sciences. Her research interests include customer engagement, customer value, value co-creation, customer relationship development, consumer behavior and sustainable consumption behavior. She took part in several national and international research projects.

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation Jūratė Banytė, Rita Kuvykaitė, and Asta Tarutė

1 The Concept of Consumer Engagement: Critical Analysis of Theoretical Approaches The term engagement comes from the seventeenth century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2009), at an early stage, engagement was used in various meanings—moral and legal obligation, fiancé engagement, occupancy and/or war conflict. According to Brodie et al. (2011), the interpretation of the term engagement has been significantly expanded in the scientific literature, including the concepts defining specific engagement forms, such as rapport, emotional commitment and/or participation. Brodie et al. (2011) note that the engagement phenomenon has received special attention from many world famous research and advertising agencies—Nielsen Media Research, Gallup Group, IAG Research, American Association of Advertising Agencies. The researchers also claim that the activities of these agencies have significantly contributed to the development of the concept of consumer engagement and creation of measurement instruments. Although the engagement idea in the discourse of business practices is not new, the field has received more active interest only since 2000. The first to introduce the engagement term was Appelbaum in 2001. The researcher claimed that engagement was associated with both rational loyalty and emotional attachment (Brodie et al. 2011). Based on the results of Brodie et al.’s (2011) conducted study, the definition of engagement has been changing since 2001 as it has been analysed from the perspective and contexts of different parties. In their conceptualisation of the construct of engagement in social sciences, Brodie et al. (2011) note that engagement is a form of social, interactive behaviour, described as a transition state forming

J. Banytė (*) · R. Kuvykaitė · A. Tarutė Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Gatautis et al. (eds.), Gamification and Consumer Engagement, Progress in IS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4_3

33

34

J. Banytė et al.

through the development of relevant engagement processes over a certain period of time. For the past two decades, engagement has been studied in various fields of social sciences—sociology, psychology, political sciences and organisational behaviour/ management (Brodie et al. 2011; Hollebeek 2011a; Zakir 2013). In respect of the fact that engagement in publications of social sciences is based on various conceptual approaches, various sub-forms of the phenomenon may also be found. The nature of engagement is first associated with a different engagement subject. Scholars of different fields frequently analyse engagement of subjects in processes: scholars of pedagogical psychology analyse students; those of social psychology study social engagement; sociologists analyse the engagement of citizens; representatives of political sciences make research on the engagement of the nation or political parties. The scientific literature on organisational behaviour/management most often focuses on the engagement of employees or other parties; marketing researchers concentrate on the engagement of customers or clients in a particular object. In this context, the research by Buckingham (2008), as cited by Hollebeek (2011a), is of special importance as the concept of the employee as the consumer serves as the basis here. In this respect, it is recommended to expand the research field of consumer engagement. In order to conceptually substantiate this idea, the main attributes of engagement have been formulated: individual, motivational and context variables, subject/object interaction, outcome intensity and process characteristics. Hollebeek (2011a) has integrated these attributes into the levels of engagement determined by engagement dimensions and their expression in different engagement stages and has introduced a dynamic engagement model. On the basis of this dynamic model, consumer engagement is a particular level of consumer motivation related to a particular object—company, product/service or brand—or a state depending on a particular situation which may be described as activity of cognition, emotion or behaviour in direct interaction with the engagement object. Direct interaction may be understood as physical contact with a particular object, unlike indirect interaction, which equals monitoring (e.g. monitoring of a particular brand in the media). The state of consumer cognition, according to Hollebeek (2011a), refers to the concentration on a particular object (company, brand or product) and interest in it. Emotional activity is understood as a feeling of inspiration or pride caused by the engagement object. Behavioural activity is the level of consumer’s effort made in interaction with the engagement object. Interpretation of the engagement concept differs depending on the engagement objects that may be the state, company, product, brand or its community, advertising or another object. The latter objects are associated with the context of marketing/ consumer behaviour research defining the direction and content of future studies. Despite the abundance of research studies, engagement has become the object of interest in the field of marketing quite recently. According to Brodie et al. (2011), at the beginning of the twenty-first century, research papers employed only the terms customer engagement, engagement in creation of new products, brands or advertising. To assess the existing level of research studies, it is important to note that in

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

35

the literature on marketing the term engagement is often interchangeably used with such related concepts as involvement and participation. Involvement is defined by Hollebeek (2011a) as ‘[a]n individual’s level of interest and personal relevance in relation to a focal object/decision in terms of one’s basic values, goals, and self-concept’ (p. 793). The concept of involvement is understood as everything that happens before consumer engagement. It is a psychological construct, which does not cover the aspect of consumer behaviour. To define the difference between consumer engagement and involvement, Ferlazzo (2011) uses the English phrases: to go to refer to involvement which is associated with consumer interest in a particular object and to go with to refer to engagement associated with common activity and partnership. In case of consumer participation, attention is given to participation in the process of service creation and provision, traditionally focusing on economic outcomes and physical activities of consumers (Hollebeek 2011a; Poor Rezaei and Heinze 2014; Vivek 2009). An essential difference between consumer engagement and participation is understood in the following way: in the case of engagement, consumers participate in the process both physically and psychologically, and in the case of consumer participation, the focus is on the behavioural aspect, i.e. the physical activities of customers. In the research context of consumer engagement, the terms flow, interactivity, rapport, commitment, attachment and consumer devotion are frequently used. Flow refers to a state of optimal experience which is defined as concentrated attention, clear mind, peace of body and mind, concentration without greater effort, complete control, loss of self-consciousness, time flow and perception or internal pleasure (Hollebeek 2011a, based on Csikszentmihalyi 1990). The concept of flow is closely related to the cognitive dimension of consumer engagement. It is characterised by transience (1-day experience), which is significant for a consumer. The state of flow (often mentioned in the context of virtual environment) is considered to be close to the engagement dimensions immersion (Mollen and Wilson 2010) and absorption (So et al. 2014). Both flow and immersion may be characterised by total concentration, undivided attention and loss of time perception. Interactivity is defined as a form of interaction between the consumer and the company (Mollen and Wilson 2010; So et al. 2014). Interactivity has to be empowered before consumer involvement. It determines the level of engagement. The higher the interactivity, the greater the engagement of the consumer in company activities. Rapport refers to the perception of sustainable, empathic or sympathetic relationship understood as happening on its own (Hollebeek 2011a; Patterson et al. 2006). The concept of rapport is most often understood as the consequence of consumer engagement based on the interactions between the consumer (existing or new) and the brand or another object. Commitment is the assessment of long-term relationship with another important party, justifying the effort made to maintain the relationship (Hollebeek 2011a). Commitment is closely related to trust and describes lasting relations—cooperation.

36

J. Banytė et al.

Attachment is an emotional connection between an individual and the object of attention (specific brand) (Hollebeek 2011a; Vivek 2009). This construct is oriented towards ownership and expresses the person’s self-perception. Consumer devotion is a lasting state of emotional devotion/dedication to the product, brand or experience through which the consumer expresses himself/herself (Vivek 2009). This construct reveals the cognitive aspect of consumer behaviour and is naturally lasting. Having defined the essential features of related concepts of consumer engagement, the monograph further analyses the level of research on the concept of consumer engagement. Consumer engagement involves all interactive relations of the consumer with the specific engagement object that may vary depending on the context. In the research studies of marketing scholars, engagement is most often based on the active consumer’s role in getting emotionally or cognitively engaged in the brand, in interacting with the brand beyond purchase, or in participating in the value co-creation process. The theoretical approaches of Brodie et al. (2011), Gambetti and Graffigna (2010), Hollebeek (2011a, b), van Doorn et al. (2010), Verhoef et al. (2010) and Vivek et al. (2012) laid the foundations for the contemporary marketing theory, which has attracted special and growing attention in the recent years. This may be confirmed by the newest studies analysing consumer engagement in virtual brand communities (Brodie et al. 2013) and social media (Hollebeek et al. 2014). In 2010, the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) declared consumer engagement as the priority research and included the topic into the research guide for 2010 2012 (Chelniciuc 2011). The tendencies are also reflected in priority research directions of MSI 2014 2016. The first priority oriented towards the understanding of consumers and their experience (MSI 2014) highlights the issues of consumer engagement conceptualisation and measurement. New marketing research ideas are presupposed by the question how social media and other marketing initiatives encourage consumer engagement. According to Javornik and Mandelli (2013), the concept of consumer engagement has been accepted in the marketing practice, which is confirmed by research studies of Roberts and Alpert (2010), Sashi (2012) as well as Gallup Consulting (2010) research reports. In summary, it could be claimed that the contexts of marketing research and practice where consumer engagement is analysed vary from social networks to the paradigm of value co-creation and cover the media, consumer experience, loyalty programmes, consumer relationship management, brand development, participation in product creation, marketing of services, consumer behaviour and other spheres. The analysis of marketing research works demonstrates that the services management/marketing approach (Grönroos 2007) and the relationship marketing paradigm (Egan 2001; Gummesson 2002; Grönroos 1994) are most often used to conceptualise consumer engagement. These approaches emphasise the importance of orientation towards the consumer and partnership as well as the orientation towards relationships and interaction between consumers and brands. In discussing the services management/marketing approach, the servicesdominant (S-D) logic is of special importance (Gummesson 2002; Vargo and

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

37

Lusch 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004a). According to Vargo and Lusch (2008b), the concept of consumer engagement based on the S-D logic reflects an active role of consumers in value co-creation and their interactive experience in the context of the relationship with other interested parties. Vivek et al. (2012) discuss the main role of consumer engagement and emphasise the creation of lasting relationship with consumers and value co-creation. In the context of relationship marketing, the study by Verhoef et al. (2010) on consumer engagement is to be considered significant. The scholars treat consumer engagement as a new perspective in consumer relationship management. They claim that consumer-to-consumer interaction and co-creation are crucial forms of consumer engagement. In studying the consumer-to-consumer interaction, the researchers draw attention to the growing role of social media and analyse co-creation in the context of new product development. The forms of consumer and brand interaction conditioned by social media have put forward new consumer engagement possibilities; therefore, consumer engagement is often studied in the perspective of virtual environment (Abdul-Ghani et al. 2011; Brodie et al. 2013; Gummerus et al. 2012; Hollebeek et al. 2014; Pagani and Mirabello 2011). However, the phenomenon has received similar attention in other spheres of marketing and, especially, communication situations, e.g. loyalty programmes (Bowden 2009) or events (Whelan and Wohlfeil 2006). A great variety of research contexts related to consumer engagement has resulted in a plethora of interpretations of engagement offered by various authors (see Table 1). To summarise the theoretical approaches presented in Table 1, it may be stated that some authors (Brodie et al. 2013; Cheung et al. 2011; Higgins and Scholer 2009) conceptualise consumer engagement as a psychological state, level or intensity of participation in the relationship with a company; meanwhile, others (Bowden 2009; Patterson et al. 2006; Sprott et al. 2009) define it as a process or a specific form of consumer behaviour emphasising the aspect of post-purchasing behaviour. Bowden (2009) claims that consumer engagement is a psychological process consisting of cognitive and emotional aspects. The author describes the differences in the engagement of new and existing brand service consumers. The model proposed by Bowden (2009) illustrates engagement as an interactive process that begins with consumer satisfaction and ends with loyalty, when intermediate variables include rational and emotional commitment, trust and participation in the engagement process. The rational commitment of new consumers is most often understood as being natural, and emotional commitment is usually relevant because it encourages consumers to come back and create a greater emotional reason for repeated purchasing. It has to be noted that a theoretically and empirically-grounded basis is still lacking in the literature on consumer behaviour that would focus on the assessment of consumer engagement as a psychological process, as the majority of research insights are based on practical experience only. Therefore, according to Saks (2006), in order to develop this concept, a strong theoretical background is crucial for the evaluation of circumstances causing the consumer–brand relationship and its

38

J. Banytė et al.

Table 1 Concepts of engagement by different marketing researchers Authors Avnet and Higgins (2006)

Higgins and Scholer (2009) Patterson et al. (2006) Vivek et al. (2012)

Brodie et al. (2011)

Bowden (2009)

Hollebeek (2011a)

Hollebeek (2011b) So et al. (2014)

Sprott et al. (2009)

Cheung et al. (2011) Mollen and Wilson (2010) Hollebeek et al. (2014) Brodie et al. (2013)

Abdul-Ghani et al. (2011)

Definition of engagement Engagement. When individuals try to achieve aims following a certain orientation (e.g. they feel anxious in trying to achieve their aims when the orientation is towards incentives; they feel vigilant when the orientation is towards prevention), they engage more than when there is no orientation. When the ways of achieving aims correspond to the orientation, the response to activities is substantially stronger. Involvement. It is an individual’s internal state—being busy, completely interested and deeply involved into something (uninterrupted attention). Customer engagement. The level of customer’s physical, cognitive and emotional participation in the relationship with the company. Consumer engagement. Intensity of the individual’s participation and relationship with the company’s offers and activities initiated by the customer or the company. Customer (client) engagement. The state of motivation expressed through interactive co-creation experiences of customers with the main object of the brand relationship. Process of customer engagement. A psychological process during which major mechanisms conditioning customer loyalty development or retention are created. Customer brand engagement. The expression of the brand-related customer’s motivation state, characterised by certain activity, identification and assimilation level of the interaction with the brand. Customer brand engagement. The level of customer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural efforts in interaction with a specific brand. Engagement in the tourism brand. Complexity of customer engagement revealed through dimensions of identification, enthusiasm, attention, deep involvement and interaction. Brand engagement in self-concept. Behavioural characteristics describing customer’s disposition to choose certain brands as part of selfconcept. Engagement in an online social platform. A psychological state characterised by energy, immersion, dedication and interaction. Engagement in the brand in virtual environment. Customer’s cognitive and emotional commitment to active relationship with a personified brand through websites or other technologies-based measures. Engagement in the brand in social media. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural activity related to the brand or to the specific customer–brand interaction, which positively affects the customer. Customer engagement in virtual brand communities. A multidimensional construct consisting of cognitive, emotional and/or behavioural dimensions, playing an essential role in the processes of mutual relationship when other concepts of the relationship are engagement antecedents and/or consequences in repeated processes of engagement in virtual brand communities. Engagement in an online auction site. The customer’s relationship with some object (e.g. specific media channel).

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

39

development thereof. Consumer engagement is also analysed in the research works on advertising. It is often claimed here that consumer engagement may be employed as a measure determining the strength of the relationship between the company and consumers; and this measure is based on the development of emotional and rational relationship with the brand (McEwen 2004). According to McEwen (2004), engagement refers to the feelings of trust, honesty, pride and passion for the brand. In line with Javornik and Mandelli’s opinion, other important research works from the perspective of the consumer engagement concept development include research studies by Gambetti and Graffigna (2010), Brodie et al. (2011), Hollebeek (2011a), Vivek et al. (2012), whose findings allow generalising the ideas on the existing research into consumer engagement. In this context, recent findings of Brodie et al. (2013) and Hollebeek et al. (2014) are extremely valuable. According to Javornik and Mandelli (2013), the concept of consumer engagement is in the process of its formation, and many authors of the field use different definitions. Plenty of reports and studies on consumer engagement confirm that the relevance of this concept is associated with a growing importance of an active consumer. Some researchers conceptualise the phenomenon in very abstract ways, e.g. they associate it with the theory of value co-creation (Brodie et al. 2011); others concentrate on one element in the consumer engagement process, e.g. antecedents (Mollen and Wilson 2010) and behavioural consequences (Van Doorn et al. 2010), or analyse the application of the concept in a specific environment of the media (Calder et al. 2009; Pagani and Mirabello 2011). Of note is the fact that until recently only a few studies, e.g. by Gambetti and Graffigna (2010), critically evaluated the concept of consumer engagement, offered a qualitative point of view (Gambetti et al. 2012) or discussed the social dimension (Fliess et al. 2012). In respect of Javornik and Mandelli’s approach (2013), it may be stated that a great interest in the phenomenon of consumer engagement has not yet inspired a consensus of researchers regarding the most accurate and recognised conceptualisation of consumer engagement. Based on the insights of Gambetti and Graffigna (2010) and Brodie et al. (2011), it may be maintained that a broad understanding of the consumer engagement concept results in ambiguity and confusion. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of consistent research and uniform conceptual understanding, which limits the development of the consumer engagement concept. The concept of consumer engagement is actively employed in various fields; therefore, acceptance of one umbrella definition of the concept is a challenge. On the basis of the existing research studies on consumer engagement, the authors of the monograph agree with Hollebeek (2011a, b) and Brodie et al. (2011) who consider engagement as a psychological state of consumers in their interaction with a specific object. This approach, unlike the process-based perspective, allows unveiling the complexity of the content of consumer engagement. It is usually associated with the multidimensional nature of consumer engagement varying depending on the engagement object and the context. The need to analyse the concept of consumer engagement is substantiated by the consequences of the application of the concept in the development of marketing, especially brand-related, decisions (Roberts and Alpert 2010; Vivek et al. 2012;

40

J. Banytė et al.

Sashi 2012). Di Gangi and Wasko (2009) and Brodie et al. (2013) draw attention to the fact that consumer engagement in a dynamic business environment helps to boost sales, improve product quality, enhance consumer satisfaction, reduce costs and risks, and increase the competitive advantage. According to Vivek (2009), consumer engagement leads to creation, experience and value, and the elements of the DART model— dialogue, approach, risk assessment and information transparency— are crucial for value creation. In respect of this, works analysing consumer engagement in value creation are significant in the research context of consumer engagement. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a) think that consumer access to information about products and services and about expected transparency of companies affects consumer engagement and the use of their individual experience in creating values and, consequently, transformation of the traditional market into integral. The concept of integral market substantiates the company-consumer interaction as an essential element in the process of value creation. Interaction is important in the traditional market as well; however, in this case, it is usually understood as the value created by the company for the consumer. Engaged consumers become partners who cooperate with the company in the value creation process in order to more fully satisfy their own and other consumers’ needs, thus becoming value co-creators (Sashi 2012). Higgins and Scholer (2009) define consumer engagement in value creation as being occupied, fully absorbed or engrossed in some state resulting in a special attraction to the object or repulsion. The more the consumer wants to achieve a goal and engages, the greater the perceived value. Contemporary marketing researchers and practitioners acknowledge that consumer engagement in value creation becomes an essential condition of sustainable and lasting competitive advantage of a company. In order to ensure it, it is important to find out what ways could be used to encourage consumer engagement behaviour in the way a company wants it. In respect to this, the phenomenon of consumer engagement behaviour becomes relevant in the studies on consumer engagement. The following chapter of the monograph discusses the essence and expression of this phenomenon.

2 Consumer Engagement Behaviour in Traditional and Virtual Environments Supporters of the concept of consumer engagement behaviour, like van Doorn et al. (2010) or Pham and Avnet (2009), note that consumer engagement behaviour is more than just a way of thinking. The scholars claim that awareness of the construct allows evaluating how and why consumers behave in many situations that are important for a company and interested parties. Consumer engagement behaviour is influenced by various antecedents and is characterised by certain consequences. The importance of an integrated approach based on the identification of antecedents and consequences towards consumer

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

41

engagement behaviour is highlighted by van Doorn et al. (2010). The researchers have conducted a few theoretical studies and prepared a conceptual model of consumer engagement behaviour. Along with the construct of consumer engagement behaviour, the authors have also identified three groups of behaviour-influencing antecedents and behaviour consequences. In the analysed model, the factors affecting consumer engagement behaviour appear as antecedents at the consumer, company and context level; meanwhile, consequences are analysed according to their effect on the consumer, company and another activity. To uncover the associations between the consumer engagement behaviour antecedents and consequences, the definition of consumer engagement behaviour and identification of essential dimensions are important. Van Doorn et al. (2010, p. 254) define consumer engagement behaviour as ‘the customers’ behavioural manifestation towards a brand or firm, beyond purchase, that results from motivational drivers’ (word-of-mouth communication, helping other consumers, blogging or review writing). Pham and Avnet (2009) maintain that consumer engagement behaviour may be understood as a set of activities addressed towards a certain object and having the features of both the approach and avoidance behaviour. The literature analysis shows that earlier research studies focused on two types of consumer engagement behaviour: consumer engagement in product development and innovations and consumer-communicated information about the company or the object (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014). First, through feedback, sharing of ideas and information, and participation in product creation, consumers are involved into design-related decision-making and realisation, thus helping the company to improve and develop their offers. Second, consumers may attract new consumers for the company through company-initiated information communication programmes or through effects, they can make on other consumers’ understanding, initiation of word-of-mouth communication, blogging or other forms of consumerto-consumer interaction. The research results obtained by Wei et al. (2013) demonstrate that consumer-created information (reviews and comments) is understood as company-independent and plays an exceptionally important role in shaping the potential consumer opinion and decision-making processes oriented towards the company and its activity. A number of research studies have been conducted to find out why consumers engage in activities that are not normally regarded as the customer’s or consumer’s field. In this respect, a research study by van Doorn et al. (2010) is to be regarded as important. The scholars have introduced such factors influencing consumer engagement behaviour as satisfaction, brand commitment and trust and have assigned them to the group of attitudinal factors. As an independent group of factors, consumer goals, identity, resources and value perception factors have also been identified. Empirical research studies performed in the context of virtual environment (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014) have shown that consumers are motivated to engage in non-transaction behaviour when they expect to get a certain benefit, e.g. acquire broader knowledge, improve reputation, acquire social advantages or get economic profit. Companies may prompt consumer engagement behaviour by establishing conditions for information exchange and interaction and by awarding consumers

42

J. Banytė et al.

for their contribution. Although such awards show value received from consumer engagement behaviour, a holistic understanding of the contribution of consumer engagement behaviour into the processes of value co-creation is lacking. Besides, of note, researchers so far have analysed value as a consequence rather than finding out how it is created. Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) have discussed the role of consumer engagement behaviour in value creation. According to them, the process involves the provision of resources to consumers during the shared value co-creation. The process occurs when consumers interact with the company or other interested parties and together they affect value creation processes, activities and outcomes. It has to be noted that virtual environment is extremely favourable for manifestations of consumer engagement behaviour. Evans (2010) claims that consumer engagement in virtual environment provides possibilities for different forms of consumer engagement and participation in the activities of the company: information download, reading, watching or listening to the content provided. Consumers are provided with possibilities to sort, filter, rank specific information or leave comments about the content provided by the company. Van Doorn et al. (2010) identify five dimensions of consumer engagement behaviour: valence, form, scope, nature of impact and customer aims that require more detailed analysis. In terms of valence from the company or consumer perspective, consumer engagement may be positive or negative (Van Doorn et al. 2010, cited from Brady et al. 2006). Positive consumer engagement includes such short-term or long-term consequences as positive financial or non-financial impact on the company (brand). This could involve reciprocal communication between the company and consumers, consumer word-of-mouth recommendations, blogging or online reviews that might be associated with both positive and negative valence. Such behaviour as recommendations to others are usually positive; however, sometimes they may have negative reflections, e.g. if a consumer has a negative impression about a brand or a particular service (Van Doorn et al. 2010). The form of consumer engagement may be expressed and understood differently. Van Doorn et al. (2010) list the following consumer engagement forms: in-role, extra-role and elective behaviour. In-role behaviour may be considered as consumer behaviour that manifests through various complaints delivered to the company. Extra-role behaviour is defined as behaviour that is selected individually by the consumer, e.g. helping another consumer in a supermarket to choose a specific product or informing a shop assistant about an incorrect price in the shop. Elective behaviour is understood as consumer engagement in order to achieve certain consumer aims, e.g. consumers calling a free phone line, reporting a problem that they dealt with the product purchased, and providing recommendations as possible modifications to the product. Another way to understand consumer engagement forms, identified by van Doorn et al. (2010), is the results of the company, product or brand achieved through consumer engagement, e.g. apologising or refunding the consumer after a complaint, modified company policies after consumer complaints, or improving the products according to suggestions provided by the consumer.

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

43

The third dimension of consumer engagement behaviour, according to van Doorn et al. (2010), is scope, which is defined in terms of time or location. First, consumer engagement behaviour may be instant or constant. Systemic and constant actions of consumers may encourage companies to develop specific processes. During engagement, companies may determine the presumable level of the product or company results and act accordingly. Van Doorn et al. (2010) claim that geographical consumer engagement shows whether it is local or global. For example, consumer suggestions for product improvement provided in a popular website will have a greater significance than the oral opinion of a single consumer in a local newspaper. Van Doorn et al. (2010) assume that the level of engagement and results achieved by a company are scope-dependent, and the effect is higher when engagement is global and when actions are constant. The nature of impact of consumer engagement, according to van Doorn et al. (2010), may be defined as immediacy, intensity, breadth and longevity. Immediacy of impact describes how fast the impact reaches the target audience. Consumer engagement based on information communication technologies may be significantly faster than writing a letter to a sales manager. If the intensity of impact is associated with the level of information exchange with a target audience, the breadth of impact is defined as reachability, i.e. how many consumers engaged or were involved. The longevity of impact may depend on a few factors, such as the possibility to systematise and remember a certain consumer behaviour in a specific form. For example, a message on a website that is constantly checked by consumers will have a long-term impact than the same message told to a person who may forget the information (Van Doorn et al. 2010). Consequently, it may be claimed that immediacy, intensity, breadth and longevity of impact in consumer engagement depend on communication channels that are used to exchange information, i.e. whether the consumer engagement process occurs online, by e-mail, telephone, eye-to-eye communication or other channels. The fifth dimension of consumer engagement behaviour defined by van Doorn et al. (2010) is consumer aims: what is engagement directed towards, what scope of engagement is being planned, how does it correspond to company aims? Is consumer behaviour directed towards and associated with the company or other parties (government, other consumers, investors, etc.)? If the company and customer aims correspond, engagement has a positive impact; if they do not correspond, the impact is negative. Based on these insights of van Doorn et al. (2010), it may be stated that consumer engagement behaviour may be diverse. The current level of research on consumer engagement, especially in terms of the impact on the company and the scope, allows making an assumption that the expression of engagement behaviour may differ in different environments. To theoretically assess this assumption, further in the monograph, consumer engagement behaviour is discussed in the context of the impact of traditional and virtual environments. Wei et al. (2013) think that the methods of consumer communication with the company and other consumers have been radically changing over the past decade. The changes have been significantly affected by the growing popularity of virtual

44

J. Banytė et al.

environment and the emergence of various new social media platforms. Although the numbers of participants in relation to consumer engagement behaviour in virtual environment may be higher (existing and potential consumers, employees, society, suppliers) that in traditional environment and the flow of information is one-directional, the significance of consumer engagement on the activities of a company is acknowledged in both virtual and traditional environment (Verleye et al. 2013). According to Verleye et al. (2013), consumer engagement behaviour may in both cases manifest in two ways: 1. During consumer interaction with a company and its employees, for example, consumer suggestions for improvement of products causing a reduction in costs and provision of exceptional experience to consumers. 2. During consumer interaction with other consumers, for example, word-of-mouth communication of consumers, recommendations or reviews in virtual environment are instances of consumer engagement behaviour causing changes in consumer attitudes and behaviour directed towards a company or its activities. Verleye et al. (2013) have analysed scientific literature and identified five consumer engagement behaviour types manifesting in traditional and virtual environments: cooperation, feedback, compliance, help for other consumers and oral communication-based behaviour. In virtual environment, consumer engagement in the activities of a company and product creation and development processes is easier. Reitz (2012) says that consumer engagement in virtual environment, like in traditional, may contribute to nurturance and development of company–customer relationship and may positively affect brand loyalty, evangelism, identification and sales. Consumer interaction with a company and its employees is characterised by cooperation, reviews and compliant behaviour: • Cooperation. Consumer participation in the activities of a company may result in benevolent behaviour in helping the employees of a company (Van Doorn et al. 2010). Verleye et al. (2013) claim that benevolent actions include the wish to help the employees of a company or contributing to the improved activities of a company. • Feedback. Consumers may provide feedback to the company and its employees by suggesting and reviewing on the company’s activities and services provided or by participating in the processes of new product creation and improvement. • Compliance. It involves the extent to which company’s statute, rules and order are followed (Verleye et al. 2013). Of note, although companies aim at involving consumers into their activities and expect everyone to follow the rules of the company, often it is quite opposite, i.e. the rules are disobeyed; however, following the rules is crucial in order to ensure exceptional consumer experience creation and avoidance of harm to the company. In consumer interaction with other consumers, helping other consumers and oral communication become extremely significant:

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

45

• Helping other customers. Consumers may help each other by expressing empathy and encouraging each other to behave properly. Consumers also may help each other to get better services and acquire positive experience (Verleye et al. 2013). • Verbal communication. Verbal communication and recommendation of the company to other consumers are considered to be the types of consumer engagement behaviour (Verleye et al. 2013). However, van Doorn et al. (2010) claim that oral communication, especially recommendation, is more important that purchasing behaviour. On the basis of the conducted analysis, the ideas of Breidbach, Brodie and Hollebeek et al. (2014) may be highlighted. The authors note the exceptional applicability of the concept of consumer engagement in understanding essential consumer–company and/or consumer–consumer interactions mediated by information communication technologies. Mollen and Wilson (2010) claim that the concept of engagement may in the future be regarded as an umbrella term to define interactions occurring in virtual environment. The analysis of consumer engagement behaviour in the context of various environments demonstrates that consumer engagement behaviour in virtual environment is characterised by specific features. Like in traditional environment, consumer engagement behaviour in virtual environment contributes to the creation of the value for company and consumers. One of the approaches found in the scientific literature demonstrates that consumer engagement manifests through dynamic repeated processes intended to maintain shared value creation. Breidbach et al. (2014) highlight that through servicesdominant logic the main interactive shared value creation-associated experiences may be interpreted as specific engagement platforms. Consumer engagement platforms refer to expediently created environments that are in many cases empowered by information communication technologies and consist of artefacts, interactions, processes and people allowing companies to create value together with consumers (Breidbach et al. 2014; Ramaswamy 2009b). Breidbach et al. (2014) claim that understanding consumer engagement platforms is essential in order to successfully manage value co-creation processes. Consumer engagement platforms are characterised by four essential attributes: • Transparency means that interactions of participants in a certain consumer engagement platform are more visible to a broader audience engaged in specific co-creation processes (e.g. in certain social networks). • Accessibility allows participants to integrate their resources into the platform, e.g. by adding and sharing the content and information, thus modifying the nature and characteristics of a consumer engagement platform. • Dialogue: consumer engagement platforms are created to maintain the dialogue between different participants, because the exchange of resources is considered an essential condition for value co-creation. • Reflexivity refers to the ability of a consumer engagement platform to adapt to internal changes.

46

J. Banytė et al.

Table 2 Types of consumer engagement platforms Transactionoriented

Interactionoriented

Traditional environment Supplying platforms provide conditions for consumer–company and consumer– consumer interaction that leads to consumer experiences when they use instrumental platforms. These platforms may be transformed into operating platforms. Instrumental platforms represent conditions that are essential for reaching operating platforms (e.g. smart phones, tablet PCs). These platforms are physical and are intended to facilitate the continuous exchange of resources; the technical potential is revealed through the integration of specific apps or operating systems.

Virtual environment Enabling platforms refer to virtual, relatively temporary platforms intended to facilitate transactions between consumers and a company; they are usually reached through instrumental platforms. Operating platforms establish conditions to create shared value through business-to-consumer or consumer-toconsumer interactions. These platforms are virtual, extremely interactive and are devoted to continuous integration and exchange of resources between the parties; revenue is usually generated from advertising and consumer subscriptions.

Adapted from Breidbach et al. (2014)

It has to be noted that consumer engagement platforms may be created and maintained in both traditional and virtual environments. Here, the attention is concentrated on the main engagement object and the attempt to enhance the possibilities of the participants of the process to engage in shared value creation activities in relation to the object (Breidbach et al. 2014). Advanced, often big organisations or companies create and maintain a few individual physical and/or virtual consumer engagement platforms. According to Vargo and Lusch (2008b), a consumer engagement ecosystem and its structure may change, but the enhancement of consumer engagement always remains the main aim of such an ecosystem. Engagement ecosystems vary depending on the nature of each engagement platform (interaction takes place in traditional or virtual environment) and the aim, i.e. engagement platforms may be oriented towards interaction (continuous) and towards the performance of transactions (temporary or instant). In respect to these aspects, four types of consumer engagement platforms are identified (see Table 2). Properly created traditional and virtual consumer engagement platforms may substantially enhance the possibilities of companies to successfully exchange resources and together with consumers create shared value. Therefore, understanding empowerment possibilities of consumer engagement platforms is important for companies in the perspective of ensuring the expected consequences of consumer engagement in value creation in the context of both traditional and virtual environments. On the other hand, on the basis of the research works by van Doorn et al. (2010) and other scholars, it may be assumed that discussions on the benefits received through consumer engagement in value creation presuppose the need for an in-depth analysis of consumer engagement reasons. This need is based on the fact

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

47

that recent research works analysing consumer engagement behaviour lack a complex approach towards factors causing consumer engagement behaviour.

3 Factors Causing Consumer Engagement Since the significance of consumer engagement in value creation is growing, it is important to understand why some consumers tend to engage more than others. Research studies on consumer engagement show that the level of consumer engagement depends on the individual, the stimulus and the situation. However, the approaches to the factors causing consumer engagement found in the scientific literature are very diverse. This fact could be associated with different approaches employed in research studies on factors causing engagement and with a variety of engagement objects and contexts. In their studies of consumer brand engagement, Brodie et al. (2011), Vivek et al. (2012) and Hollebeek et al. (2014) dissociate their research from the impact of stimuli and situational factors on consumer engagement instead maintaining the view that involvement is the most important factor causing consumer engagement. Vivek et al. (2012) identify involvement and participation as consumer engagement antecedents; Brodie et al. (2011) distinguish involvement, participation and flow. According to the scholars, such individual characteristics as a brand in self-concept, emotional attachment to the brand and brand loyalty are to be regarded as potential consequences rather than engagement causing factors. Other studies on factors causing consumer engagement focus on the research about consumer characteristics, motivation and company efforts. Rodie and Kleine (2000) and Lengnick-Hall et al. (2000) distinguish consumer awareness, role clarity, ability and motivation as the main factors causing consumer engagement. In emphasising the importance of motivation, the researchers agree that consumers engage because of various reasons determined by their personal characteristics. Van Doorn et al. (2010), Plé et al. (2010) and Gambetti and Graffigna (2010) think that consumer engagement in value creation is caused not only by personal traits and motivation of consumers but also by actions of the company in seeking to attract consumers. This group of actions on the company’s part includes brand characteristics, reputation of a company, size, communication, development of consumers’ capacities to be involved and motivation of engagement. Hence, the scholars distinguish two types of factors causing consumer engagement: on the consumer’s and the company’s part. Some research studies distinguish a separate group of situation factors influencing consumer engagement. They are also sometimes referred to as environmental factors. Gambetti and Graffigna (2010) list media actions as an independent group of factors causing engagement. Cyr et al. (2008) underline the importance of analysing the environment where consumer engagement is encouraged, whatever it may be (company—its specifics, brand—attributes defining it, virtual environment—technical realisation, convenience of use). The mentioned actions are in other studies

48

J. Banytė et al.

grouped under the company factors. In order to emphasise the impact of environmental factors on consumer engagement, van Doorn et al. (2010) and Verhoef et al. (2010) additionally distinguish contextual factors including elements of competitive, political, technological, economic and social environment. However, a unified opinion of researchers about the impact of situational factors on consumer engagement is lacking. Van Doorn et al. (2010) and Plé et al. (2010) pay special attention in their works to the analysis of factors causing consumer engagement. Van Doorn et al. (2010) distinguish satisfaction, trust/commitment to the brand, social identity, customer aims, time and financial resources, perceived profits and costs at the level of consumer-related factors, and brand characteristics, reputation of the company, size of the company and diversification, information usage processes and branch of the industry at the level of company-related factors. The scholars emphasise satisfaction, trust/commitment, brand characteristics and reputation of the company as the factors determining the significance of consumer–company relationship development outcomes on consumer engagement and highlight that only loyal consumers may be engaged. Plé et al. (2010) define factors causing consumer participation in the process of service provision from the perspective of the consumer. The scholars highlight the following personal traits of consumers as the most important: consumer awareness, role clarity, perceived ability to perform a particular role and willingness to engage. The authors think that consumer engagement behaviour is caused not by the reputation of a company, but by its efforts made to achieve consumer engagement, i.e. the techniques used by the company to enhance socialisation; helping consumers to understand the expectations of the company; development of consumers’ capacities to be involved and motivating them to engage. Plé et al. (2010) emphasise the importance of consumers’ personal characteristics and consumer motivating factors as well as efforts on the company’s part and claim that non-loyal consumers may also be involved into a certain object. In respect of the fact that both loyal and non-loyal consumers to the company, product or brand may become subjects of engagement and consumer loyalty is not only maintained but also created through consumer engagement, a conclusion can be made that consumer engagement is caused by their personal characteristics, motivation and efforts of the company in seeking consumer engagement. The interaction of these factors helps to enhance consumer engagement behaviour allowing value creation for company and consumers. The role of the company and consumers in the value creation process varies depending on the contexts and changes depending on the engagement object. From the point of views of consumers and the company, factors causing consumer engagement are by researchers usually associated with value creation through consumer engagement in the process of service provision and the brand. Much attention on the factors causing consumer engagement in the process of service provision and the brand has been devoted by van Doorn et al. (2010) and Plé et al. (2010) who generalised all the research studies conducted in this field. More in-depth studies on the factors causing consumer engagement are associated with other consumer engagement objects and their development in the context of information

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

49

communication technologies. Füller (2010), Porter et al. (2011) and Wirtz et al. (2013) have devoted their research to this issue. Factors Causing Consumer Engagement: The Company Perspective Companies have a number of measures to influence consumer engagement. However, research studies analysing company efforts to involve consumers are lacking, and the results obtained in the studies by van Doorn et al. (2010) as well as Plé et al. (2010) may be considered as the most significant. The main attention in the works by Plé et al. (2010) has been devoted to consumer engagement behaviour. The insights of the above-mentioned authors are significant in understanding participation as an antecedent of consumer engagement; therefore, it is relevant to discuss this issue in the monograph. In analysing consumer brand engagement, van Doorn et al. (2010) emphasise brand characteristics, reputation of the company, size and diversification of the company, information communication processes and the industry. The scholars claim that brand characteristics are among the most important factors affecting consumer engagement behaviour. A brand with a high-reputation or a high-quality package will involve consumers into the brand to a greater extent. However, failure will result in stronger negative consumer engagement behaviour. If a high-reputation brand fails, there will be greater negative consequences than in the case of failure of a lower reputation brand. Consumers may warn other consumers not to purchase the products of the company. A high-quality package of the brand enhances emotional consumer commitment and attachment, which motivates consumers to engage, i.e. consumers tend to participate more in brand communities, get acquainted with other consumers, expand knowledge about the brand and share experience with other consumers. Companies may encourage certain consumers through various platforms by providing a possibility for consumers to express their opinion, directly report their claims or suggestions to company employees. Through annual meetings, competitions and discussion in virtual environment companies may facilitate communication between consumers; they may also help their consumers to improve if they organise training online (Van Doorn et al. 2010). Based on Bolton and Saxena-Iyer (2009), Van Doorn et al. (2010) claim that information received by consumers influences consumer engagement behaviour; therefore, proactive companies aim at controlling the information environment. Large and financially strong companies invest a lot in offering consumers to try product samples, organising conferences and other events, observing media reports about the company and its employees, awarding and encouraging consumers for their activity and participation. All these actions help the company to create reputation. In line with the opinion that non-loyal consumers may also be engaged, it may be claimed that the classification of factors causing consumer engagement behaviour from the perspective of the company introduced by van Doorn et al. (2010) does not fully reflect all the alternative factors causing engagement, because the classification emphasises the factors that are oriented towards the development of relationship with loyal consumers. The approach that consumer engagement behaviour does not

50

J. Banytė et al.

depend on consumer loyalty has been maintained in the works by Plé et al. (2010). The authors defined factors causing consumer participation behaviour from the company’s perspective and distinguished the following most important factors: techniques used by the company to enhance socialisation; helping consumers to understand the expectations of the company; and development of consumer ability and their motivation to participate. According to Plé et al. (2010), the techniques used by the company to enhance socialisation may explain what and how the consumer should do. The company should reveal the clarity of the consumer’s perceived role and the importance of participation. It is important for the company to accurately define the functions of consumers. All this, in Plé et al.’s (2010) views, helps to better ‘employ’ consumers who are motivated and have the necessary skills to participate in the activities of the company. The company should help consumers understand the participation expectations on the consumers’ part. However, only factual consumer actions show the real scope of participation. Consumers’ individual characteristics play an important role. For example, consumer commitment to the company and its products affects the wish to engage in virtual environment and reply to the questions of other consumers. In this case, it is difficult for a company to influence the scope of consumer participation. In other cases, the company may limit both the scope and the duration of participation. However, there is a risk that consumers will not understand when their participation begins and when it ends. In order to avoid such situations, the company has to plan the cancellation procedures (Plé et al. 2010). Companies are also interested in the development of the consumers’ ability to participate. One way to do it is to perform the consumer selection and participation procedures based on the analysis of consumer participation behaviour, which is not easy, because the company selecting consumers does not always have reliable information. In order to ensure that consumer skills correspond to the needs of the company, it is necessary to develop consumer skills before the real engagement stage. However, there is still a chance that consumers may choose another object of participation. Because of this risk, many companies prioritise the development of educational programmes devoted to consumers who have recently started interacting with the company. Through interactions with consumers, staff of the company may have a possibility to convince consumers what they can do and what they should do (Plé et al. 2010). The last factor on the company’s side is motivation of consumer participation. It consists of such aspects as financial and non-financial benefits (reduction of process, time-saving, higher quality, etc.). Awarding for participation is another important condition in convincing consumers to participate. In this respect, the company’s marketing policies have to be oriented towards the benefit that consumers may get for participation. According to Plé et al. (2010), by motivating the company provides consumers with certain powers and responsibility, thus enhancing their awareness and understanding of the problems that the company deals with. It is, therefore, especially important for the company to properly react to consumer claims. If

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

Plé et al. (2010) Service provision process

Van Doorn et al. (2010) Consumer engagement behaviour • • • • •

Brand characteristics; Reputation of the company; Size and diversification of the company; Information communication processes; Industry where a company operates.

51

• • • •

Techniques used by the company to enhance socialisation; Helping consumers to understand the company’s expectations; Development of consumers’ abilities to be involved; Motivation of consumer engagement.

ESSENTIAL ENGAGEMENT FACTORS AT THE COMPANY’S LEVEL Brand characteristics; reputation of the company; techniques used by the company to enhance socialisation; helping consumers to understand the company’s expectations; development of consumers’ abilities to be involved; motivation of consumer engagement.

Fig. 1 Identification of essential factors causing consumer engagement at the company’s level

consumers notice that the results despite the efforts they made do not improve, their motivation to participate next time may be reduced. Figure 1 generalises the existing research studies on the factors causing consumer engagement from the company’s perspective. In summary of the research studies on consumer engagement/participation behaviour, it may state that consumer engagement from the company’s perspective is caused to a greater extent by the efforts that a company makes to engage consumers rather than the reputation of the company or the brand. These efforts are best manifested through the techniques companies employ to enhance socialisation, helping consumers to understand the company’s expectations, development of consumers’ abilities to be involved and motivation of consumer engagement. Factors Causing Consumer Engagement: The Consumer Perspective Research by van Doorn et al. (2010), Plé et al. (2010) and de Villiers (2015) is significant in this respect. The results of the study conducted by de Villiers (2015) demonstrate that consumer brand engagement is influenced by consumer’s personality and social identity, interest in the product or the brand, social networking and associations with other people, and consumer’s demographic characteristics and emotional state. Van Doorn et al. (2010) distinguish the following factors at the consumer level: satisfaction, trust/commitment, social identity, consumer aims, time and financial resources, perceived profits and costs. In their opinion, satisfaction, commitment and trust in the brand are the most important consumer engagement factors. Satisfaction may be achieved when the product meets or even exceeds consumer expectations. In such a case, consumers do not feel overpriced and think that time or other input to purchase the product was used expediently. Therefore, consumers may want to repeatedly purchase the product and will consider less before deciding whether to cooperate with the company. Satisfaction is one of the factors that

52

J. Banytė et al.

encourages consumers to trust and commit to the brand or the company. In line with Anderson and Mittal (2000), Van Doorn et al. (2010) indicate that trust is the most important factor of successful cooperation, because consumers trust their partners if they were previously satisfied. Hence, if they have a positive experience, i.e. trust, consumers will tend to cooperate more with a reliable company or brand than with something they do not know what to expect. Commitment is a lasting wish to continue with a useful relationship. Consumers with higher social identity tend to engage more into helping others. Social identity determines sharing useful advice with other consumers, helping employees to better perform their duties or even helping consumers who were previously dissatisfied with their experiences. The use of certain products helps to form and enhance consumers’ social identity. Depending on what products are necessary, consumers engage in groups united by similar interests. Groups may form based on the related culture or the favourite brand. Groups influence consumer behaviour with an appropriate brand. Consumers spend time, money and efforts in enhancing their identity and engaging in groups of similar interests. All this consumer input is necessary in order to achieve a higher status and more productive cooperation (van Doorn et al. 2010). According to van Doorn et al. (2010), consumers may have specific aims, i.e. to maximise individual profit or get the maximum benefit from cooperation. In many cases, consumer aims determine how they use the brand and engage in its creation. Individual traits of consumers may also have impact on the consumer engagement level. Many individual traits of consumers may affect the cognitive process and decision-making, which have influence on the achieved results. Such consumer input as time, money and efforts made also affect consumer engagement behaviour. An overview on the factors causing consumer engagement from the consumer perspective conducted by van Doorn et al. (2010) allows claiming that the classification proposed by the scholars is characterised by the same limitations as in the case of factors causing consumer engagement from the company perspective. The significance of satisfaction, trust and commitment on consumer engagement is emphasised, but attention on the determining factors is insufficient. All this is reflected a greater extent in the classification of factors causing consumer participation proposed by Plé et al. (2010). The first factor in the classification of factors causing consumer participation proposed by Plé et al. (2010)—consumer awareness—has not been extensively studied in the literature. Plé et al. (2010) define consumer awareness as socialisation of consumers who learn different roles in order to achieve a higher level of participation. The scholars also claim that consumers have to become aware, later learn and eventually know how to behave when they participate in the service provision process. Three different levels of consumer awareness are distinguished in the marketing literature (Plé et al. 2010): • Willingness to participate—consumers have to understand that they need a higher level of participation in the value creation process.

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

53

• Ability to understand both the practical issues and the importance of participation. • Ability to perceive advantages provided by participation; otherwise, they may not want to participate in this process. Consumer awareness appears when consumers understand the urgency to participate and the benefits of such participation. If consumers do not see any benefit, they may simply refuse to participate. Consumer benefits may be understood as the satisfaction of financial expectations or social needs. Another factor at the consumer level distinguished by Plé et al. (2010) is perceived role clarity. Role clarity is essential for consumers to completely understand what they have to do. This factor means ensured clarity, which undoubtedly depends on consumers themselves—how they understand what the company expects from them and whether this understanding is correct. Perceived role clarity depends on the personal consumer experience in relation to the specific company, on the experience in similar situations, use of previous experience in a completely new situation, and behaviour similar to other consumers’ behaviour. The better the consumers understand their role, the higher the level of their participation. Literature sources list factors that cause consumer perceived role clarity: consumer experience related to the company or other companies in a similar context, or consumer behaviour in a new situation based on the experience acquired in a similar context or on the actions of other consumers (Parker and Ward 2000). It is important to note that consumer perceived role clarity may change depending on circumstances, because consumers, in collecting their experience through cooperation with a company, always learn and reconsider their role (Plé et al. 2010). Consumers may also have skills necessary to perform their role. Their skills are associated with what they can do rather than with what they want to do. Real and perceived consumer skills are identified. Plé et al. (2010) claim that the real skills are related to what consumers can in fact do, and perceived skills refer to the skills that consumers perceive they have: if they think that they do not have necessary skills or are not sufficiently proficient to use them, they may fail to properly participate in value creation. Even if the company thinks that consumers have necessary intellectual, physical, mental or other skills, it will be impossible to use these skills until consumers themselves agree to use them. Plé et al. (2010) claim that a lack of confidence may hinder participation and its results. In such a case, the company does not have any other way how to help consumers to change their perception. Hence, both real and perceived consumer skills to participate may change over time. Consumers may develop their skills through their experiences and willingness to learn from it. The last factor of engagement at the consumer level identified by Plé et al. (2010) is willingness to participate. Even if consumers understand that they need to participate and have a clear representative role to perform, it is not enough if they do not agree to participate. Not all consumers agree to participate and demonstrate similar levels of participation. The reasons of such consumer engagement behaviour, according to Plé et al. (2010), may include the inability to see what they can get from participation, refusal to participate due to some personal traits, and thinking that they

54

J. Banytė et al.

Van Doorn et al. (2010) Consumer engagement behaviour

• • • • • •

Satisfaction; Trust/commitment; Social identity; Consumer aims; Time and financial resources; Perceived profits and costs.

Plé et al. (2010) Service provision process

• • • • •

Consumer awareness; Skills to engage in the value creation process; Perceived role clarity; Skills to perform a certain role; Wish to engage.

de Villiers (2015) Brand

• • • • •

Consumer personality and social identity; Interest in the product or the brand; Associations with social networks and other people; Demographic characteristics; Emotional state.

ESSENTIAL ENGAGEMENT FACTORS AT THE CONSUMER LEVEL Satisfaction, trust/commitment, social identity, consumer aims, consumer awareness, perceived role clarity, skills to perform a certain role

Fig. 2 Identification of essential factors causing consumer engagement at the consumer level

lack certain skills. In order to deal with these limitations, companies need to foresee measures to motivate consumers. Hence, consumer willingness to participate may also change over time. One of the ways to deal with such limitations is to ensure consumer understanding that participation allows for achieving better results. The company engaging consumers partially transfers some of its functions on to them; therefore, consumers may expect the company to return some of their expenses, which explains why they show greater willingness to participate when they can expect to be offered a lower price. However, not all consumer wishes are based on economic reasons. A high level of participation may also be determined by the possibility to save time. Consumers may benefit from interaction with other consumers. Consumer motivation to participate may eventually enhance if they understand that this could improve the quality of products (Plé et al. 2010). Figure 2 generalises the existing research studies on the factors causing consumer engagement from the consumer perspective. The conducted analysis shows that consumer engagement/participation is to the greatest extent influenced by satisfaction, commitment, trust (involvement into the product or the brand), social identity and consumer aims. The latter factor coincides with the wish to participate identified by Plé et al. (2010). Besides, factors of awareness, role clarity and needed skills are also considered to cause consumer engagement.

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

55

Factors Causing Consumer Engagement in Virtual Environment Wei et al. (2013) claim that interaction taking placing in virtual environment is first of all motivated by social and economic incentives, concern with other consumers and the possibility to enhance self-value. According to the researchers, although there is an abundance of single research studies analysing factors causing consumer engagement in different environments, no consensus has been reached so far. This could be illustrated through the results of various research studies. For example, Sun et al. (2006) identified innovations (tendency to enjoy new products) and interactivity as the most important factors; meanwhile, Brown et al. (2007) distinguished social-psychological, identity-related and utilitarian factors as essential in the context of verbal communication (Wei et al. 2013). Based on Füller (2010), Occhiocupo and Friess (2013) indicate that in seeking successful consumer engagement in value creation in virtual environment, it is necessary to take into account the nature of consumer motivation. Many consumers engage because of intrinsic (joy and altruism) and extrinsic motives (learning, reputation) as well as motivation drivers (pay, career possibilities). The studies on factors causing consumer engagement in virtual environment are usually based on the functional theory and the uses and gratification theory. On the basis of the functional theory, in seeking to affect consumer behaviour, it is important to understand the source of consumer motivations—consumer attitudes. The consumer attitude, according to Katz (1960), may perform one of four personality functions that motivate customers to engage: utilitarian, pursuit of knowledge, value-expressive and ego-defensive (Daugherty et al. 2008). Following Clary et al. (1998), Daugherty et al. (2008) supplemented these functions with one more, i.e. the social function. The authors think that distinguished functions motivate consumers to engage in content creation in social media. The utilitarian function reveals that consumers are motivated to get a reward or avoid punishment. The pursuit of knowledge function is associated with the consumer’s need to get information in seeking to understand the environment. The value-expressive function helps consumers to render the ‘self’ to others. This way, content creators share their attitudes (who they are and what they believe) with others in social networks. The ego-defensive function demonstrates motives that encourage consumers to engage in seeking to reduce lack of self-confidence, satisfy the feeling of belonging to some group, or reduce the feeling of guilt due to insufficient contribution. The social function motivates consumers to look for possibilities to interact with other consumers or participate in activities that other consumers also enjoy. This function motivates consumers to create content, because it involves the concepts of sharing and social interaction. The functional theory approach is used in the works of Shao (2009), Hoyer et al. (2010) and Wirtz et al. (2013) on consumer engagement in virtual environment. Hoyer et al. (2010) analyse consumer engagement in co-creation of new products in virtual environment and identify financial, social, technical and psychological factors. Consumers may be encouraged by financial incentives directly, e.g. money prizes or sharing revenue, and indirectly, i.e. on the basis of intellectual property.

56

J. Banytė et al.

Consumers who seek to get social benefits are strongly influenced by the enhanced reputation of the brand, social respect and stronger relationship with other consumers who think alike. Technical factors involve knowledge that consumers acquire through engagement in virtual communities or co-creation actions. Psychological factors are usually internal and hard to define. These could be pride, the possibility of self-expression and sincere joy having contributed to some activity. In their analysis of brand engagement in virtual environment, Wirtz et al. (2013) associated factors motivating consumers with the brand (associations between the self-concept and brand identity, the symbolic meaning of the brand), consumer sociability (social benefit and social identity) and functionalism (functional benefit, avoidance of uncertainty, quality of information, monetary and other incentives). Shao (2009) associates motives of consumer engagement in social media with various levels: • Observation. Consumers start interacting with social media as observers. In seeking to acquire knowledge and entertainment, consumers use channels where they find content created by other consumers, read it, but do not create their own content. • Participation. Encouraged by social development and participation in the community, consumers start interacting with the content and other consumers. This interaction helps to create and maintain relationship between similar interested persons in the virtual community and forms consumer identity. • Production. It is associated with motives of consumer self-expression and selfactualisation. According to Brandtzæg and Heim (2009), the uses and gratifications theory reflects best why consumers use social media. Based on the research conducted by the scholars, the core factors encouraging engagement in social networks involve establishing contacts with other consumers, maintaining relationship, socialising, debating, free services, time-killing, entertainment, content, profile surfing, free sms, popularising one’s work, and maintaining relationship with the family. Following the theory of uses and gratifications, Porter et al. (2011), Dvorak (2013), O’Brien and Toms (2008) and Reitz (2012) have continued research into consumer motivation to engage in virtual environment. Porter et al. (2011) mention the motivating factors that serve as the basis of the uses and gratifications theory. These factors are access to information, creation of relationship, social identity/self-expression, helping each other, pleasure, feeling of contributing and status. They cause consumer engagement in the virtual community. Dvorak (2013) distinguishes improvement, social, personal integrity and hedonistic benefits as the most important motives of consumer engagement in co-creation in social platforms. The motive of improvement is associated with the consumer’s wish to engage in the creation of innovations and benefit in terms of cognition. The social benefit reflects the consumer’s need for recognition, the wish to communicate with the company and other consumers. The motives of personal integrity involve the consumer’s wish to create a new product or improve an already existing product. The hedonistic benefit manifests as consumer satisfaction through interesting,

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

57

exciting and emotionally positive participation in the process of co-creation of innovations. Such attributes as perceived information quality, pleasure and interactivity are also identified in the literature as potential factors causing consumer engagement in virtual environment (Reitz 2012). O’Brien and Toms (2010) identified interdependent engagement factors: perceived usability, aesthetics and felt involvement, innovation and endurability. Mollen and Wilson (2010) maintain their opinion and identify the following factors causing consumer engagement in virtual environment: perceived information quality (reflects technical decision-making and speed of orientation in search for information), felt pleasure (emotional congruence and satisfaction in using the service) and perceived interactivity (perceived user control, mutual communication, perceived response). Of note, in the context of virtual environment, consumer experience is extremely important. Calder et al. (2009) claim that consumer engagement is caused by website experience, and consumer engagement in virtual environment may be understood only by analysing different consumer experiences in relation to the website. In order to engage consumers, various websites should not create identical or very similar experiences. Different experiences may be created and rendered to consumers through various website attributes. O’Brien and Toms (2008) identify attention, aesthetics, involvement, challenge, control, motivation, innovation and feedback as structural, emotional, sensual, spatial and temporal aspects. These aspects are considered by scholars as components of experience that encourage and facilitate consumer engagement. Füller (2010) associates factors motivating consumer engagement in co-creation in virtual environment with personal consumer traits. The scholar analyses creation of new products in virtual environment and identifies motives encouraging consumer engagement in virtual environment (consumer curiosity, dissatisfaction with a product, interest in novelties, idea generation, the pursuit of knowledge, possibility to get a monetary reward) and personal consumer traits (specific experience and abilities, interest in the creation of innovations and in assignments announced on the internet, novelty acceptance and innovation, search for novelties, use of the internet and experience online). According to Füller (2010), the main factors that motivate consumers to engage in the creation of new products in virtual environment are interested in innovation, curiosity and the possibility to express their own ideas. Monetary reward becomes important when consumers are constantly engaged. Table 3 generalises the results of the analysis of factors causing consumer engagement in virtual environment. The conducted analysis demonstrates that so far there is no consensus regarding the factors that cause consumer engagement in virtual environment. The changing engagement contexts (engagement in a website or specific community) or engagement objects have an impact on this. Research on consumer engagement in value creation is based on the associations between factors causing consumer engagement and constructs of engagement and value. Now, as the essential factors causing consumer engagement are identified, it is expedient to conduct the analysis of the engagement construct from the perspective

58

J. Banytė et al.

Table 3 Factors causing consumer engagement in virtual environment Authors Wirtz et al. (2013)

Research object/context Brand communities in virtual environment

Group of factors Brandoriented Social Functional

Füller (2010)

Co-creation in virtual environment

Factors

Personal consumer characteristics

Porter et al. (2011)

Virtual community

N/A

O’Brien and Toms (2010)

Website

N/A

Dvorak (2013)

Co-creation in social media

Benefit of improvement Social benefit

Personal integrity Hedonistic benefit

Factors Associations between self-concept and brand identity Symbolic meaning of the brand Social benefit Social identity Functional benefit Avoidance of uncertainty Information quality Monetary and non-monetary incentives Consumer curiosity Dissatisfaction with a product Interest in innovations Idea generation Pursuit of knowledge Possibility to get a monetary reward Experience and skills Interest in the creation of innovations and in assignments announced on the internet Novelty acceptance and innovation Search for novelties Interest in the internet Experience of online activity Access to information Creation of relationship Social identity/self-expression Helping each other Pleasure Feeling of contributing Status Perceived utility Aesthetics Concentrated attention Felt interest Innovation Persistence Cognitive benefit Pursuit of recognition Wish to participate with the company and consumers Wish to participate in the process of new product creation Satisfaction because of emotionally positive process of new product creation (continued)

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

59

Table 3 (continued) Group of factors N/A

Authors Shao (2009)

Research object/context Consumer-created media

Brandtzæg and Heim (2009)

Social networks

N/A

Hoyer et al. (2010)

Co-creation of new products in the virtual environment

Financial factors Social factors

Technical factors Psychological factors

Factors Pursuit of knowledge and entertainment Social development Social identity development Self-expression Self-actualisation Establishing contacts with other consumers Relationship retention Socialisation Pursuit of discussion Free services Time-killing Content Entertainment Profile creation Free sms Popularising their own work Maintaining relationship with the family Monetary prizes Sharing revenue Access to intellectual property Enhanced reputation Social respect Relationship with other customers Knowledge acquired in virtual communities or through participation in co-creation activities Pride Possibilities of self-expression Joy having contributed to some activity

of its dimensions. The logic of conducted analysis is substantiated by the priorities of recent research into consumer engagement.

4 Substantiation of Consumer Engagement Dimensions The Main Approaches to Consumer Engagement Despite the acknowledged and research-proven significance of consumer engagement consequences on consumers and companies, consumer engagement is a relatively new research object, and there are not many research studies on this issue. As mentioned in Sect. 1, in terms of the development of the concept of consumer

60

J. Banytė et al.

engagement, the study by researchers Javornik and Mandelli (2013) receives exceptional attention. In order to understand the analysed phenomenon and its development, the authors first studied the literature on the topic of consumer engagement (Brodie et al. 2011; Gambetti and Graffigna 2010; Hollebeek 2011a, b; Vivek et al. 2012). Javornik and Mandelli (2013) paid special attention to the research by Brodie et al. (2011), since this study is considered one of a few works to present the classification of already conducted engagement studies and engagement dimensions employed previously. On the other hand, it has to be noted that the classification of research studies has been usually based on the dimensions of the construct of consumer engagement; however, no future research directions have been suggested. In respect of the current scope of research and the increased interest in the concept of consumer engagement in the marketing community since 2008, Javornik and Mandelli (2013) have chosen for the analysis of the research publications on the peculiarities of consumer engagement between 2009 and 2012. The study by the authors may be considered to be the first research work to not only reveal the conceptual basis of consumer engagement but also to identify recent trends reflecting future research directions based on different theoretical-methodological approaches. Apart from the aim to conceptualise consumer engagement, Javornik and Mandelli (2013) claimed that in future researchers should pay attention to specific consumer engagement research directions. According to the scholars, research into these directions would help substantiate the concept of consumer engagement without interfering with the broad applicability of the concept. Of note, Javornik and Mandelli (2013), like previously found by Brodie et al. (2011), confirmed the classification of consumer engagement studies conducted between 2009 and 2012 into one-dimensional and multidimensional. Brodie et al. (2011) stated that the main dimensions were behaviour, emotions and cognition, or their combinations. Javornik and Mandelli (2013), however, proposed a different view towards the identification of consumer engagement research directions and indicated the following approaches: • • • •

Behavioural Psychological (cognitive and emotional) Multidimensional Social

Javornik and Mandelli (2012, 2013), following the results obtained by van Doorn et al. (2010), Bijmolt et al. (2010) and Sashi (2012), discussed the prevalence and broad application of the behavioural research approach and considered it as an independent research direction of consumer engagement. Consumer engagement based on the approach of behavioural research is closely related to the idea of an active consumer’s role, which rationally confirms the importance of the concept of consumer engagement. Therefore, the approach of behavioural research is defined through essential consumer engagement behaviour aspects and activities, often beyond the purchase. Van Doorn et al. (2010) and Bijmolt et al. (2010) gave the following examples of such behaviour: oral communication, co-creation, emotional attachment and complaint-related behaviour. On the basis of this approach, Sashi

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

61

(2012) composed a consumer engagement cycle consisting of seven stages: establishing contacts, interaction, satisfaction, retention, commitment, advocacy and engagement. Emotional associations and relationship are extremely important for consumer engagement; however, expression of various behavioural aspects is inseparable from consumer engagement. The second finding of the research conducted by Javornik and Mandelli (2013) is discussed on the basis of combined cognitive and emotional dimensions called a psychological approach of consumer engagement research. This approach is related to the fact that both the cognitive and the emotional dimensions emphasise psychological processes that in both cases are consumer engagement antecedents. The psychological approach has also been maintained in the research works by Calder et al. (2009). The authors concentrated their attention on the experiences of consumers and their importance on engagement. In terms of the psychological approach, research studies by Mollen and Wilson (2010) and Higgins and Scholer (2009) are also significant. The insights of the researchers are related to psychological consumer engagement aspects. In this respect, the opinion of Javornik and Mandelli (2013) is to be further maintained that instead of identification of emotional and cognitive dimensions it is more important to recognise the processes that are more advantageous at the psychological level than behaviour-based consumer engagement. The third aspect maintained by Javornik and Mandelli (2013) serving as the basis of emerging social research approach is to be grounded on the fact that the major part of studies so far have emphasised the research into consumer engagement at the individual level and the consumer–company environment. In respect of this, the authors indicate that social consumer engagement, manifesting in communities, social networks and consumer–consumer environment, has to be assessed and analysed. The first research works in this respect have been done since 2012 by Gambetti et al. (2012), Fliess et al. (2012) and Gummerus et al. (2012). Considering the content of the most frequent concepts of consumer engagement used in the scientific literature, Kozinets (2014) notes that the concept of engagement should be supplemented with social and active aspects in order to comprehensively analyse the phenomenon. The multidimensional approach towards consumer engagement proposes a multifaceted attitude based on a combination of different dimensions. The multidimensional approach has been traditionally used to combine the consumer’s and the company’s position by conceptualising consumer engagement based on the idea of value co-creation and active consumer participation. The studies that represent this research direction most often emphasise the integration of cognitive and emotional aspects along with consumer engagement behaviours (Mollen and Wilson 2010; Sashi 2012; Brodie et al. 2011; Vivek et al. 2012). The multidimensional approach may be considered to be the dominant research direction on consumer engagement in recent years. To summarise the results of Javornik and Mandelli’s (2013) research significant for the development of the concept of consumer engagement, it may be stated that the authors do not aim at emphasising the advantage of one particular direction of

62

J. Banytė et al.

research into consumer engagement. Instead, they propose to orient future research towards one of the directions. Based on the systemic analysis of scientific literature and previous conceptual and empirical research results, Javornik and Mandelli (2013) claim that following these research directions integration of different approaches to a popular consumer engagement concept will be possible along with reduced ambiguity through the recognition of an active consumer’s role, thus contributing to the development of the theory and practice of marketing. Besides, since the engagement concept is applied widely in social sciences, interdisciplinary research in terms of engagement of employees, students or shareholders is possible on the basis of the provided classification. The analysis of approaches towards consumer engagement allows stating that the construct of consumer engagement is usually analysed from the multidimensional perspective, thus demonstrating a need for theoretical and empirical substantiation of consumer engagement dimensions. Dimensions of the Consumer Engagement Construct The research results on the dimensions of the consumer engagement construct show that the expressions of engagement dimensions identified by various authors may vary in different contexts. Brodie et al. (2011), Hollebeek (2011a, b) and Hollebeek et al. (2014) paid special attention to the dimensions of consumer engagement in their research studies. The scholars generalised their research results on consumer engagement dimensions and concluded that the number of dimensions to measure consumer engagement was determined by the approach of consumer engagement assessment (engagement as a one-dimensional and a multidimensional construct). In their opinion, the definition of dimensions depends on the object of engagement (brand, brand community, advertising, virtual social platform, website). On the grounds of the one-dimensional approach, a particular dimension is identified as the most important, usually differently defined by different authors. According to Hollebeek (2011a), Guthrie and Cox (2001) emphasised the importance of cognitive dimensions; meanwhile, Catteeuw et al. (2007) highlighted the emotional dimension, and Pomerantz (2006) indicated the behavioural dimension as the most important. In the multidimensional model, there is no consensus so far. Various authors have provided different variants of combinations of consumer engagement dimensions: Marks and Printy (2003) analysed cognitive and emotional dimensions, Bejerholm and Eklund (2007), studied cognitive and behavioural dimensions, while Norris et al. (2003) researched emotional and behavioural dimensions (Hollebeek 2011a). The researchers have emphasised that different consumer engagement dimensions are interrelated. Brodie et al. (2013) revealed that emotional engagement may cause an increase in the intensity of cognitive and behavioural dimensions of other consumers’ engagement. The research results on the dimensions of the construct of consumer engagement are given in Table 4.

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

63

Table 4 Dimensions of the consumer engagement construct Authors Avnet and Higgins (2006)

Type of research Conceptual

Concept Engagement

Higgins and Scholer (2009)

Conceptual

Engagement

Patterson et al. (2006)

Conceptual

Customer engagement

Vivek et al. (2012)

Conceptual

Customer engagement

Brodie et al. (2011)

Conceptual

Consumer engagement

Bowden (2009)

Conceptual

Process of customer engagement

Van Doorn et al. (2010) Pham and Avnet (2009)

Conceptual

Customer engagement behaviour Engagement behaviour

Hollebeek (2011a)

Conceptual

Customer brand engagement

Hollebeek (2011b)

Empirical: qualitative

Customer brand engagement

So et al. (2014)

Empirical: quantitative

Customer engagement in tourism brands

Algesheimer et al. (2005)

Empirical: qualitative

Engagement in brand community

Sprott et al. (2009)

Empirical

Phillips and McQuarrie (2010)

Empirical: qualitative

Brand engagement in self-concept Engaging advertising

Conceptual

Dimensions Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Absorption (C)a Dedication (E) Vigour/Interaction (B) Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Behavioural Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Identification (C/B) Enthusiasm (E) Attention (C) Immersion (C/E) Interaction (B) Utilitarian (C) Hedonistic (E) Social (B/E) Emotional Immersion (C) Feeling (E) Identification (E) Action (B) (continued)

64

J. Banytė et al.

Table 4 (continued) Authors Cheung et al. (2011)

Type of research Empirical: quantitative (expert survey) Conceptual

Concept Customer engagement in an online social platform Brand engagement online

Hollebeek et al. (2014)

Empirical

Consumer brand engagement in social media

Brodie et al. (2013)

Empirical: qualitative

Abdul-Ghani et al. (2011)

Empirical: qualitative

Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community Engagement in online auction sites

Mollen and Wilson (2010)

Dimensions Energy (C/E) Immersion (C) Dedication (E) Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Social (B) Cognitive processing (C) Affection (E) Activation (B) Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Utilitarian (C) Hedonistic (E) Social (B/E)

Adapted from Hollebeek (2011a, b), Brodie et al. (2011) and Hollebeek et al. (2014) The suggestion is to assign the dimensions to the traditional classification when C marks the cognitive dimension, E—the emotional dimension and B—the behavioural dimension

a

The comparative analysis of consumer engagement dimensions generalised in Table 4 allows stating that consumer engagement is usually associated with particular behavioural, emotional and cognitive efforts or commitment. The consumer, first of all, gets familiar with the engagement object, which later awakens certain emotions or associations, both positive and negative. These emotions eventually encourage the consumer to act, i.e. the consumer is not passive, but becomes an active participant in the interaction with the engagement object. In respect of Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) ideas, it may be stated that consumer engagement is characterised by its multidimensional nature, and the construct is best substantiated by three dimensions: cognitive processing, affection and activation. Following the characteristics and typical expression of the consumer engagement dimensions previously identified by researchers, Hollebeek (2011a, b) and Hollebeek et al. (2014) aimed at integrating these dimensions into most frequently identified dimensions in the scientific literature: cognitive, emotional and behavioural. The indicated consumer engagement dimensions are distinguished in virtual environment as well. According to Mollen and Wilson (2010), consumer engagement in virtual environment is revealed by an active, continuous cognitive process of the consumer (cognitive dimension), instrumental value expressed as perceived utility and compliance with the consumer’s aims (cognitive/behavioural dimension), as well as emotional consumer–company identification (emotional dimension). An original

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

65

approach to the equivalents of cognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions in virtual environment is maintained by Reitz (2012) who proposes a model of consumer engagement in virtual environment called 3H—head, heart, hands. The model confirms the three identified basic dimensions of consumer engagement. The author interprets the content of the mentioned dimensions as follows: • Head—the feeling of being here, loss of the sense of time and space, intensive concentration, deep knowledge of the product. • Heart—expression of strong feeling and immersion/empathy, emotion, attachment to the product, general satisfaction. • Hands—activity, continuity, sharing and use of the information provided by the company or other customers, posting of comments, links and photos, participation in games and competitions. The head dimension of consumer engagement in the virtual environment reveals the cognitive aspect; therefore, it may correspond to the traditionally accepted cognitive dimension. Heart reveals the emotional consumer engagement aspect which encourages consumers to get emotionally involved and to experience the feelings caused by the product. The hands dimension is associated with consumer participation in virtual environment; therefore, it may be understood as the consumer engagement behavioural dimension. To summarise the recent studies, it may state that so far research on consumer engagement has been conducted in relation to the theoretical analysis of consumer engagement dimensions (Avnet and Higgins 2006; Bowden 2009; Brodie et al. 2011; Hollebeek 2011a, b; Patterson et al. 2006; Pham and Avnet 2009; Van Doorn et al. 2010; Vivek et al. 2012) and qualitative research studies (Algesheimer et al. 2005; Calder et al. 2009; Hollebeek 2011b; Phillips and McQuarrie 2010) that were aimed at substantiation of identified engagement dimensions. Quantitative research studies providing original and statistically reliable scales measuring consumer engagement are scarce (Cheung et al. 2011; Hollebeek et al. 2014; So et al. 2014). Cheung et al. (2011) have conducted a scientific literature analysis and an empirical study of consumer engagement in an online social platform and composed a scale consisting of 18 items and substantiating the immersion, energy and dedication dimensions. The scale measuring dimensions of consumer engagement in an online social platform proposed by the researchers is provided in Table A.1 of Annex A. According to the scholars, the identified dimensions reveal the psychological aspect of consumer engagement, which provides a possibility to participate in an online social platform and orally communicate about it. In the case of consumer engagement in an online social platform, the constructs of involvement and social interaction may be considered as antecedents, and disposition and willingness to participate in an online social platform and its activities as well as positive word-ofmouth communication as consequences. In summary of Cheung et al.’s (2011) research results, of note is the fact that the most important contribution is to be associated with the proposed scale measuring consumer engagement in an online

66

J. Banytė et al.

social platform. An empirical study of consumer engagement and associations between antecedents and consequences is to be conducted in the future. Significant quantitative research studies measuring consumer engagement and defining three consumer engagement dimensions—cognitive, emotional and behavioural—as well as ten items revealing these dimensions were conducted by Hollebeek et al. (2014). The scale measuring consumer brand engagement dimensions proposed by the researchers is provided in Table A.2 of Annex A. In order to propose a reliable scale measuring consumer engagement, the scholars conducted four interrelated studies: 1. Exploratory qualitative research based on the theoretical understanding of consumer engagement. By way of in-depth interviews and focus groups, a list of 39 items revealing consumer brand engagement was composed. 2. Quantitative research intended to find out the dimensions of the construct and preliminary elements thereof describing consumer brand engagement. The study was conducted on the example of the social network Facebook brand, and 10 items revealing brand engagement dimensions were identified. 3. Qualitative research intended to confirm the composed consumer brand engagement measurement scale. The social network Twitter brand was chosen for the research and new respondents were surveyed. 4. Quantitative research intended to test the composed measurement scale on consumer brand engagement in the context of associations between antecedents and consequences. The authors chose consumer involvement as an antecedent and brand usage intent as well as self-brand connection as consequences. The research was conducted with the social network LinkedIn brand by surveying new respondents. In summary, Hollebeek et al. (2014) note that the scale may be applied not only in the context of consumer brand engagement, but also in other contexts, and the analysed antecedents and consequences may vary. So et al. (2014) have conducted an overview of scientific literature and proposed five dimensions of the construct of consumer engagement in a tourism brand: identification, enthusiasm, attention, immersion and interaction. The researchers claim that the listed dimensions maintain a traditional approach that consumer engagement is a multidimensional construct. The identified dimensions are characterised by a strong mutual relation. For example, growing enthusiasm for a brand will likely cause enhancement of attention to the brand. It has to be highlighted that each of the proposed dimensions are characterised by specific features usually attributed to the cognitive, behavioural and/or emotional dimensions (So et al. 2014): • The identification dimension reveals the level of consumer perceived unity with the brand or belonging to the brand. This dimension may be associated with the cognitive and/or behavioural dimensions. • The enthusiasm dimension may be interpreted as the level of consumer joy and involvement with the brand. It corresponds to the emotional dimension of consumer engagement.

Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation

67

• Attention is the level of attentiveness, concentration and interaction with the brand. It may be associated with the cognitive dimension. • Immersion is a pleasant state describing the consumer as completely concentrated, happy and very interested in playing the role of the brand consumer. This dimension may be associated with the cognitive and/or emotional dimensions. • Interaction refers to various forms of consumer participation in the activities of a company in both traditional and virtual environment. This dimension corresponds to the behavioural dimension. Of note, the researchers in their paper interpret these dimensions differently, for example, they claim that enthusiasm is the main indicator of consumer brand engagement (So et al. 2014, p. 308); the interaction is defined as a characteristic, and identification as a motivator. The scale measuring consumer brand engagement dimensions proposed by So et al. (2014) is provided in Table A.3 of Annex A. In summary of the conducted research on the dimensions of consumer engagement, a conclusion is drawn that consumer engagement is a multidimensional construct, and most often identified dimensions—cognitive, emotional and behavioural—serve as the basis for the development of the multidimensional research direction. On the other hand, understanding the research development ensures the possibility to identify the limitations of studies on consumer engagement in traditional and virtual environment as well as the choice of new research directions. In the context of ICT and socialisation development, due to growing consumer sociability and activity, companies need to make use of gamification as a means encouraging consumer engagement in activities of companies. In terms of both marketing theory and practice, gamification-based consumer engagement research problems become extremely relevant. Jūratė Banytė has Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management). She is a Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. Her research interests include consumer behavior, sustainable consumption, consumer engagement and value management. She has participated in different international and national research and study projects. Rita Kuvykaitė Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management and Administration), Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business in Kaunas University of Technology. She took part in different research projects. Her main fields of academic interests are brand management, international marketing decisions, consumer engagement and value creation. Asta Tarutė holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management) and is a researcher of Digitalization Research Group, Kaunas University of Technology. She took part in several national and international research projects. Research interests relate to e-Business, mobile applications influence on consumer behavior, consumer engagement, the digital transformation, IoT-based business model transformations.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development Rimantas Gatautis, Agnė Gadeikienė, and Elena Vitkauskaitė

1 Genesis and Development of the Concept of Gamification Games are defined as physical or mental activity that is based on certain rules and is pleasant to players (Merriam Websters Dictionary, n.d.). Games have been long used in various cultures for various purposes, such as entertainment, building relationship or training (McGonigal 2011). Games are undoubtedly important in modern society and make a significant impact on everyday life (Seaborn and Fels 2015). Based on the data provided by Entertainment Software Association (2019), 63% of players play games with other players, e.g. social games that unlike other games are characterised by unique attributes. According to Järvinen (2009), these features are closely related to the functional nature of online social networks causing mutual interactions between gamers and becoming part of digital culture (Simões et al. 2013). The growing popularity of social games has attracted the attention of practitioners and researchers who started doing research in order to both explain the popularity of social games and identify the possibilities of the use of games in the activities of companies. In this respect, a new field of research—gamification studies—has emerged (Seaborn and Fels 2015). Gamification is a new term that has appeared and come into use since 2010, although Meloni and Gruener (2012) claim that game elements have long been used in one way or another by companies. On the other hand, the scholars claim that only since 2010 research has started on how gamification could be used in activities unrelated to games and what impact this concept may have on the activities of companies. The popularity of gamification has been caused by several circumstances. The first reason is associated with the development of Web 2 technology. Solutions of

R. Gatautis · A. Gadeikienė (*) · E. Vitkauskaitė Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Gatautis et al. (eds.), Gamification and Consumer Engagement, Progress in IS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4_4

69

70

R. Gatautis et al.

information communication technologies like social networks Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and Foursquare are widely used in everyday activities of companies and consumers. Such possibilities allow interaction, entertainment and communication, which was impossible before the emergence of Web 2. Another important circumstance is the timely application of the idea. As it was already noted, the idea of gamification is not new; however, the mentioned possibilities of information communication technologies provide conditions to easily apply the gamification idea; therefore, gamification has become attractive for advanced companies. Another factor is the attention of such organisations as TED and Gartner on gamification. Reports by Priebatsch (2010) and McGoningal (2010) presented in TED conferences distinguished the applicability of games and their elements in contexts unrelated to games, even though the presenters themselves did not call the phenomenon gamification. The Gartner, a world-leading information technology research and advisory company, which annually announces the list of most perspective developing technologies, anticipated that at least one gamified solution would be employed by 80% of companies before 2014 (Growth Engineering 2014). These predictions and reports have attracted a great interest among practitioners and scholars. In order to reveal the specifics and uniqueness of the gamification phenomenon, researchers have tried to identify the borders between games and gamification. According to Groh (2012), in order to distinguish the place of the gamification concept in the context of game-related concepts, it is important to understand the difference between two poles related to gaming activities: playing and gaming. Caillois and Barash (2001) explain the difference claiming that playing (Greek paidia) characterises free, expressive, improvised behaviour and meanings; meanwhile, gaming (Latin ludus) is characterised by rule-governed gaming in order to achieve the aims set. Huizinga (2000) defines games as non-serious but intensively growing voluntary activities organised according to certain rules and having closed social limits. Avedon and Sutton-Smith (1971) claim that games refer to voluntary activities confined by rules and additionally requiring a conflict between equal forces and a disequilibrial final outcome. According to Crawford (1984), games have to symbolise part of the reality, and the interaction between a system and a consumer should be forecasted and create a conflict and safety by simulation. Game developers Salen and Zimmerman (2004) define the game as a system where players are involved into a fictitious conflict limited by certain rules causing a quantifiable outcome. Juul (2003) notes that all games have six basic attributes: rules, variability, quantifiable outcome, aggravated outcomes, player effort, player investment and negotiable consequences related to real-life consequences. Groh (2012), following Alfrink (2011), claims that gamification is exceptionally related to ludus and is not very much related to paidia. Deterding et al. (2011a) distinguish the concept of gamification (gameful design) from playful design in the dimension of play (Greek paidia) and game (Latin ludus) and serious games in the dimension of whole and parts. In both dimensions, gamification is separated from toys (see Fig. 1). The place of gamification in a broader context may be identified in the trends of the ludification of culture (see Fig. 2).

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

71

Gaming

Gameful design (Gamification)

(Serious) games

Whole

Parts

Playful design

Toys

Playing

Fig. 1 Gamification between play and game, whole and parts (Deterding et al. 2011a)

Using games Full-fledged games Health games Persuasive games Edugames

Newsgames Simulation & training games

Serious games Games with a purpose

Game technology

Gameful design (gamification)

Design games

Serious Pervasive Games LARPs

Game elements

Alternate Reality games

Game practices (Serious gaming)

Playful design

Pervasive Games Augmented Reality Games

Location-based games

Playful interaction

Extending games

Serious toys

Ludification of Culture Fig. 2 Place of gamification in the context of ludification of culture (adapted from Deterding et al. 2011a)

72

R. Gatautis et al.

Among the first scholars to conceptualise gamification, Deterding et al. (2011a, b) grounded their research on the works of practitioners, scholars and other researchers. In order to reveal the development of the concept of gamification, researchers identified the following interrelated concepts: • Concepts used by practitioners: funware (Azadegan and Riedel 2012) and funology. • Game attributes defined by Malone (1982): ludic qualities, inspired by video games and other playful scenarios. • The field of serious games that have grown in the past two decades. • A variety in alternative gamification terms including productivity games, surveillance entertainment, behavioural games, game layers and applied gaming. • Related concepts that are different from the gamification concept, e.g. McGonigal (2011) alternate reality games, games with a purpose and extended or augmented reality games; all these concepts are related to the use of real-world elements in digital games. Having assessed various concepts, their interrelations and inconsistencies, Deterding et al. (2011a) distinguished gamification as a separate concept (Fig. 2). The researchers claim that gamification refers to the use (not extension) of design (not game creation technology) elements (not full-fledged games) typical of games (not playfulness) in contexts not related to games (regardless of certain purposes of use, contexts and measures of realisation). Deterding et al. (2011a) indicate that gamification is associated with the use of gamefulness, gameful interaction and gameful design for specific purposes. In their opinion, gamefulness is revealed by experience, gameful interaction by objects, measures and contexts that create a gameful experience, and gameful design is associated with the practice of creating gameful experience. Although gamification may be applied in both serious and non-serious contexts, the essential condition of gamification requires that the gamified activity not become a full-fledged game. The researchers also note that it is difficult to determine the limit between a full-fledged game and gamified activities. Zichermann and Linder (2010) define gamification as a tool supplementing the initiatives of brand creation and development by employing game elements and mechanics. Zichermann and Linder (2010) pay special attention to their studies to the motivation to play games. They distinguish intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Later, Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) propose a game development process, game elements and mechanics. The game development process is related to determining the type of players that the gamified system will be created for, how excellence will be achieved in the game, onboarding methods (the process when new customers are familiarised with the system) and social involvement cycles. Nevertheless, game developers like Bogost (2011a) and Robertson (2010) criticise the idea of Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) that the identified game mechanics are essential and doubt whether these elements in fact contribute to the creation of gameful experience.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

73

Huotari and Hamari (2012) have developed research in the field of services. They have also proposed not to follow the approach of Deterding et al. (2011a) towards gamification as a non-full-fledged game. The researchers recommend concentrating on consumer experience regardless of the form that gamified activities or services acquired. Huotari and Hamari (2012) define gamification as playful experiencebased service-improving process in order to enhance value for consumers. In this case, the focus is on the creation of gamified experience rather than on game elements, as proposed by other researchers. Besides, it is acknowledged that this approach also loses some other usual game aspects, like its voluntary nature. Werbach and Hunter (2012) assess gamification as a business strategy tool. In their opinion, gamification is the application of gameful thinking in practice— creation of products, services and systems from the perspective of a game developer. Werbach and Hunter (2012) define gamification as the use of game elements and game creation techniques in game-unrelated contexts. Like Deterding et al. (2011a), Werbach and Hunter (2012) define game elements as parts of a game—dynamics, mechanics and components; however, they also notice that gamified activities are not necessarily similar to games. In their opinion, gamified activities are developed based on research into human psychology, in the same way as games. The researchers distinguish the following non-game contexts where gamification may be applied: internal (within business), external (clients and direct consumers) and change of behaviour. Other interpretations of the gamification concept used in scientific and practical literature are presented in Table 1. To summarise the above-mentioned interpretations of the concept of gamification, it may be stated that gamification refers to the use of game elements (game mechanics, dynamics and components) in everyday situations (Zichermann and Linder 2010) that are not directly related to games (Bunchball 2019) and are not Table 1 Interpretations of the concept of gamification Author Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Chorney (2012)

Huotari and Hamari (2012) Werbach (2014) Burke (2014)

Seaborn and Fels (2015)

Bunchball (2019)

Concept/approach towards gamification Use of game mechanics and elements in order to motivate consumers and encourage them to perform a certain action. The concept based on the use of game functions and elements in activities that are not related to games in order to make those activities more attractive and playful. Playful experience-based service-improving process oriented towards enhancement of value created for consumers. Gamification is a process when activities are made similar to games. Use of game mechanics and experience-based design in order to engage consumers in digital environment and motivate them to pursue their aims. Gamification is the involvement of the chosen game elements into an interactive system with no full-fledged game produced as an end product. Use of game mechanics in events or actions that are not directly related to games, thus changing behaviours.

74

R. Gatautis et al.

manifested in the gaming context (Deterding et al. 2011a). Gamification is used in order to create an engaging process that allows enhancing consumer perceived value. In the context of company activities, gamification is used as a means helping to involve consumers, enhance their engagement and encourage their participation (Bunchball 2019). Gamification is a relatively new phenomenon; therefore, gamification studies are fragmentary: scholars analyse various gamification aspects, and their studies are often based on practical experience rather than conceptual theoretical provisions. As noted by Seaborn and Fels (2015), 87% of studies on gamification are not based on scientific theories or concepts. Despite that, the following directions of research on gamification may be identified: • Studies seeking to explain the effect of factors encouraging game playing. Scholars pay their attention to consumer motivation as one of the essential reasons to play games. Massung et al. (2013) studied the importance of external motivation in gamified activities. Witt et al. (2011) and Thom et al. (2012) analysed the role of both the external and internal motivation. • Studies seeking to analyse the concept of gamification (process, elements, structure, etc.) (e.g. Huotari and Hamari 2012; Renaud and Wagoner 2011; Terlutter and Capella 2013). In many cases, one or a few game elements applied in gamification of activities are analysed. • Studies seeking to identify gamification results (e.g. Massung et al. 2013; McDaniel et al. 2012). These studies analyse the effect of gamified activities on consumer engagement, consumer participation and changes in consumer behaviour. On the basis of the conducted analysis, further gamification studies are oriented towards the research of the reasons for engagement in gamified activities, game elements and gamification results. In this respect, it is important to note that the monograph does not analyse various mutual interactions between gamification elements.

2 Associations Between the Concept of Gamification and Other Theories Practitioners and scholars use various theories to develop the concept of gamification. In conceptualising gamification, they usually refer to motivation theories, theory of behaviour change, self-determination theory, theory of technology acceptance and/or diffusion of innovations, flow theory, etc. In respect of the self-determination theory, they emphasise the importance of player typology. In the context of the theory of behaviour change, the importance of the Fogg Behavior Model proposed by Fogg (2003) is highlighted. Exceptional attention in the research on gamification is concentrated on the flow theory.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

75

Self-Determination Theory: Typology of Players In the scientific and practical literature, theories of motivation are applied to categorise players and distinguish player types. Kim (2012) claims that players with different characteristics prefer different types of fun. Games and engagement of players in games have long been an issue of interest for researchers who wanted to understand why certain games were popular among consumers, and others were not. In order to understand why players played games, Bartle (1996) analysed multi-user dungeon (MUD) games and identified four types of players: • Achievers are driven by the aims set in the game and the related content that is also grounded in the form of collecting points—points of experience, levels or money. • Explorers are mostly driven by possibilities to better understand the virtual construct where they operate. This understanding may be implemented both in the geographical context (mark on a map) or in the context of understanding game mechanics (analysis and understanding of separate interactions). • Socialisers use a virtual game construct in order to communicate and play certain roles together with their co-players. • Killers use games to cause pain to other players and get satisfied with the fact that they cause anxiety and pain to others. Of course, all this happens within virtual space. The typology of players proposed by Bartle (1996) has often been mentioned in the works of other researchers. This typology is based on two criteria: concentration towards action or interaction (as opposition) and concentration towards individualisation or the surrounding world (virtual world). In her research, Kim (2012) applied this model to identify motives that bring about the value desired by the consumer and actions that the consumer performs in achieving this desired value (Table 2). Marczewski (2013) and Chou (2013) analysed players in the context of gamification applied in companies and distinguished eight player types. These player types were identified according to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors; however, the player typology is based on the adapted criteria of action/interaction and user/system proposed by Bartle (1996). According to Chou (2013), users who tend to engage in gamified activities (play games) may be encouraged through enhancement of extrinsic motivation, in the same way as users who do not tend to engage in gamified activities should be encouraged through enhancement of their intrinsic motivation (see Table 3). As noted by various scholars (Kim 2012; Marczewski 2013; Chou 2013; Hamari and Tuunanen 2014), none of the proposed models fully explain user motivation; however, in the context of the gamification concept, these models are valuable in understanding what could motivate consumers to engage in gamified activities and what actions could encourage consumer engagement.

76

R. Gatautis et al.

Table 2 Typology of players Types according to motives Fight/ compete Collaborate

Explore

Create

Player perspective Players always like outscoring their friends, doing better or faster. Collaboration and activity in groups is an expedient activity, demonstrated by both social platform Facebook (‘like’ icon) and crowdfunding platform Kickstarter. The player’s wish to find out about new tools, new content, new people and new possibilities. Players enjoy exploring and are often motivated by the possibilities to get information, knowledge and access. Unlike in Bartle’s (1996) typology, the creator type of player is proposed instead of the killer type. Self-realisation and expression is an essential moment engaging users in social games and social technologies.

Social actions Win, compare, challenge, showoff, taunt Comment, share, help, like, greet, contribute

View, rate, vote, collect, curate

Design, build, express, purchase, decorate, choose, customise

Adapted from Kim (2012) Table 3 User types according to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation Motivation Extrinsic

User type Self-seeker (user/ action)

Consumer (system/ action) Networkers (user/ interaction) Exploiters (system/ interaction)

Intrinsic

Philanthropists (user/action) Achievers (system/ action) Socialisers (user/ interaction) Free spirits (system/interaction)

Adapted from Chou (2013)

Description Users who answer questions and help others but only for reward or points. They provide quality help only if this quality is rewarded. Social communication aspects are not valued. Users who use the system because the system gives them benefit (e.g. airlines loyalty cards). Users who pursue social relations in order to acquire a higher status (e.g. to get higher Klout scores). Users who intensively use gamified systems. They perform certain action to gain a reward, like self-seekers. Unlike free spirits who explore the limits of a gamified system for fun, it is likely that exploiters will find defects of a gamified system and exploit them. Users who answer questions in forums and edit the given information on websites. Users who make use of the system in order to acquire more knowledge. Users who wish to ideally realise tasks. Users who enjoy communicating with other users. Users who like using systems and who can express themselves through systems. They want to get from the system everything possible because they enjoy it.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

77

Flow Theory The flow theory was proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1975) who wanted to explain the state when artists, sportsmen and players immerse into an activity losing the sense of time, hunger and the need to rest. The first studies were conducted with respondents who engaged in activities requiring much effort on the acting person’s part but providing a small or no conventional reward. Such activities were called autotelic (from Greek auto referring to self and telos referring to purpose). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) claimed that autotelic experience could be interpreted as personal understanding of the flow state. The scholar identified eight reasons why users enjoyed autotelic experience. These reasons are related to intrinsic and extrinsic user motivation: • • • • • • •

Pleasure of using the skills and experience gained Definiteness of activity (structure, actions) Skill building Friendship and being together Competition and comparison of the self with others Emotional discharge Prestige, reward and efficiency

As noted by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), intrinsic motives are more important and provide greater satisfaction with the activities realised than actions motivated by extrinsic drives. There are five types of autotelic experiences gained by users: • • • • •

Friendship and relaxation Risk and possibility Problem-solving Competition Creation

The scholar claims that in many cases activities requiring problem-solving are innovative and challenging; they are accepted as activities that provide greater satisfaction than activities realised previously. In subsequent research studies, the scholar concentrated on playfulness and games where players were by default motivated by intrinsic factors such as the pleasure of doing some activity; he also studied the flow state in other contexts including the work environment when activity is motivated by extrinsic factors, such as reward or status. These studies revealed that the proposed flow state phenomenon operates in the same way in games and work contexts (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi 2002). The flow is defined as a state when people are so engaged in activities that everything else seems unimportant (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). The flow state is characterised by the pleasant experience that stimulates the immersion into the activity, is accompanied by the feeling of situation control and fosters learning, exploration and participation behaviour. In the flow state, an individual is immersed into the activity promoting the flow state; unrelated thoughts and stimuli remain

78

R. Gatautis et al.

ignored, and the sense of time is distorted. In order to arouse the flow state, a balance of skills and challenges should be created (Terlutter and Capella 2013). In summary of previous research on the flow, Hoffman and Novak (2009) identify one-dimensional and multidimensional approaches towards measuring the flow state. One-dimensional approach is employed by researchers who consider the flow state as a one-dimensional construct with additional constructs involving flow antecedents and outcomes. They use a set of one-dimensional measures combining related constructs into one measurement instrument. The application of the one-dimensional approach is simple in terms of research administration, especially if the method of self-reflection questionnaire survey is used. In case of a one-dimensional measurement, there is a greater chance that all respondents will understand instructions in the same way. However, following this approach, Hoffman and Novak (2009) claim that the borderline between antecedents and outcomes disappears, thus emerging as a problem of the definition of flow. According to the researchers, the latter problem is solved by the multidimensional approach to the measurement of the flow state where each dimension of flow is assessed separately and tested how reliably each of them describes the flow state. However, in this case, the data collection is more complicated. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) identified nine dimensions of the flow state: • Clear goals; clearly defined tasks to do • Unambiguous feedback • Adequate or higher balance of abilities and challenges; possibility to realise actions based on abilities • Merging actions and awareness; the disappearance of the difference between actions and the actor • Focused concentration; full concentration on the matters at hand • Sense of control; the feeling that you can control the situation and make decisions • Loss of self-consciousness; people and objects around forgotten • Distorted perception of time; loss of perception of time • Autotelic experience; activity interpreted as intrinsically rewarding According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990), the challenge that is adequate for player’s abilities is an essential moment why the user experiences the flow state. Despite that, the presence of challenges does not guarantee the emergence of the flow state. In this position, the balance between player’s abilities and difficulty of the challenge is extremely important. If a challenge is too easy or too difficult, the player feels bored or annoyed that his/her abilities are undervalued or that he/she cannot make use of them (i.e. it is too difficult to perform certain tasks). Sweetser and Wyeth’s (2005) conducted research confirms that players perceived abilities are very important and they should correspond to the tasks/challenges offered to the player. The abilitiestasks balance provides a possibility for the user to immerse into the flow state and persist there (Pilke 2004). This condition is valid in both brief games where players expect a fast outcome and complex games where players may have various goals and aims. Games should pose challenges corresponding to the level of player’s abilities

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

79

depending on the difficulty of the game, thus maintaining a proper tempo of the game getting more difficult (Mitchell and Savill-Smith 2004). According to various scholars and practitioners working on the issue of gamification, the flow state is one of the essential gamification constructs (Charles et al. 2011; Deterding 2014; Groh 2012; Herzig et al. 2012; McGonigal 2011; Werbach and Hunter 2012; Zichermann and Cunningham 2011). Schaffer (2013) who studied the flow state in the context of gamification identified seven conditions causing player immersion into the flow state: • • • • • • •

Awareness that challenges are complicated Awareness that good skills are needed Knowing what to do Knowing how to do Knowing how successful one is Knowing where to go (if navigation moments exist in a game) Freedom from distractions

These conditions indicated by Schaffer (2013) are closely related to the dimensions of the flow state distinguished by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). However, unlike the dimensions of the flow state separated by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), the conditions have not been sufficiently empirically grounded. In summary, it may be stated that the flow theory is significantly and positively related to the concept of gamification. Blohm and Leimeister (2013) claim that the gamification potential is based on the support and arousal of the flow state. Successful employment of game elements in activating intrinsic and extrinsic motives of participants in a gamified activity allows understanding control, autonomy and fun, which are the central antecedents of the flow state. The flow boosts continuous performance of gamified activities, enhances motivation of the participants and improves performance of activity. Although there is a scarcity of empirical studies associating gamification, flow state and user behaviour, Bittner and Shipper (2014) as well as Terlutter and Capella (2013) are among the first researchers to study gamification in advertising. Their results show that the flow state is positively associated with the intentions to purchase products if gamification has been used in their advertising. Theory of Behaviour Change: Fogg Behavior Model Fogg (2003) proposed a model of user behaviour known as Fogg Behavior Model, FBM). This model seeks to explain the reasons for forcing users to change their behaviour. In his model, Fogg (2003) distinguishes three factors that determine user behaviour: motivation, ability and trigger (see Fig. 3). Fogg (2003) claims that in order to achieve a change in user behaviour, all the three factors have to manifest simultaneously: • Motivation: users want desperately to perform an action (e.g. the user is extremely motivated). • Abilities: users can easily perform the desired action (they do not need to exert much effort; e.g. the user thinks that the action is very simple).

80

R. Gatautis et al.

Fig. 3 Fogg Behavior Model (Fogg 2007)

• Prompts: actions and behaviour are triggered by external stimuli (e.g. users are offered something, reminded, asked, encouraged, etc.). Wu (2011) used the Fogg Behavior Model to find out how gamification encourages users and how they change their behaviour in relation to gamification. Game mechanics and dynamics may positively affect human behaviour as they may encourage the user to perform a certain action directing the player outside the activation threshold (i.e. the user becomes active and performs certain actions) (Wu 2011). According to Wu (2011), gamification integrates all three factors and makes their interaction possible at the same time. In developing his ideas, Wu (2011) emphasises the aspect of gamification as an interactive process. Because of gamification, the user is constantly prompted to perform various actions by moving through various game cycles or stages. In the context of gamification, all three moments are important for companies: • Various factors encourage users to engage in gamified activities; therefore, combinations of different game elements reflect different motivation of users. • Game elements often serve as external triggers encouraging users to engage in gamified activities. • Although users may be experienced in playing games, engagement in gamified activities starts with simple actions. The Fogg Behavior Model is closely related to the concept of persuasion proposed by Cialdini (2009). This concept is related to user types and relevant psychological stimuli that may change behaviour. The theory maintains that different psychological stimuli need to be used in order to affect different users, which shows that different actions, stimuli, content and related solutions should be selected from the company’s perspective. In the context of gamification, this is of course associated with the interaction between game components, game mechanics and

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

81

game dynamics. This theory is based on six persuasion principles proposed by Cialdini (2009): • Reciprocity—people feel an obligation to pay back service for service. • Scarcity—when there is a lack of something, people tend to value it more. • Authority—when the legal authority demands something, people tend to follow and believe this request/instruction. • Consistency—people act in consistency with what they have previously said (maintain the consistency of previous behaviour). • Consensus/social proof—people act like all or the majority of other people. • Liking—people tend to agree or trust those that they like. In some research works, these principles are also known as the principles of social psychology (Marsden 2011). In the context of the gamification concept, these principles are associated with user motivation and consumer engagement in gamified activities.

3 Enabling Gamification Through Game Elements On the basis of the condition formulated above that gamification of activities is understood as the use of game elements (game mechanics, dynamics and components) in everyday situations that are not directly related to games and are expressed in contexts other than games, it is essential to analyse in-depth the theoretical aspects of game elements. The conducted theoretical research on gamification demonstrated that points, badges and leaderboards were usually studied by gamification researchers. These three elements are otherwise known as PBL. Many researchers (e.g. Werbach and Hunter 2012; Frith 2012; Thom et al. 2012) think that they substantially affect the user behaviour; however, gamification is not limited by the application of these three elements. Various scholars analyse a much broader list of game elements. Among the first researchers to structure game elements were Deterding et al. (2011a) who proposed a taxonomy of game design elements (see Table 4). Of note, this taxonomy has identified certain game design aspects along with descriptions of the levels and examples, but has not provided a detailed list of game elements or interrelated aspects. Deterding et al. (2011a) also indicate that game elements are hard to accurately define and their classification process is subjective. Consultancy companies providing gamification services suggest as an alternative gamification guidelines that identify game elements applied in gamification (Table 5). These guidelines are oriented towards practical aspects of gamification; they help to identify motives for playing games and relate them to game elements. Gamification guidelines proposed by practitioners are limited to fragmented identification of motives and game elements as well as their relationship (Chou 2015; Killian 2013) equally treating all the game elements. The proposed gamification canvas guidelines are also fragmented, and different level gamification

82

R. Gatautis et al.

Table 4 Taxonomy of game design elements (Deterding et al. 2011a) Level of game creation Game interface design elements Game design patterns and mechanics Game design principles and heuristics Game models

Game design methods

Description Common interface elements promoting interaction with the user applied as design solutions for a known problem in a non-game context Commonly reoccurring parts of game design related to the plot and process

Example Badge, leaderboard, level

Evaluative guidelines to solve a design problem or analyse a particular game design solution Conceptual models of game components or game experience

Enduring play, clear goals, variety of game styles

Practices and processes typical of game design

Time constraint, limited resources, turns

Mechanics-dynamics-aesthetics (MDA); challenge, fantasy, curiosity; game design atoms; core elements of gaming experience (CEGE) Play testing, play centric design, value conscious game design

elements (e.g. costs and revenues, game dynamics and game mechanics, player behaviour) are abstract. Since guidelines proposed by practitioners are typically fragmented, academic researchers (Mora et al. 2015) criticise them for the lack of definiteness, consistency and integrity. More and more scholars have been grounding their studies on the game element pyramid proposed by Werbach and Hunter (2012), which consists of game components, game mechanics and game dynamics (e.g. Aparicio et al. 2012; Huotari and Hamari 2012; Rouse 2013). The interaction of elements in these categories comprises the concept of gamification. By integration and use of these elements, companies may gamify their activities. On the other hand, it is important to note that game elements do not make the product or the service a real game, but only an activity where the gamification concept is used (Zichermann and Linder 2010). Although views of various researchers differ, many agree with the categories of game elements proposed by Werbach and Hunter (2012). This theory clearly organises game elements. However, it is also often criticised for abstract, unclear differences between game components and mechanics, and indefinite game dynamics. So far, there is no uniform approach separating game mechanics and game components, thus forcing researchers to confuse these concepts. Because of fragmented research and lack of a uniform approach in analysis of game elements applied for gamification of activities in companies, the theoretical analysis of game elements in the monograph is based on the widely used gamification pyramid approach proposed by Werbach and Hunter (2012). Game Components Werbach and Hunter (2012) claim that game components may be referred to as methods to engage consumers employed in the context of gamification. Game

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

83

Table 5 Guidelines for employing gamification proposed by practitioners Author Chou (2015)

Description of gamification guidelines Octalysis The guidelines emphasise that gamification starts with the motives to play games rather than with game elements; they identify eight core drives. In gamification, the guidelines also suggest taking into consideration separate game stages and player types. Game elements are related to certain core drives to play games.

Killian (2013)

Gamification 2.0 The guidelines describe in detail eight primary determinants and secondary related components to play games. For each determinant, related game elements, assessment indicators, measurement scales and technological decisions are identified. Unlike in the guidelines by Chou (2015), here the same game element may be associated with several determinants.

Jiménez (2013)

Gamification Canvas The guidelines follow the concept of the business model canvas proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010). Nine gamification elements are identified. Some gamification elements are based on the MDA model proposed by Hunicke et al. (2004). The guidelines focus on gamification elements but provide only examples of game elements.

Essential features of gamification guidelines Core drives to play games: • Epic meaning • Empowerment • Social influence • Unpredictability • Avoidance • Scarcity • Possession • Achievement Essential primary determinants to play games: • Positive: o Curiosity o Joy o Pride o Hate • Negative: o Effort o Fear Core gamification elements: • Game dynamics • Players • Game aesthetics • Player behaviour • Game platform • Game mechanics • Game components • Costs • Revenues

components make the gamified activity interesting, fun-to-play and motivating players to engage. According to the researchers, these components force consumers to perform actions that a company seeks to bring about. Game components most frequently distinguished by various authors are presented in Table 6. Aspects of components usually applied in gamified activities: • Points are among the most common game components used in gamification. Points are often employed in order to motivate consumers who enjoy collecting or competing. Collected points may be used to purchase products, unlock the hidden content or acquire a certain status. Points may be given to users when they perform certain actions or tasks. These actions may have different attributes; therefore, a different number of points should be given for different actions. • Badges. Visual representation of player achievement shows that a player has achieved a certain status or rank. Badges also boost competition for higher/better

84

R. Gatautis et al.

Table 6 Game components Component Achievements

Avatars

Description Achievements refer to virtual or physical demonstration of actions or tasks realised by the user. Achievements may be easy, complicated, funny, etc. They are achieved individually or in a group with other users. Achievements are used to give a chance for a user to indirectly boast of or create intrigue or a challenge in gamified activities. Virtual user/player representation.

Badges

Visual reflection of certain tasks realised (achievements).

Fight against stronger (boss)

Typically, at the end of a game level or a particular game series, extremely complex challenges occur that have an impact on the player’s chances to move to a higher level. Players have a possibility to collect a set of awards or badges. A game component that is by fighting associated with a series of certain actions in order to defeat the opponent. A series of certain actions that a player needs to perform in order to use new possibilities. Socialisation-promoting game components also giving a possibility for users to share game resources with other players. Visual reflection of a player’s progress and achievement in comparison with other players.

Collections Fights, battles

Unlocking (content) Gifts

Leaders/ leaderboards

Authors focusing on components Foster et al. (2012); Goehle (2013); Jiménez (2013); Liu et al. (2011); Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Berengueres et al. (2013); Chou (2015); Downes-Le Guin et al. (2012); Jiménez (2013); Liu et al. (2011); Rose et al. (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012) Bagley (2012); Bista et al. (2012a, b); Bunchball (2019); Chou (2015); Cramer et al. (2011); Denny (2013); Depura and Garg (2012); Domínguez et al. (2013); Frith (2012); Jiménez (2013); Liu et al. (2011); Mason et al. (2012); Massung et al. (2013); McDaniel et al. (2012); Passos et al. (2011); Thom et al. (2012); Werbach and Hunter (2012); Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Chou (2015); Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Chou (2015); Werbach and Hunter (2012) Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Bunchball (2019); Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Bunchball (2019); Chou (2015); Depura and Garg (2012); Domínguez et al. (2013); Fitz-Walter et al. (2012); Frith (2012); Gnauk et al. (2012); Jiménez (2013); Liu et al. (2011); Massung et al. (2013); McDaniel et al. (2012); Rapp et al. (2012); Thom et al. (continued)

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

85

Table 6 (continued) Component

Description

Levels

Levels refer to a system or a certain hierarchy that demonstrates a higher user’s position or ability. Levels are associated with the game environment that gradually becomes more difficult.

Score

The score is an indicator (often in points) reflecting the progress in the game.

Quest

Challenges anticipated in advance. If a player fights off the challenge, he/she is rewarded. Status shows the player’s rank or level. Players are often motivated to achieve this.

Social status

Teams

Virtual products Feedback

Reward

Players can perform certain tasks in a group. This could be used as a component showing the status of a player and a motivating component in realising certain actions (in order to join the group). Game resources that the user may purchase/sell with virtual (game) or real money. Information to players about how they are doing. Benefit for a certain action performed or achievement.

Authors focusing on components (2012); Werbach and Hunter (2012); Witt et al. (2011); Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Bunchball (2019); Chou (2015); Domínguez et al. (2013); Downes-Le Guin et al. (2012); Fernandes et al. (2012); Hori et al. (2013); Jiménez (2013); Li et al. (2012); Werbach and Hunter (2012); Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Bagley (2012); Bista et al. (2012a, b); Bunchball (2019); Cafazzo et al. (2012); Chou (2015); Cramer et al. (2011); Fernandes et al. (2012); Frith (2012); Gåsland (2011); Gnauk et al. (2012); Goehle (2013); Jiménez (2013); Li et al. (2012); Liu et al. (2011); Mason et al. (2012); Massung et al. (2013); Rapp et al. (2012); Rose et al. (2013); Thom et al. (2012); Werbach and Hunter (2012); Witt et al. (2011); Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Chou (2015); Jiménez (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012); Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Bagley (2012); Chou (2015); Cramer et al. (2011); Frith (2012); Liu et al. (2011); Stinson et al. (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012) Chou (2015); Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Bunchball (2019); Chou (2015); Jiménez (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012) Chou (2015); Werbach and Hunter (2012); Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Cafazzo et al. (2012); Chou (2015); Depura and Garg (2012); Downes-Le Guin et al. (2012); Fitz-Walter et al. (2012); Goehle (2013); Li et al. (2012); Liu et al. (2011); Musthag et al. (2011); Rapp et al. (2012); Snyder and Hartig (2013); Stinson et al. (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012)

86

R. Gatautis et al.

status of users. The systems of badges are typically exceptionally flexible. Badges may be given to players for various actions and achievements. A variety of badges can be limited only by the imagination of gamified activity developers. • Leaderboards. Leaderboards boost the pursuit of fame when the names of players are visible and may be remembered by other players, thus promoting competition among them. Announcement of leaderboards may occur in different ways, e.g. on the title page, an online diary may announce the names of most popular players or those who write the biggest number of messages over a certain period of time. The goal of such announcements is like in usual games: to make the most successful users known. Wu (2011) claims that the interaction between game and players may also be called a game component to make the game or activity directly unrelated to games more interesting, funny and engaging. The aim of game components is to direct the desired consumer behaviour towards what the company wants and to satisfy consumer needs. Game components are closely related to game mechanics and dynamics, in detail described below. Game Mechanics Various practical and research sources often use the term game mechanics. However, the term may refer to different objects. Game mechanics may be associated with all the game elements in general (e.g. Bunchball 2019; Burke 2014; Chou 2015), also referring to game components, but separately excluding game dynamics (e.g. Thiebes et al. 2014). Following Werbach and Hunter (2012), game mechanics refer to a category of game elements that encourage users to explore and find out their own possibilities through feedback. Game mechanics are often expressed as a certain reward system involving points, award badges, levels, virtual products, etc. Game mechanics may be very simple and predictable, but it is imperative that game mechanics affect the user along the desired direction and the user should perform the actions expected by the company. Various game mechanics exist, but companies developing games constantly improve game mechanics and design new ones. According to Kim (2009), game mechanics refer to a set of tools and systems that a game developer may use in order to enhance the player experience and make it more interesting, funny and engaging. The scholar claims that social exchange, collection and pursuit of certain achievements is a good example of game mechanics. Researchers distinguish similar game mechanics in their works, although sometimes different terms are used (see Table 7). Werbach and Hunter (2012) identify ten different game mechanics; meanwhile, Blohm and Leimeister (2013) identify seven game mechanics although they call these game dynamics. Table 7 also shows sources that mention specific game elements although the author or the authors have attributed the element to another category or have not categorised game elements.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

87

Table 7 Game mechanics Mechanics Challenges

Description Puzzles or other tasks requiring efforts.

Chance

Introduction of the element of randomness into gamified activities. A chance for a player or a group of players to win when others lose. Players need to work together to achieve a common goal. Acquisition of useful or collectible resources in a game.

Competition

Cooperation Acquisition of resources/ collection Transactions

Turns Win state

Status acquisition Exploration Improvement

Trading between players whether directly or through intermediaries. Sequential participation of players in a game. Conditions that make a player or a group of players the winner. Conditions that allow a player to acquire higher status. Possibilities to explore the game world or the game. Conditions that allow players to acquire new knowledge or skills.

Authors Bunchball (2019); Blohm and Leimeister (2013); Domínguez et al. (2013); FitzWalter et al. (2012); Li et al. (2012); Rapp et al. (2012); Rose et al. (2013); Stinson et al. (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012); Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Blohm and Leimeister (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012) Blohm and Leimeister (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012) Blohm and Leimeister (2013); Werbach and Hunter (2012) Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Werbach and Hunter (2012) Werbach and Hunter (2012)

Blohm and Leimeister (2013); Jiménez (2013) Blohm and Leimeister (2013); Chou (2015); Jiménez (2013) Blohm and Leimeister (2013); Chou (2015); Jiménez (2013)

Most often used associations of game mechanics and specific game components are presented below: • Acquisition of resources/collection occurs when points or badges/achievements are used. Users may exchange the collected points into relevant game resources or real items. Collecting badges motivate users to perform various actions to obtain those badges. • Competition. Players compete between each other collecting points or badges in order to get a higher place in leaderboards. The variety of game mechanics is limited and is not sufficient to attract any user. Users are different and they are differently motivated. Some game mechanics solutions have an enormous influence on a certain group of users; however, they may not be appropriate for another group of users and may fail engaging them. Besides, users get bored by routine and performance of the same actions. In such a

88

R. Gatautis et al.

case, game dynamics work, reflecting the needs of players, motivating them to reach further goals and enhancing user emotions. Hence, game mechanics are employed in order to enhance experience of players and make it more interesting, funny and engaging. However, it is also important to know how to use game mechanics along with game components in order to involve users and get the desired result in gamifying activities. Game Dynamics Werbach and Hunter (2012) claim that game dynamics are a great picture causing a scenario of certain activity where game elements are employed. In their opinion, at the highest moment of satisfaction when a certain level or outcome is achieved, game dynamics are used in order to enhance feelings and emotions experienced by a user. The researchers claim that the most important game dynamics are the following: • • • • •

Constraints (certain limitations or forced retreat) Emotions (curiosity, competitiveness, disappointment, happiness) Narrative (consistent, continuous, uninterrupted story-telling) Progression (the player’s growth and improvement) Relationships (social interactions generating feelings of friendship, status, altruism)

Werbach and Hunter (2012) claim that game dynamics are among the central game elements that need to be given the biggest attention in order to achieve an aim; however, dynamics should never be integrated into a gamified activity so that they become easily understood by a player. Game dynamics that are easily understood cause brief engagement in gamified activities. In summary, it may be claimed that game dynamics are used at the highest point of satisfaction where certain decisions have to be made; otherwise, the attention of players may be lost because of boring actions to be performed or boring participation. Game dynamics help to enhance the emotions of players and to engage users in gamified activities. Various approaches are explained in research studies on game elements; however, the majority of researchers ground their research on the concept of gamification pyramid proposed by Werbach and Hunter (2012). In the context of this theory, gamification is based on game elements and their interactions. By combining and using these elements, various activities of companies may be gamified. On the other hand, it is also important to note that game mechanics, like game dynamics and components, do not make a company’s activity the game; they involve activities where the concept of gamification is used to direct customer behaviour towards what a company wants.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

89

4 Identification of Motives to Play Games The condition for the application of gamification in company activities is the disposition of a consumer to play games (Werbach and Hunter 2012); therefore, various scholars who study gamification also analyse motivation to play. Different theories of motivations are employed in the scientific literature in explaining consumer behaviour in different contexts (Koo et al. 2007). Scholars analysing motivation theories indicate that motivation is a powerful factor inspiring people to achieve their goals (Lin et al. 2012). Ryan and Deci (2000) define motivation as a stimulus to do something. According to Roberts et al. (2014), motivation may be considered as the antecedent of a certain involving behaviour. Ryan and Deci (2000) claim that a person who does not feel a stimulus or zest to do something is not motivated, and the one who is excited and actively works towards a certain result is regarded as motivated. Lafreniere et al. (2012) indicate that an individual’s motivation is a multidimensional construct. Motivation may differ both by the level (how much a person is motivated) and orientation (i.e. a motivation type) (Ryan and Deci 2000). Following the self-determination theory, Ryan and Deci (2000), Kong et al. (2012) and Lin et al. (2012) distinguish two types of motivation according to the causes and the goals of a certain action: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Such classification, according to Hainey et al. (2011), is the most common. Lafreniere et al. (2012) and Bittner and Shipper (2014) identify the third type of motivation— amotivation. Koo et al. (2007) discuss the relevance of studying social motivation. On the basis of the analysis of the latter and intrinsic motivation, the scholars single out a separate combined type of motivation, i.e. experiential motivation. This decision is grounded on the fact that digital games, especially online games, give a lot of possibilities for players to socialise. Koo et al. (2007) allege that intrinsic and social motivations are core and inspire players to play games. Table 8 generalises the types and characteristics of motivation analysed in various research studies. Intrinsic motivation is considered by various researchers as a powerful motivating factor inspiring the user to behave in one way or another (Lin et al. 2012). Personal intrinsic motivation to play games manifests because of the desired individual satisfaction (Bittner and Shipper 2014), pleasure, curiosity or interest (Ryan and Deci 2000; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015) rather than extrinsic tension, instigation or certain awards (Lin et al. 2012). In such a case, the activity itself becomes an award (Ryan and Deci 2000), and individuals get engaged in such an activity because of personal hedonistic value (Roberts et al. 2014). Intrinsically motivated players play digital games because they feel pleasure when they immerse into the game world and develop their skills to play games or enjoy the excitement and strong emotions provided by the game (Hainey et al. 2011; Lafreniere et al. 2012). Following Malone and Lepper (1987), Hainey et al. (2011) distinguish four individual factors describing a person’s intrinsic motivation to play digital games: challenge, fantasy, curiosity and control as well as three interpersonal factors:

90

R. Gatautis et al.

Table 8 Overview of research works on motivation to play games Authors Hsu and Lu (2004) Koo et al. (2007)

Chang and Chin (2011) Hainey et al. (2011) Kong et al. (2012)

Intrinsic motivation Perceived pleasure Convenience, complexity, perceived utility, outcome expectations, relative advantage Perceived pleasure

Challenge, fantasy, curiosity, control, cooperation, competition, recognition General satisfaction, communication

Lafreniere et al. (2012)

Pleasure of discovery, development of skills, excitement, strong emotions

Lin et al. (2012)

Pleasure of performance, joy, personal value Striving to perform for personal satisfaction

Bittner and Shipper (2014) Gunnell and Gaudreau (2015)

Involvement, pleasure

Extrinsic motivation Usefulness, ease of use Joy, pleasure, flow

Experiential motivation

Amotivation

Concentration, perceived enjoyment, escape, epistemic curiosity, social affiliation

Perceived usefulness, ease of use Rewards (money, praise, recognition)

Level of avatar, points of experience, search, guns, reward for winning Obtaining rare guns, tools, etc., virtual money, points of experience, enjoyment or recognition among other players Rewards (money, points, prizes), pressure (threat, penalty) Striving to perform for expected outcomes (e.g. reward, pressure) Pressure, surprise, guilt, behaviour assessment, behaviour as part of personality

Lack of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (absence)

Attitude that a certain action is not worth effort Attitude that the game will not provide the desired outcome

cooperation, competition and recognition. Detailed characteristics of these factors are presented in Table 9. According to Hainey et al. (2011), these factors define a good game regardless of its purposes. Reiss (2004) demonstrates quite a different view towards intrinsic motivation. The scholar distinguishes 16 main factors motivating to perform specific actions: • Acceptance. The need to be appreciated. • Curiosity. The need to learn. • Eating. The need for food.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

91

Table 9 Types and factors of intrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation types Personal motivation

Intrinsic motivation factors Challenge

Fantasy Curiosity Control Interpersonal motivation

Cooperation Competition Recognition

Description An appropriate level of difficulty and challenge, multiple aims for winning, constant feedback and sufficient level of randomness. An appropriate level of immersion by assuming a particular role and dealing with related responsibilities. Sensory stimulation to ensure continuous participation. The ability to choose and observe the consequences of the choices made. Helping others to achieve common goals. Comparison of individual performance and that of other players. Satisfaction when achievements are recognised.

Adapted from Hainey et al. (2011)

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Family. The need to raise children. Honour. The need to be loyal to traditional ideas and morale of an ethnic group. Idealism. The need to have social justice. Independence. The need to be distinct. Order. The need to have an organised and stable environment. Physical activity. The need to train the body and be physically active. Power. The need to have influence (including leadership and management). Romance. The need to be loved. Saving. The need to collect and accumulate. Social contact. The need to have friends. Social status. The need to be significant in a group. Tranquillity. The need to be safe. Vengeance. The need to strike back and win.

Extrinsic motivation to play games is related to tangible outcomes of a game or any other activity (Lafreniere et al. 2012; Lin et al. 2012; Bittner and Shipper 2014), including reward (money, incentive, praise, prizes), tension (threat, penalty) or recognition of other individuals and/or players (Hainey et al. 2011). Extrinsic motivation does not come from within; it involves external factors that encourage to behave in one way or another (Lin et al. 2012). It is in contrast to intrinsic motivation, depends on the level of autonomy (Ryan and Deci 2000) and inspires a person to pursue utilitarian value (Roberts et al. 2014), rather than fun or pleasure (Lin et al. 2012). Ryan and Deci (2000), Lafreniere et al. (2012) and Gunnell and Gaudreau (2015) distinguish four types of extrinsic motivation:

92

R. Gatautis et al.

• External regulation is related to behaviour which is regulated through specific external measures, e.g. awards (Ryan and Deci 2000; Lafreniere et al. 2012; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015). • Introjective regulation is related to regulation of behaviour through internal individual processes, e.g. excitement, guilt or pride (Ryan and Deci 2000; Lafreniere et al. 2012; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015); therefore, it reflects partial internalisation. Lafreniere et al. (2012) illustrate introjective regulation by giving an example of a situation when a player plays because otherwise he/she would feel tired and annoyed. • Identified regulation refers to certain behaviour because of its perceived significance or interactions with individual goals even if the behaviour itself is not pleasant (Ryan and Deci 2000; Lafreniere et al. 2012; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015). For example, according to Lafreniere et al. (2012), one of the reasons why players play being motivated by this type of regulation is the wish to maintain/ develop relationship with friends. • Integrated regulation is also related to behaviour that is not motivated by internal needs. In this case, regulation becomes part of a person’s routine functioning and self-perception or self-testing (Ryan and Deci 2000; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015). Players motivated by this type of regulation play games because of other goals in life, e.g. they want to become game designers (Lafreniere et al. 2012). Amotivation manifests when a person struggles to engage in certain behaviour (in the case under analysis—game playing) (Bittner and Shipper 2014; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015). Following the insights of Ryan and Deci (2000), amotivation in the context of gamification may emerge if a person underrates game elements applied in gamified activities, feels incompetent to perform tasks or does not expect to achieve a desired result. Experiential motivation to play games, as already noted above, is based on the fact that extrinsic motivation is not so crucial in the context of video and especially digital games, and should, according to Koo et al. (2007), not receive as much attention. Intrinsic motivation and social motivation manifesting when there is social interaction between players are essential in order to engage consumers in games. Koo et al. (2007) separate the following types of experiential motivation: • Concentration—the level of engagement in a game when there is a loss of the sense of time and consciousness and when a person feels isolated from environmental signals. • Perceived enjoyment—the level of enjoyment, excitement, fun and happiness because of engagement in a game. • Escape—awareness that a game may reduce boredom and help escape the routine. • Epistemic curiosity—awareness that a game is a way to learn and experience something in a new field. • Social affiliation—awareness that a game is attractive because of communication and socialisation with other players.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

93

When the first digital games appeared, researchers started devoting their attention to studies explaining why people play games. Empirical research shows that one of the core factors determining the user’s wish to play games is fun (Lazarro 2004; Ferrera 2012; Radoff 2011). As noted by Lazarro (2004), fun is considered to be a factor of intrinsic motivation since people play games not because of fun, but because of experience they get while playing—flush of adrenaline, adventures or mental challenges. All these experiences may be related to different types of fun. The research conducted by Lazarro (2004) allows identifying four different types of fun: • Hard fun is related to overcoming challenges and obstacles and achieving the goals. Players have possibilities to test their skills. This type of fun is related to the choice of a strategy and problem-solving. • Easy fun is related to the experience of enjoying the win. Players who wish to feel it are driven by curiosity. They seek to experience the feelings of fear, surprise and mystery. • People fun is related to socialising and team play possibilities. Pleasure comes through interactions with other players. • Serious fun is related to activities that provide benefit for the society, the community, the family or the individual. This type of fun occurs when a player feels having done something meaningful. An alternative approach was proposed by Hunicke et al. (2004) who identified eight types of fun: sensation (game as sense pleasure), fantasy (game as the source of fantasy), narrative (game-like drama), challenge (game as a track of obstacles), fellowship (game as a social system), discovery (game as unexplored territory), expression (game as the source of self-discovery) and submission (game as entertainment). Despite the fact that empirical research confirms the significance of fun as one of the most crucial motives to play games, the research into fun has not been sufficiently developed in the context of gamification or games. Following Gunnell and Gaudreau (2015), it may be stated that an individual may have general motivation to engage in a particular activity characterised as consolidating all types of motivation, i.e. all the types of motivation working simultaneously engage an individual in a certain activity. Although in general game developers first of all consider player motivation and related game elements (Prensky 2002), Bittner and Shipper (2014) discuss that in creation of games a lot of attention is devoted to tangible game outcomes boosting extrinsic user motivation to play a game; however, there is insufficient attention to game elements boosting intrinsic motivation. A similar approach is maintained by Chorney (2012) who claims that in gamifying activities there is a lot of attention on game mechanics although activities themselves that are to be gamified are more important. Von Ahn and Dabbish (2008) and Bunchball (2019) assert that extrinsic motivating factors may have a negative impact and cause a certain conflict when they are the core motivating factors in gamifying activities; therefore, adequate attention should be given to solutions that incite intrinsic motivation and that would bring users joy, recognition or the social status as well as satisfy their inner needs. Bittner

94

R. Gatautis et al.

Fig. 4 Interaction of basic human desires (user motives) and game mechanics (Bunchball 2019)

and Shipper (2014) believe that both types of motivation are vital and relevant in studying gamification. Companies applying gamification have a goal to enhance the impact of motivation and thus achieve consumer engagement in gamified activities. Respective game elements are related to certain motives for inspiring users to play games. The example (Fig. 4) provided by Bunchball (2019) shows how motivating factors may be strengthened or enhanced through game mechanics. Despite the variety of approaches, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, although not equal, are considered to be the main types of motivation causing consumer engagement in gamified activities. Deterding (2011) and McGonigal (2011) agree that intrinsic motivating factors are more important and have a greater impact on consumer behaviour than extrinsic factors. The researchers assert that in gamification where status or reward are used as extrinsic motivating factors, the game should bring about pleasant feelings and satisfy the internal motivating needs of the user. Ariely (2008) alleges that movement from extrinsic motivating factors, such as money, points or other material gifts, towards intrinsic motivating factors is an important step showing movement from market relations to closer social relations with customers. The aim of gamification is to employ both intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors, thus enhancing the general customer motivation and engagement in the actions to be performed. Intrinsic motivating factors emerge from the inside and allow the consumer to decide whether these actions make influence or not. Extrinsic motivating factors are activated when something inspires the consumer to perform an action because of directly unrelated external attributes, e.g. upgrade to a higher level, points, achievement badges, awards, performed missions or ranking (Von Ahn and Dabbish 2008). The analysis of studies on motivation to play games or engage in gamified activities revealed that in gamification it is important to take into consideration

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

95

both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Solutions gamifying activities should not be based only on extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation has a much greater impact on consumer engagement in gamified activities, especially in the long run.

5 Criticism on the Concept of Gamification Gamification is a relatively new phenomenon, but its popularity has been increasing and, thus, has received some criticism, which is rather broad—from the negative impact that gamification may have on consumers to the groundless and indefinite nature of the concept itself. Gamification has been intensively criticised by scholars and game developers who are familiar with the dominating ‘inventory’ approach to gamification, i.e. pointsification, or gamification that is exclusively based on points, badges and leaderboards (e.g. Bogost 2011a; Kapp 2012; Lawley 2012; Robertson 2010). Game developer Margaret Robertson declares that such an approach should be grounded on the condition to select a means which is the least significant for games and present it as a basis of gamification (Robertson 2010). Robertson (2010) claims that gamification is undoubtedly a drawback misleading people and forcing them to believe that there is a simple way to relate their needs through a game with psychological, emotional and social power that should be typical of an excellent game. In fact, Robertson (2010) criticises the gamification concept itself saying that gamification is not a proper word for a good idea. According to Robertson (2010), the term to be used should be pointsification. The term that is currently used is wrong and misleading and should be related to the entire process. Chang (2012) claims that gamification in its broad sense refers to a techno-utopian fantasy with complicated past prioritising virtuality and cannot meet modern requirements. Ian Bogost who has researched games is a fierce critic of gamification. Bogost (2011b) asserts that gamification is exploitionware—distortion and simplification of games created by marketing managers and executives to get easy revenue. In another publication, Bogost (2011a) criticises the gamification term as too vague, which creates conditions to devalue games and make their creation primitive. He essentially disagrees with Zichermann (one of the fathers of the gamification concept) whom he calls the gamification’s Dark Lord, especially because of his conceptualisation of game mechanics (Bogost 2011a). Bogost’s (2011a, b) criticism is not limited to separate authors or representatives of the industry; he also criticises the concept of gamification in the broad sense. When Bogost claims that gamification suggests changing the real world with unreal (Bogost 2011a), he seems to be drawing attention to gamification oriented towards extrinsic motivation (reward) ignoring the approach towards gamification based on intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, in contrast to what Bogost (2011b) claims, gamification is not an exceptional feature of one business function or branch of industry. As demonstrated by Seaborn and Fels (2015), the gamification concept is used, discussed and researched not only in the field of marketing but in various other sectors and fields as well.

96

R. Gatautis et al.

Game designer Haque (2010) proposes that gamification, if used too intensively, works as a ‘zero-sum game’, i.e. in order to win, consumers also have to lose. Haque (2010) provides an example of many websites that simply offer a limited amount of badges, prizes or other game elements to the first consumers who realise certain actions. However, because of such actions, other consumers are treated unfairly and they do not have a chance to use gamification possibilities. Haque (2010) asserts that companies employ gamification to attract first consumers, and other consumers only try to repeat the actions of the first consumers. A similar position is maintained by Anderson (2011) who claims that gamification is employed to confuse extrinsic motivation with intrinsic motivation in order to achieve the popularity of gamification; hence, companies only provide feedback to consumers rather than meaningful gamification of activities. Anderson (2011) maintains that a successful product or service with more than just an entertaining goal should be more than pleasure/entertainment and most importantly should be useful. Companies tend to employ gamification to achieve their goals rather than to create additional value for consumers. Bouça (2012) generalises the criticism of gamification saying that often gamification is criticised because it is grounded on extrinsic motivation when in fact intrinsic motivation has the greatest impact on engagement in gamified activities. Gamification is also criticised because it does not involve game design. Finally, some scholars also criticise gamification as new packaging of old sales, e.g. loyalty programmes. Some other researchers approach gamification as a much broader phenomenon than assigned by gamification advocates (Bouça 2012). Contradicting to this criticism, Bouça (2012) supports the concept of ludification of culture (proposed by Deterding et al. 2011a) as encompassing a broader phenomenon with gamification being only part of it. It must be acknowledged that gamification is still in its early stages; therefore, this era of gamification is considered by critics shallow and artificial, closely related to the development of the internet and called Gamification 1.0 (Kuo 2013). According to Kuo (2013), this era only simulates games and does not in fact create processes to engage consumers. Critics of the gamification concept often raise questions whether gamification is in itself a good phenomenon; what happens when gamification is employed to engage consumers in situations that do not completely satisfy consumer needs; can gamification be employed for unethical purposes. All these questions are extremely relevant and it has to be acknowledged that because the phenomenon of gamification is in its early stage, it may be associated with poorly performed attempts, which may lead to some superficial conclusions about the application of gamification. As noted by Werbach and Hunter (2012), if the goal of gamification is in principle to deceive so that people feel better in certain situations, even though they will not benefit, this causes a lot of problems in respect of both ethics and long-term efficiency. However, an important question the answer to which is being searched for by both researchers and practitioners is undoubtedly what gamification aspects in fact meaningfully enhance consumer experience.

Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development

97

Rimantas Gatautis (1974–2018) was a Principal Investigator leading Digitalization Research Group at Kaunas University of Technology. He had wide-ranging experience of implementing international research projects. His latest research focused on IST influence on enterprise transformation in the transition economies, e-business models, socio-economic aspects of IST adoption, and gamification. Agnė Gadeikienė, Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management), Associate Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She works in different international and national programs research projects. Her research interests are related to consumer behavior, sustainable consumption, business models, big data-based marketing decisions modelling. Elena Vitkauskaitė is a Researcher of Digitalization Research Group and a Lecturer of Digital Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She works in research projects related to e-Business, e-Government. Research interests relate to cross-cultural issues on the web, social network sites, gamification, and digital transformation.

The Conceptual Model of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation Rimantas Gatautis, Jūratė Banytė, Rita Kuvykaitė, Regina Virvilaitė, Aistė Dovalienė, Žaneta Piligrimienė, Agnė Gadeikienė, Elena Vitkauskaitė, and Asta Tarutė

In the monograph, gamification is considered as the use of game elements in everyday situations that are not directly related to games and manifest in gameunrelated contexts. In other words, gamification is an expedient activity of a company to achieve its goals through the use of game elements. As noted by Burke (2014), one of the major goals of gamification is to change consumer behaviour. Koivisto and Hamari (2014) maintain the view that the use of gamification should be oriented towards psychological and behavioural changes. The latest research works on gamification employ the approach towards gamification as behaviour change. According to advocates of this approach (Hamari et al. 2014), the use of motivational affordances leads to a psychological outcome that changes consumer behaviour. This approach was proposed by Zhang (2008) who attempted to explain why consumers used ICT-based systems and how they should be created for consumers to use them. As already noted in Sect. 1 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”, gamification is based on ICT solutions; thus, gamification of company’s activities is associated with the development and use of a specific ICT system, which allows making an assumption that the discussed approach may be employed in the context of gamification research. On the grounds of the approach of gamification as the means to change consumer behaviour, gamification in the conceptual model is treated as the construct expressing motivational affordances, the engagement construct corresponds to the psychological outcome and the construct of shared value is the result of behaviour change (Fig. 1). As noted by Hamari et al. (2014), gamification outcomes depend on the context of gamification employment and consumer motivation. In order to enhance intrinsic R. Gatautis · J. Banytė (*) · R. Kuvykaitė · R. Virvilaitė · A. Dovalienė · Ž. Piligrimienė · A. Gadeikienė · E. Vitkauskaitė · A. Tarutė Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Gatautis et al. (eds.), Gamification and Consumer Engagement, Progress in IS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4_5

99

100

R. Gatautis et al.

Motivational affordances – gamification

Psychological outcome – consumer engagement

Behaviour change – shared value creation

Fig. 1 Conceptual approach towards integration of gamification, consumer engagement and shared value constructs

and extrinsic consumer motivation, companies use a variety of game elements (Bittner and Shipper 2014; Thom et al. 2012; Witt et al. 2011). According to Nicholson (2012), motivation is the core aspect of gamification. Because of these reasons, two components—game elements and motivation—are distinguished in the construct of gamification. In response to external stimuli (game elements) and inspired by motives, consumers experience various psychological changes (Deterding 2011; Hamari et al. 2014). In the context of gamification research, one of the psychological changes is consumer engagement in a gamified activity caused by game elements and motives. Engagement in a gamified activity is based on the flow theory (see Sect. 2 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”), which explains the phenomenon of the flow state. On the grounds of this research, the conceptual model is designed following the view that flow is a state where people are so engaged in a game that everything else seems unimportant. The flow state encourages brand engagement. In respect of this, the engagement construct in the model consists of two components—the flow state and brand engagement. The construct of behaviour change is associated with actions performed by consumers. The company employs gamification in order to achieve expedient consumer behaviour, i.e. their active participation in the process of shared value creation, which brings about value for the consumer and the company. On the basis of this logic, the construct of shared value consists of two components—consumer perceived value and value for company. The integration of discussed gamification, consumer engagement and shared value constructs is shown in Fig. 2. The constructs in the model are discussed and substantiated in separation. Conceptualisation of the Gamification Construct Within the framework of theoretical studies on gamification, the following conditions of employing gamification in activities of companies may be identified: • Successful gamification is based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to play games. Motivation to play games is treated as a factor at the consumer level. • Gamification is based on the use of game elements in the activities of companies (Gatautis and Vitkauskaitė 2014). Game elements are treated as a factor at the company level.

The Conceptual Model of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation

Gamification

Consumer engagement Engagement in a gamified activity

Brand engagement

Game elements Cognitive Flow state Motivation

101

Shared value Consumer perceived value

Value for company

Economic

Economic

Social Social

Emotional Functional Behavioural

Emotional

Functional

Fig. 2 The conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation

Factors at the Consumer Level—Motivation to Play Games The construct of motivation here is discussed following the self-termination theorybased approach (Chemolli and Gagne 2014; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015) that motivation is to be treated as a multidimensional rather than one-dimensional construct. In order to assess the multidimensional nature of the motivation construct, it is necessary to compose different sets of measurement attributes for different types of motivation. Until recently, research works on the type of motivation dominating in the case of gamification have been scarce. Because of this, the analysis of motivation to engage in gamified activities may involve the principles of the motivation to play digital games. Such a decision does not contradict the scientific logic since the context of digital games is closely related to the context of gamification of company activities. Following the theoretical studies conducted in Sect. 4 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”, it may be maintained that the construct of motivation to play games involves two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to factors causing consumer engagement in activities that are naturally attractive and consumers experience satisfaction when they realise those activities (Deci et al. 1999; Ryan and Deci 2000; Gagné and Deci 2005). Intrinsic motivation involves consumer factors (motives) including such experiential motivation elements as concentration, perceived pleasure, escape and epistemic curiosity. Experiential motivation reflects social aspects, too, e.g. communication and cooperation with other customers and self-assessment in comparison with other participants of the process (aspect of social affiliation). Hainey et al. (2011) attributes these aspects to the type of interpersonal intrinsic motivation. In respect of this, experiential motivation is in fact intrinsic motivation integrating aspects of social motivation. Consequently, it is not expedient to include experiential motivation to the construct of motivation. Extrinsic motivation refers to the facts causing consumer engagement in certain activities because of a reward or award (Rummel and Feinberg 1988; Ryan 1995; Deci et al. 1999; Ryan and Deci 2000). The impact of external factors is related to the

102

R. Gatautis et al.

Game dynamics

Game mechanics

Game components

Constraints Emotions Narrative Progression Relationship Exploration Collection Competition Status acquisition Cooperation Challenge Development

Points Achievements/badges Leaderboards Levels Feedback/reward

Fig. 3 Game elements employed to gamify activities usually analysed in literature sources

instrumental perspective (manifesting through gamification elements in the context of gamification) because consumers expect tangible (although virtual) awards depending on the actions realised and consequences. Research conducted by Bittner and Shipper (2014) confirm that both the intrinsic and the extrinsic motivation are crucial in composing the construct of motivation to play games. Factors at the Company Level—Game Elements Based on theoretical studies of gamification, it may be stated that the usually acknowledged approach is Werbach and Hunter’s (2012) pyramid of gamification consisting of game components, mechanics and dynamics (Aparicio et al. 2012; Huotari and Hamari 2012; Rouse 2013). Although various researchers have different views towards gamification elements, the majority agree with groups of gamification elements proposed by Werbach and Hunter (2012). The analysis of gamification studies in different fields (e.g. education, health care, tourism) allows identifying the most commonly researched game elements. For conceptualisation of the gamification construct following this analysis, game elements that are most often distinguished in the scientific literature are presented in Fig. 3. An important point here is that, based on theoretical studies, these game elements may be considered as most common; however, this is not the definite list of game elements ensuring the success of gamification. The analysis shows that PBL game components are typically analysed in scientific research works; on the other hand, this does not show that these three components are obligatory in gamifying activities of companies. To gamify activities, companies may employ from one to several

The Conceptual Model of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation

103

dozens of various game elements. Thus, empirical research may help to identify additional game elements that are not listed in Fig. 3. After game elements and motivation in the context of gamification have been substantiated, the monograph further conceptualises gamification-forced psychological changes, i.e. consumer engagement. Conceptualisation of the Construct of Consumer Engagement The conceptual studies of consumer engagement show that this construct is typically analysed from the multidimensional perspective. According to Javornik and Mandelli (2013), the multidimensional approach serves as the basis of one of the four future research directions on consumer engagement. The adequacy of the multidimensional approach in the context of research of the monograph is confirmed by the fact that this research perspective creates conditions to conceptualise value cocreation-based consumer engagement. A combination of cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects from the multidimensional point of view ensures both consumer engagement and consumer involvement by the company into shared value creation. Studies on the dimensions of consumer engagement (Brodie et al. 2011; Cheung et al. 2011; Hollebeek 2011a, b; Hollebeek et al. 2014; So et al. 2014) have revealed that the dimensions used to measure consumer engagement are brought about not only by the nature of assessment of consumer engagement (one-dimensional and multidimensional) but by an engagement object (brand, brand community, advertising, virtual social platform, website or a social game) as well. Therefore, the substantiation of construct components and dimensions in the conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation remains an essential issue in further research studies on consumer engagement. In respect of empirical research on the dimensions of the consumer engagement construct (Cheung et al. 2011; Hollebeek et al. 2014; So et al. 2014), measurement scales on consumer brand and virtual social platform engagement are to be considered most reliable. Based on the methodological quality indicators of the conducted research studies and the scope of the brand concept integrating elements of a product, communication, a trading place or a certain social platform, the brand is selected as the object of consumer engagement for the research purposes in the monograph. The expediency of the choice is justified by the fact that in the monograph brand engagement is analysed in the context of gamification. According to Zicherman and Linder (2010), gamification may be treated as a tool supplementing the initiatives of brand creation and development. Brand engagement is treated in the monograph as one of the consequences of consumer engagement because of gamification. The analysis of theoretical approaches conducted in Sect. 2 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development” shows that a consumer experiences the flow state when engaged in a gamified activity where company- and consumer-level factors manifest (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). The flow state allows the consumer to move to another state, i.e. brand engagement. Considering that, two components of the construct of consumer engagement are singled out: engagement in a gamified activity and brand engagement. Hoffman and Novak (2009)

104

R. Gatautis et al.

assert that the construct of engagement in a gamified activity is grounded on the one-dimensional point of view, with the flow dimension being an essential one (see Sect. 2 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”). The construct of consumer brand engagement is multidimensional. In summary of the research studies conducted on the dimensions of consumer engagement (see Sect. 4 in chapter “Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation”), an opinion is maintained in the monograph that although the expression of consumer engagement dimensions may vary in different contexts, the majority of them may be attributed to three main dimensions, i.e. cognitive, emotional and behavioural. Cognitive Dimension. It is a consumer cognitive status reflecting concentration and involvement with a certain object (company, brand, virtual social network, brand community). Hollebeek (2011a) illustrates the cognitive dimension of consumer engagement by examples of brand activities when the consumer focuses or gets especially interested in a certain brand. In their recent works, Hollebeek et al. (2014) identify the ‘cognitive assessment’ dimension, which is defined as the level of brand assessment and understanding during consumer–brand interaction. This dimension may be considered as the conventional cognitive engagement dimension. It has to be noted that the utilitarian dimension distinguished by Abdul-Ghani et al. (2011) and the immersion dimension distinguished by Patterson et al. (2006) and Cheung et al. (2011) may also be treated as the cognitive dimension of engagement. The utilitarian dimension is revealed through the consumer’s cognitive assessment of profitability and excellence of online actions. The immersion dimension describes the level of consumer energy and mental flexibility in interacting with the company, the brand or other consumers. This dimension also reflects the disposition of a consumer to spend time and effort participating in the activities of a company. Emotional Dimension. It is a state of emotional activity considered as a feeling of inspiration or pride caused by an engagement object. Research studies on consumer engagement in the field of advertising conducted by Heath (2007) show the importance of the emotional dimension. The author defines engagement as the subconscious emotional construct, and the level of engagement is defined as the amount of feelings that arise when watching commercials. The term emotion encompasses any inspiration of feelings, i.e. the emotional content of advertising refers to anything that may inspire feelings of the audience; however, it should not necessarily cause an emotional consumer’s response. Abdul-Ghani et al. (2011) identify the hedonistic dimension of consumer engagement expressed through satisfaction the consumer feels when using online auction websites. The researchers claim that the consumer who is engaged in activities of such websites feels satisfaction, i.e. positive emotions. In research studies with the brand as an engagement object, the emotional dimension is expressed through consumer commitment (Patterson et al. 2006; Cheung et al. 2011) or attachment (Hollebeek et al. 2014). According to Patterson et al. (2006), the term commitment refers to the feeling of consumer affiliation to something, i.e. the c consumer is proud of having a possibility to participate in the

The Conceptual Model of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation

105

activities of the company he/she likes and performs his/her role enthusiastically and passionately. Hollebeek et al. (2014) assert that the emotional dimension of engagement may also be expressed as consumer attachment, i.e. positive feelings towards a certain brand. Behavioural Dimension. The term engagement has a few different meanings; however, all of them emphasise the aspect of behaviour/action (Van Doorn et al. 2010). It refers to a state of consumer behaviour related to engagement objects and shows the effort and energy devoted to the interaction. The equivalent of the behavioural dimension identified by Patterson et al. (2006) is the dimension of energy/interaction referring to consumer communication with company staff, the interaction between the consumer and the company, the brand or other consumers. The behavioural dimension is also discussed by Hollebeek et al. (2014). The researchers maintain that it encompasses the level of energy, effort and time devoted by the consumer to the brand in a specific brand-consumer interaction. After the substantiation of dimensions of both components of the consumer engagement construct, i.e. consumer engagement in gamified activities and consumer brand engagement, the monograph further presents the conceptualisation of gamification-based consumer engagement consequences, i.e. the construct of shared value. Conceptualisation of the Shared Value Construct In the context of new marketing theories, the orientation towards creation, development and strengthening of lasting mutually useful relations leads to the analysis of value creation from the perspective of the consumer and the company. Mencarelli and Rivière’s (2014) analysis of the perceived value concept in B2C and B2V sectors reveals that along with two other identified dimensions there have been attempts in the scientific literature to single out the third-dyad-position corresponding to value dimension (Sweeney and Webb 2002), which is shared by both interested parties. On the other hand, researchers disagree that value perception depends on its recipient and the context where it is created, i.e. time, place and consumption (Vargo and Lusch 2004; Mencarelli and Rivière 2014). Because of this latter reason, two separate components are attributed to the construct of shared value: consumer perceived value and value for company. Following Smith and Colgate (2007), consumer value emerges out of various consumer reactions that are the outcome of consumer cognition and experience. Companies may affect consumer perceived value through marketing actions; however, the final consumer perceived value forms in the consciousness of the consumer affected by a plethora of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Value for company is to be analysed in terms of the outcome, which depends on the level of consumer engagement in co-creation, that has been achieved in the process of co-creation. Both consumer perceived value and value for company are defined in the scientific literature sources as complex multidimensional constructs. Hence, in conceptualising the co-creation-based shared value construct, it is important to discuss the dimensions of two components—consumer perceived value and value for company—comprising the construct.

106

R. Gatautis et al.

The Component of Consumer Perceived Value In analysing consumer perceived value dimensions and their definitions described by various scholars, it may be claimed that in the context of ICT development, the strongest theoretical and empirical framework is that of the four-dimensional consumer perceived value construct integrating economic, social, functional and emotional value. Economic Value. This dimension is associated with psychological and personal consumer investment as well as personal, technological or strategic risk (Choo et al. 2012). It is quite often hypothesised in the scientific literature (e.g. Yang and Jolly 2009; Deng et al. 2010) that the main benefit of co-creation is expressed as financial aspects for consumers. Consumers in exchange for cooperation with companies in the process of value creation get special offers, rewards and exceptional conditions of purchase (Yang and Jolly 2009). Consequently, they see co-creation as economically useful cooperation. However, it has been noticed that sometimes consumers participate in co-creation apart from any financial motives (Nambisan and Baron 2009). Social Value. Social value experienced because of participation in co-creation manifests through consumer recognition among other members of the community by treating them as valuable and important subsidiaries (Nambisan and Baron 2009). Participation in co-creation helps them to earn respect, establish contacts and acquire a specific status. Social value also encompasses the benefits of strengthening social contacts and epistemic benefit (knowledge, innovation, imagination), identified by Smith and Colgate (2007), as well as symbolic/expressive value (related to identity, self-respect, self-expression, social impact (status, prestige, image) and culture. Functional Value. This dimension includes knowledge about a product acquired during co-creation, information that the consumer may share with other consumers, as well as the co-creation object-related outcomes associated with desired features of the product or the service, its usefulness, performance and final result (Smith and Colgate 2007; Chen and Lin 2011; Wang et al. 2013). Emotional Value. It is related to sensory benefit with an appeal to feelings and senses, to pleasure, relaxation and excitement because of participation in the co-creation process, as well as to the anticipated outcome in connection to a particular product or service, the use of which brings about the feelings of safety, joy, pleasure, intimacy, fear and guilt (Wang et al. 2013; Miladian and Sarvestani 2012). The Component of Value for Company In the scientific literature, value for the company is typically analysed with the emphasis on the economic dimensions. In the context of orientation towards lasting relationships with consumers, such constructs as consumer profitability (Kumar 2008) and consumer value over the life cycle (Kumar et al. 2010) have also been widely discussed. However, value obtained by the company from engagement in shared value creation together with the consumer does not necessarily have to be measured economically (Kumar et al. 2013). Apart from economic indices, consumer engagement in the process of value creation, their contribution to the

The Conceptual Model of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation

107

development of company competences, communication of the word of mouth recommendation, etc. are also of importance (Walter et al. 2001; Larivière et al. 2013; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014). In terms of consumer engagement in value creation, value for company depends on the level of consumer engagement. The associations between engagement and shared value have been studied by DeFillippi and Roser (2014) who assert that in the case of the highest level of consumer engagement, new and valuable products, services and processes are created; in the case of the medium level of consumer engagement, elements of the product or the process may be accordingly improved; and in the case of the lowest level of consumer engagement, consumers may be involved into communication activities, or help other consumers to solve purchase- or consumption-related problems. As one of the aspects of value for the company acquired because of co-creation, Nätti et al. (2014) distinguish innovation and development of products or services, which eventually affects the economic growth of the company. Thus, contextual analysis of the concept of value for company in terms of co-creation allows identifying three dimensions of the value for company construct: economic, functional and social. Economic Value for Company. It is determined by consumer profitability and value over the life cycle reduced costs because of positive word of mouth communication and the impact thereof on the appearance of new consumers, reduced risk of failure of products/services and nonconformity to the market needs due to more comprehensive and high-quality information and insights about the consumer, as well as enhanced loyalty of existing consumers (Roser et al. 2009; Ramaswamy 2008). Functional Value for Company. It is created in the process of co-creation and stays with the company after the process ends due to consumer engagement, their comments, feedback, provided knowledge about themselves as consumers, expressed opinions about services, suggested ideas regarding their improvement, modification or creation of new services (Roser et al. 2009; Van Doorn et al. 2010). Social Value for Company. Active consumer participation in co-creation may contribute to the formation of adequate reputation of a company and/or brand recognition in the market (Van Doorn et al. 2010); it also creates conditions for a company to participate in the activities of relevant virtual communities together with consumers, thus engaging more consumers in co-creation (Ramaswamy 2009a; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014). On the basis of the conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation, encompassing three essential constructs of theoretical studies—gamification, consumer engagement and shared value—the following chapter of the monograph presents the empirical research methodology.

108

R. Gatautis et al.

Rimantas Gatautis (1974–2018) was a Principal Investigator leading Digitalization Research Group at Kaunas University of Technology. He had wide-ranging experience of implementing international research projects. His latest research focused on IST influence on enterprise transformation in the transition economies, e-business models, socio-economic aspects of IST adoption, and gamification. Jūratė Banytė has Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management). She is a Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. Her research interests include consumer behavior, sustainable consumption, consumer engagement and value management. She has participated in different international and national research and study projects. Rita Kuvykaitė, Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management and Administration), Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business in Kaunas University of Technology. She took part in different research projects. Her main fields of academic interests are brand management, international marketing decisions, consumer engagement and value creation. Regina Virvilaitė, Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management and Administration), is Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business in Kaunas University of Technology, and she had participated in several international and national research projects. Her main fields of academic interests are marketing management, strategic marketing and value co-creation. Aistė Dovalienė is Associate Professor at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She has Ph.D. in Social Sciences. Her research interests include customer engagement, customer value, value co-creation, customer relationship development, consumer behavior and sustainable consumption behavior. She took part in several national and international research projects. Žaneta Piligrimienė, Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management and Administration), Associate Professor at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She took part in different research projects. Her current research interests are related to research methodology and techniques, impact of religion and moral values on consumer behavior, sustainable consumption. Agnė Gadeikienė, Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management), Associate Professor of Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She works in different international and national programs research projects. Her research interests are related to consumer behavior, sustainable consumption, business models, big data-based marketing decisions modelling. Elena Vitkauskaitė is a Researcher of Digitalization Research Group and a Lecturer of Digital Marketing at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She works in research projects related to e-Business, e-Government. Research interests relate to cross-cultural issues on the web, social network sites, gamification, and digital transformation. Asta Tarutė holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management) and is a researcher of Digitalization Research Group, Kaunas University of Technology. She took part in several national and international research projects. Research interests relate to e-Business, mobile applications influence on consumer behavior, consumer engagement, the digital transformation, IoT-based business model transformations.

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in the Context of ICT Development Žaneta Piligrimienė

1 Methodological Approaches In order to empirically test the model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation prepared on the grounds of the conceptual analysis, it is necessary to substantiate the methodological framework of empirical research and design research methodology. The novelty and complexity of the research object manifesting through integration of different multidimensional constructs (gamification, consumer engagement shared value) in one research model serves as the basis for methodological pluralism providing a possibility not to affiliate with one of the two dominant methodological approaches—positivism and the interpretative approach, which traditionally require quantitative and qualitative investigation. Since the planned research (as many other contemporary research studies) is characterised by interdisciplinarity, complexity and dynamics, in order to enhance research efficiency, there is a need to use a variety of research methods. A pragmatic philosophical approach allows combining both qualitative and quantitative methods in various ways in seeking to select the best approach to answer important research questions. Pragmatic philosophy provides a possibility to use the mixed method research defined as the methodology where researchers combine qualitative and quantitative research methods, techniques, approaches, concepts and theories in one study (Jones 2004). The logic of such research encompasses inductive, deductive and abductive (discovery and observance of the most likely best set of explanations in order to better understand the results) research methods. Collection of data in different ways may take place parallel or in series (one after another) (Creswell 2009). In this case, a plethora of methods are approved in the search for answers without limiting the

Ž. Piligrimienė (*) Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Gatautis et al. (eds.), Gamification and Consumer Engagement, Progress in IS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4_6

109

Ž. Piligrimienė

110

Scope of qualitative research

Gamification

Game elements

Consumer engagement Engagement in a gamified activity

Brand engagement Cognitive

Flow state

Shared value Consumer perceived value

Value for company

Economic

Economic

Social Social

Emotional

Motivation

Functional Behavioural

Emotional

Functional

Scope of quantitative research

Fig. 1 The model of research parts

researcher’s choices. A combination of different data sources, methods, researchers and theories, more reliable answers and interpretations can be obtained. The need for the mixed method research methodology is best revealed through the analysis of the conceptual research model. The model’s complex composition and fields requiring different research approaches are presented in Fig. 1. The model demonstrates a reciprocal interaction between two interested parties, i.e. gamification actions employed by the company encouraging consumer engagement, which most likely results in the shared value received by both the consumer and the company. Consequently, the research should involve two target groups: companies employing gamification and consumers participating in gamified activities. Various target groups justify the use of various research methods: the research of the company sector requires a qualitative approach, which in fact allows analysing every case; the research of the consumer sector requires a quantitative approach allowing discovery of essential re-occurrings and generalisation of conclusions. The use of different research methods is also justified by different research objects and the extent to which they are already researched. Gamification, as a means of consumer engagement in activities of companies, has not been extensively studied so far, and there is a lack of empirical research in this field. Therefore, the study of this aspect is of explanatory nature. In case of an object that has not been researched extensively, there is no possibility to raise clear preliminary hypotheses, and the study is aimed at better understanding of the phenomenon itself, its composition and operating principles. Such a study presupposes the need for an idiographic analysis, which in turn leads to the employment of the qualitative research methods. This broad logic is the basis in respect of the shared value construct, which encompasses both consumer perceived value and value for company. In scientific research, value for company is typically analysed through the dimension of economic value; this research attempts to distinguish social and functional dimensions of value for company. The descriptions of these dimensions are extremely fragmented in scientific literature sources, and their presence is to a greater extent guessed from the contextual analysis rather than clearly defined. In order to find out

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

111

whether economic, social and functional dimensions of value for company may be distinguished and how they are expressed, a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the phenomenon is essential. Another purpose of qualitative research is to identify the context and to specify the understudied constructs and variables for the quantitative research. In respect of the fact that the empirical testing of the conceptual model is geographically limited (conducted in Lithuania), the authors face a challenge of identifying companies that use gamification and consumers engaging in gamified activities of these companies. The needed close relationship between a researcher and research subjects, i.e. companies, determines the choice of qualitative methods. The necessity of quantitative research is grounded on the purpose to reveal anticipated associations between variables reflecting the parts of the model. Theoretical and empirical arguments and evidence existing in the scientific literature allow formulating causal research questions and related research hypotheses that need a statistical data analysis to be tested. The quantitative approach is fundamental in order to accurately describe the phenomenon and explain the associations. Since the aim of the research involving consumers is nomothetic, i.e. seeks to explain not all the possible associations but only those that are predicted in the research model, the use of quantitative research methods is a logic choice. Integration of both—quantitative and qualitative—research results justifying the choice of the mixed method approach serves as the basis of in-depth understanding and general interpretation of the phenomenon.

2 Qualitative Research Methodology Research Aim and Objectives The main aim of qualitative research is complex and consists of several equally important parts: 1. To reveal game elements employed by companies for gamification devoted to involve consumers and enhance their engagement. 2. To find out what value for company is created by consumers engaged in gamified activities. 3. To identify the feasible research context and specify the gamification construct for quantitative research. The objectives of this research are the following: • To determine how companies interpret the concept of gamification. • To find out the purposes and scope of gamification employment. • To describe the used game elements—game components, mechanics and dynamics. • To reveal the company’s understanding of the gamification value for the company from the economic, social and functional perspectives.

112

Ž. Piligrimienė

Research Nature, Methods and Sample Size The research is devoted to better understanding and finding out the new phenomenon; therefore, it may be considered exploratory. Here the research questions are raised, but it also encompasses the descriptive and explanatory functions. The nature of the research determines the methods used: 1. (expert) interviews and/or target group discussions 2. content analysis of selected gamified activities The research aims to point out that the qualitative research population may be defined as organisations in Lithuania employing gamification to involve consumers. Since gamification is a relatively new phenomenon, there are not too many such organisations in Lithuania. Thus, the aim is to find and involve into the research representatives/experts of at least five such organisations. Each chosen organisation should represent a specific case, and its comprehensive in-depth analysis would allow acquiring knowledge needed for the research object, or the chosen experts would share their knowledge in possession. Deep understanding of the phenomenon is the main advantage of the research; therefore, there are no requirements for the sample size. Because the analysed phenomenon is new, the selection method suggested is non-probabilistic expert selection. The decision about the data collection method—interviews or target group discussions—depends on the implementation possibilities in the course of the research. If there are no practical possibilities to invite several representatives of organisations into a group discussion, a semi-structured interview is organised. If one organisation is represented by several subjects (e.g. someone responsible for technical solutions and the head of marketing, sales or the company), a group discussion is organised. By using open questions, it is important to collect sufficiently comprehensive qualitative information about the aspect important for the research. In order to get comprehensive and comparable information, it is also important to follow the foreseen interview scenario. The intended duration of the interview is 60 80 min, and that of the target group discussion is 90–120 min. It is recommended to use the voice or video recording to facilitate the analysis of the results that are likely to be abundant in the information. Interviews, like target group discussions, are organised personally, face to face, but exceptions are also possible. Such exceptions encompass a group discussion over a teleconference call, online video conferences or Skype (Bradley 2013). All these methods are appropriate if they are more convenient for the subjects. The qualitative research is flexible, open and provides comprehensive, in-depth information; therefore, the composed interview scenario is treated as an interview guide; however, all other information obtained during the research is also of importance, and thus has to be recorded. Additional questions rising in the natural course of the conversation are desirable if they provide relevant insights or arguments. The second method intended in this qualitative research is the content analysis of the gamified activities of the selected companies. This method is fundamental in order to get familiar with specific gamification examples and employed game elements before the quantitative research. Identification of game elements

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

113

(components, mechanics and dynamics) is essential in order to prepare a quantitative research instrument for consumers, to specify the gamification construct and to predict the operationalisation methods of game elements and research limitations. Research Instrument for the Interview and/or the Target Group Discussion The qualitative research, unlike quantitative, is less structured and more flexible. A scenario reflecting research questions is essential in qualitative research. The scenario (also known as the interview or discussion plan or topic framework) is a qualitative research instrument showing what has to be analysed. The plan of the interview or the target group discussion consists of a few main parts reflecting the research questions: 1. Questions identifying the companies and the individuals participating in the research. 2. Questions intended to find out the attitude towards gamification, applications causes, advantages and drawbacks. 3. Questions intended to clarify game elements, i.e. game components, mechanics and dynamics. 4. Questions intended to find out the role of consumer engagement in creating value for company as well as its dimensions. These groups of questions are intended to obtain as much information on the analysed issues as possible; however, in the natural course of the conversation/ discussion, additional questions may emerge. Data Analysis Methods of the Interview or the Target Group Discussion Data analysis is performed using the qualitative content analysis method. Qualitative content analysis is one of a few major methods used to analyse textual data. It is defined as a research method devoted to the subjective interpretation of the textual data content when the analysis is performed during the systemic process of coding and classification of identified topics and re-occurrings (Zhang and Wildemuth 2009). The qualitative content analysis focuses on the contextual meaning of the text. Textual data may be in the oral, printed or electronic form and may be obtained from narrative answers (conversations), open questions in a survey, interview, target group discussion, observation or published media. The aim of the content analysis is to understand the analysed phenomenon and generate new knowledge about it. The content is analysed at two different levels: 1. The core level or apparent content encompasses a description of the obtained data, i.e. what was said regarding one or another question, without comments or theories answering questions why and how. 2. The higher level or analysis of non-apparent content encompasses interpretative analysis related to both the answers and what may be predicted or implied. The content analysis involves data coding and classification, sometimes called categorisation or indexation. The aim of content analysis is to reveal the meaning of the data and highlight the most important messages, features and results (Elo and Kyngas 2008).

114

Ž. Piligrimienė

Qualitative data results are presented according to the following principles: 1. The structure of presenting the results is based on the topics or categories (determined in advance or emerging during the analysis). 2. Topics or categories are presented as chapters with relevant subchapters (subcategories). 3. Citations demonstrating and/or enhancing the results/conclusions are essential. 4. In certain cases, qualitative data may be presented in the quantitative form (e.g. four of ten subjects). However, the quality of the qualitative research results depends on the ability to obtain answers to research objectives allowing the formulation of meaningful conclusions and an indication of further research guidelines. Methods of Content Analysis of Selected Gamified Activities The content analysis of gamified activities is performed to achieve the same aims indicated in the section of research aims and objectives. In order to get a better understanding of gamification, identify the main game elements and reveal the value of gamification employment for a company by engaging consumers, it is recommended to perform the analysis of certain gamification cases in Lithuania on the basis of secondary data. The gamification cases selected for the analysis should illustrate the examples of gamification applied in the activities of marketing of both public and private sector organisations operating in Lithuania. Before performing the analysis of gamification cases, the keywords used to search for gamification examples are to be defined. The search is conducted on the web by entering keywords defined in advance: ‘sužaidybinimas’ (gamification), ‘žaidimas įmonė’ (game company), ‘sužaidybinimo praktika’ (gamification practice), ‘žaidimas prekės ženklas’ (game brand), ‘gauk taškų, keisk juos į prizus’ (get points, exchange them to prizes), ‘mokymasis žaidžiant’ (learning by playing). The selection of obtained search results is performed following strict selection criteria showing that: 1. Gamified activity is usually performed online. 2. More game elements are employed in a gamified activity. 3. A gamified activity is being implemented in an organisation operating in Lithuania. Each gamification example is considered as a separate case, which is analysed by way of qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis is conducted following the rules: 1. First, an inspection of the rules of a gamified activity takes place, and if there is a possibility, the activity is being tested by getting engaged in it. 2. The gamified activity is analysed in order to identify the gamification purpose, define the target audience and single out the essential game elements. 3. In each case of gamification, it is determined what consumer value is provided by engagement in a gamified activity and what value the company obtains by

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

115

conducting such activity. It is to be considered that the latter value characterises why the company employs gamification in their marketing activity. Research results are analysed following the indicated sequence of analysis. Qualitative research results not only allow substantiating the framework of the planned quantitative research but are also significant as they reveal the attitude of companies to advantages, benefits, challenges and contribution of gamification, as a new effective business practice, into shared value creation.

3 Quantitative Research Methodology Because one of the purposes of the qualitative research is the identification of the research context and specification of the gamification construct for the quantitative research, many decisions in preparing the quantitative research methodology are based on the insights obtained during the qualitative research. Research Aim and Research Questions The main qualitative research aim is to reveal how consumers engage in company/ brand value co-creation through gamified activities and what value this creates for consumers. This multifaceted and complicated aim is best revealed through research questions: 1. How does gamification of activities condition consumer engagement (in value co-creation)? 1.1. What motivates consumers to engage in gamified activities? Which type of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) has a greater impact on decision-making whether to engage in gamified activities? 1.2. Which game elements are most attractive to consumers? 1.3. Is there a relation between motivation and the most attractive (most engaging) game elements? 1.4. Is there a relation between motivation and engagement in a gamified activity (flow state)? 1.5. Is there a relation between game elements and engagement in a gamified activity (flow state)? 2. How does consumer engagement (in value co-creation) manifest through gamified activities? 2.1. How does engagement in a gamified activity (flow state) affect consumer brand engagement? 2.2. Which dimensions of engagement (cognitive, emotional, behavioural) force the highest customer brand engagement? 2.3. What impact does gamification of activities have on consumer engagement in a gamified activity?

Ž. Piligrimienė

116

Gamification Game elements

Consumer engagement H6

Game mechanics H3

Game components

Engagement in a gamified activity

H1

Brand engagement H5

Cognitive

H10

Emotional

H8

H4 Behavioural

Intrinsic motivation

Consumer perceived value Economic

Flow state

H2 Motivation

H9

Social Functional Emotional

Extrinsic motivation H7

Fig. 2 Quantitative research model

2.4. What impact does gamification of activities have on consumer brand engagement? 3. What perceived value do consumers identify by engaging in value co-creation through gamified activities? 3.1. How is customer engagement related to consumer perceived value? 3.2. What impact does engagement in a gamified activity have on consumer perceived value? 3.3. What impact does brand engagement have on consumer perceived value? 3.4. How is the gamification of activities related to consumer perceived value? Does gamification of activities create consumer perceived value by itself or indirectly through consumer engagement? 3.5. Which dimension of perceived value is most clearly identified by consumers as the outcome of their engagement in value co-creation through gamified activities? Research Model and Hypotheses Each of the main research questions essentially reflects different parts of the conceptual model. Each of them is complex and requires additional clarifying questions justifying the need for the descriptive or explanatory information. Therefore, below is the research model showing the feasible links between the variables of the model (see Fig. 2). The links demonstrated in the model reflect the formulated quantitative research hypotheses. It has to be noted that they are raised in relation to the research questions, but are not formulated for each of the research questions. The phenomenon under analysis is relatively new and underexplored; therefore, some of the research questions are associated with the in-depth analysis and description of the new phenomenon. Based on the recommendation of researchers (Babbie 2007; Tully 2014), descriptive hypotheses are not typically raised, especially when there is no

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

117

reasonable basis for a specific assumption. Hence, in formulating hypotheses, attention is devoted to the links between separate research constructs: H1: Gamification has a positive impact on consumer engagement. H2: There is a positive association between consumer motivation to play games and game elements. H3: There is a positive association between game elements and engagement in a gamified activity (flow state). H4: There is a positive association between consumer motivation and their engagement in a gamified activity (flow state). H5: Engagement in a gamified activity (flow state) has a positive impact on brand engagement. H6: Gamification has a positive impact on consumer engagement in a gamified activity (flow state). H7: Gamification has a positive impact on consumer brand engagement. H8: Brand engagement has a positive impact on consumer perceived value. H9: Engagement in a gamified activity (flow state) has a positive impact on consumer perceived value. H10: Consumer engagement has a positive impact on consumer perceived value. H11: Gamification has a positive impact on consumer perceived value through consumer engagement. These research hypotheses are based on existing theoretical and empirical arguments, which have been discussed in composing the model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation in the context of ICT development. Therefore, it is maintained that the construct of gamification is best reflected through the dimensions of game elements and motivation to play games, which are mutually interrelated (H2) and consequently lead the consumer to the flow state (H6), which in this study is considered as a specific form of consumer engagement when the engagement object is a gamified activity. The construct of game elements is treated as a (controlled) factor at the company level, and the consumer’s motivation to play games is treated as an (uncontrolled) factor at the consumer level; thus, an assumption is made that each of these actions may separately determine engagement in a gamified activity (H3 and H4). The flow state creates conditions for the consumer to move to another engagement state, i.e. brand engagement (H5). Nevertheless, it is possible that the consumer, although he/she participates in a gamified activity, is not so much engaged in a gamified activity to achieve the flow state. Furthermore, he/she may still be rather strongly engaged in the brand, hence, the hypothesis about the impact of gamification on brand engagement (H7). This may also be predicted by qualitative research results, as they show that in many cases the employment of gamification in Lithuania is not complex; it only involves the use of separate game elements, which is not necessarily strongly engaging. In respect of all these links, a general hypothesis is raised that gamification has a positive impact on general consumer engagement (H1). The positive influence of brand engagement consumer perceived value is identified in many research works conducted in this field (H8). The positive influence of engagement in gamified activities (flow state) on consumer

118

Ž. Piligrimienė

perceived value (H9) in this study is single out as an underexplored aspect helping to supplement the existing knowledge and arguments. The likely positive connection is defined following the assumption that, regardless of the level of brand engagement, engagement in a gamified activity may itself lead to the creation of consumer perceived value. There is sufficient evidence in the scientific literature showing that general consumer engagement determines a higher consumer perceived value (H10). The last hypothesis on consumer engagement as a mediator between gamification and consumer perceived value is reflected in the model through the links indicated by hypotheses H1 and H10 and reveals the main idea of this research. Research Nature, Method and Sample Size The research is intended to reveal possible links between constructs reflecting the parts of the conceptual model and the variables thereof. The research questions encompass the descriptive and explanatory functions. Hence, the research is of the causal explanatory nature. To realise the research, the quantitative survey method is chosen. This method is suitable when the aim is to get a general view of a complicated phenomenon at a particular moment. In the quantitative survey, data are collected from a big number of subjects, preferably by using the probabilistic (random) sample size procedures where every element of the population under analysis should have an equal possibility to be selected into a sample size. This ensures the possibility to obtain a representative picture of the population, which is essential in seeking to draw generalising conclusions based on the obtained research results. In case of the survey, research assumptions are formulated by way of description of variables and associations between these variables, which essentially makes the survey a reductionist research strategy (Verschuren and Doorewaard 2010), i.e. the reality is narrowed to the research subjects (first reduction), and the latter are then narrowed to a set of variables (second reduction). Since a survey requires a big amount of data, typically it means the use of closed questions (structured survey questionnaire) as well as the use of quantitative data analysis based on statistical principles and procedures. The research aims indicate that the target population of the quantitative research may be defined as consumers who are or have recently been engaged in gamified activities of a company or a brand (regardless of the fact whether these have been complex gamified activities or only certain game elements used). In finding the best way to reach the target population, two ways are possible: 1. To select cases of separate companies employing gamification to engage consumers and reach their consumers. 2. To survey people without attachment to certain gamification cases. The qualitative research results determined the choice of the second way since it turned out that there were no real possibilities to reach consumers of specific companies. Such a choice has an obvious advantage because it allows not limiting the research results to the analysis of one or a few selected cases. Although the phenomenon under analysis is rather new in Lithuania, instances of its manifestation

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

119

have been increasing in various organisations. Therefore, an assumption could be made that such research allows identifying various cases of gamification employment and reveal associations with consumer engagement and consumer perceived value. On the other hand, the use of the general population of consumers engaged in gamified activities of any company or any brand makes respondents to possibly use older information that might be difficult to remember, and that might give less accurate results. In terms of the sample size when the number of all members is not known, many statistical sample size-determining formulae with 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error of selection provide the sample size of 400 respondents, which is considered in quantitative research as the golden rule of the sample size. Therefore, the recommended sample size in this survey should be around 400. Besides, this research is not aimed at the general assessment of the phenomenon of gamificationbases consumer engagement in value creation in the context of ICT development in Lithuania, but more at finding out whether the designed model may be applicable to an in-depth analysis of this phenomenon. This means that this research does not require the research results to reflect the general population as its fragmented understanding is equally important from the scientific perspective. Research Instrument Decisions of Variable Operationalisation. Each social research is characterised by a certain structure of analysed variables (indicators). Such a structure is designed by way of operationalisation procedures. Operationalisation refers to a procedure when there is a sequential movement from theoretical concepts typically characterised by a high level of abstraction to empirical concepts (indicators) and specific metrological criteria (Merkys et al. 2004). Operationalisation decisions are required for those parts of the conceptual model that are within the scope of the quantitative research (see Sect. 3 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”; Fig. 2). In other words, they have to cover the variables defining three main parts of the model: gamification, consumer engagement and consumer perceived value. Therefore, this stage has to answer the questions which and how many indicators have to be used in order to measure the desired constructs and reveal the possible associations between them. In studies of social phenomena, often there is no one absolutely adequate and reliable indicator. The theoretical analysis of the main research constructs revealed the variety of existing approaches and operationalisation decisions of the same constructs. In respect of that and the insights obtained during the qualitative research requiring to take into consideration the context of the country where the research is being conducted, the research instrument design is not restricted to the versions of scales of various authors; instead, a new original questionnaire is created. This questionnaire integrates the measurement scales that have been recognised in the scientific literature and contributes to the understanding of the phenomenon by formulating new indicators, the necessity of which is justified by the results of the contextual scientific literature analysis; the model is adapted to the context of

Ž. Piligrimienė

120 Table 1 The general structure of the scales used in the research Construct Gamification Motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Game elements Game mechanics Game components Consumer engagement Engagement in a gamified activity (flow state) Brand engagement Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Consumer perceived value Economic Social Functional Emotional

Number scale items 32 20 12 8 12 7 5 19 7 12 3 5 4 22 4 6 7 5

Authors Lin et al. (2012), Hainey et al. (2011), Koo et al. (2007), Lafreniere et al. (2012) Bunchball (2019), Werbach and Hunter (2012), Blohm and Leimeister (2013), Seaborn and Fels (2015)

Engeser and Rheinberg (2008), Choi and Kim (2004) So et al. (2014), Hollebeek et al. (2014)

Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Wang et al. (2013), Lee et al. (2014), Nambisan and Baron (2009), Chen and Lin (2015), Choo et al. (2012)

Lithuania. The structure of scales used in the research instrument is presented in Table 1. The scale designed to measure the three main constructs of the model consists of 73 items. The scale measuring intrinsic motivation consists of 12 items, of which 6 were formulated by the research authors following the factors of intrinsic motivation distinguished by Hainey et al. (2011), and 5 were adapted for the research purposes according to Koo et al. (2007) and Lin et al. (2012). The items were selected and formulated to reflect such factors of intrinsic motivation as challenge, fantasy, curiosity, control, cooperation, competition, recognition and general satisfaction. To measure the extrinsic motivation, the shortened scale consisting of eight items adapted following Lafreniere et al. (2012) was used. In the original version of the scale, extrinsic motivation is measured by 12 items that cover four dimensions: integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation and extrinsic regulation. Since the current research is not aimed at identifying separate dimensions of extrinsic motivation and because of the length of the research instrument determined by the research complexity and number of the variables, it was decided that eight items were sufficient to measure the general extrinsic motivation. It was decided that the construct of game elements should be operationalised by separating two scales, one of which would identify the most attractive game elements to consumers through game mechanics solutions, and the other would identify

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

121

the most important game components to consumers. The need to distinguish not only separate game components but also game mechanics partially reflecting different consumer engagement methods became obvious during the qualitative research when there was a doubt of the consumers’ ability to identify and meaningfully evaluate all the game elements. One of the alternatives to measure game elements is to rely on the identification of the player type according to the features of players and game elements important for each type of players distinguished in the literature. However, this alternative does not ensure the respondents’ ability to attribute themselves to a certain type of players; therefore, it is recommended to extract similar information indirectly, by asking what games consumers like best. Hence, to get the needed information and to avoid possible subjectivity or absence of answers, it was decided to include into the research instrument both the scale identifying game mechanics and the scale identifying game components. The scale on game mechanics involves seven items formulated by the authors of this research following the theoretical insights and generalisations of Werbach and Hunter (2012), Blohm and Leimeister (2013) and Seaborn and Fels (2015). Game mechanics encompass exploration, collection, competition, status acquisition, cooperation, challenges and development and are closely related to the use of certain game components. It may also be associated with the types of players. The scale on game components encompasses five indicators distinguished as the main game components that are most easily identifiable by players. The five items were formulated by the authors of this research following theoretical insights of Bunchball (2019), Werbach and Hunter (2012), Blohm and Leimeister (2013), as well as Seaborn and Fels (2015). The scale on the engagement in a gamified activity (flow state) consists of seven items, of which five were adapted from the six-item flow scale by Choi and Kim (2004) (see Annex B Table B.1). One of the original scale items was rejected due to reverse formulation of the item. Although in designing the measurement scales it is often claimed that inclusion of reverse items into a scale allows avoiding the so-called echo effect, there is much more evidence that the use of reverse items, on the contrary, reduces the reliability of the scale, since respondents sometimes the only scratch at the surface and by habit evaluate it following the general trend; meanwhile, researchers may have a greater chance of error because of the necessity to decode the obtained values (Sauro and Lewis 2011). Choi and Kim (2004) who measured the flow state already received criticism for not covering all the important aspects of the flow (e.g. Brockmyer et al. 2009). Therefore, it was decided to include two more items from the short flow scale by Rheinberg et al. (2003) (cited from Engeser and Rheinberg 2008), which allow better measurement of such an aspect of the flow state as absolute immersion (in the mind) ignoring how time flies (see Annex B Table B.2). The scale of consumer brand engagement consists of 12 items adapted following the scales of Hollebeek et al. (2014) and So et al. (2014). On this scale, three items reflect the cognitive dimension of brand engagement, five items are related to the emotional dimension and four to the behavioural dimension. The modification and

122

Ž. Piligrimienė

adaptation of formulations of the items were essential because the chosen research context did not allow naming the brand/company. The scale on consumer perceived value consists of 22 items reflecting four different dimensions of perceived value: economic, social, functional and emotional. The items of this scale were designed following the operationalisation decisions regarding the separate dimensions of value proposed by various researchers (Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Wang et al. 2013; Lee et al. 2014; Nambisan and Baron 2009; Chen and Lin 2015; Choo et al. 2012), because there is no one scale on consumer perceived value encompassing four specific dimensions of value distinguished by the authors of the current research. Economic value is defined by four indicators mostly reflecting financial aspects of brand purchase and participation in co-creation. Social value is measured by six items reflecting the social status acquired by using the brand or engaging in gamified activities. Functional value (seven items) involves both product characteristics and functionality as well as the outcome (information, improvement of skills, etc.) achieved in the process of co-creation (through engagement in gamified activities). Emotional value (five items) reflects the positive feelings that appear because of the use of the brand and engagement in gamified activities. Table 2 in detail describes the scales used in the research. Structure of the questionnaire and measurement scales. In designing the questionnaire, general requirements for the composition of such research instruments were followed (Babbie 2007). The questionnaire consists of the main parts: (1) introduction and instruction on how to fill in, (2) the question on the suitability of the respondents for inclusion into the research, (3) questions devoted to extract the main research information, and (4) demographic questions. The questionnaire was composed with respect to the nature of information to be obtained; therefore, the closed questions were dominant. Balanced 5-point Likerttype scales (with an equal number of positively and negatively formulated items) were used for measurement with answers completely disagree/completely agree, completely dislike/completely like, completely unimportant/completely important. On each scale, respondents could indicate the answer NA (not applicable), if the statement was absolutely not relevant for the respondent’s situation. This answer was included into the scales because of the chosen research context, which did not in the advance show whether the respondent participated in gamified activities of a particular company or a brand. A variety of possible situations determined both the inclusion of the answer NA and more general formulations of the items of the measurement scales. Data Analysis Methods Statistical data analysis was conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). The data were analysed following the sequence of quantitative data processing and analysis procedures: • It was tested whether there were no data entry errors. This is performed according to the explore procedure and by composing table of frequency of variables and calculating the highest and lowest values, means and histograms.

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

123

Table 2 Detailed description of scales used in the research Construct Motivation Intrinsic motivation

Scale items

1. I like it when the game gets more complicated at each higher level of the game. 2. I like that I can assume a certain role and related responsibilities when playing. 3. I like that I can become another person/player or designer. 4. The game is a good way to learn new things. 5. I improve my knowledge and skills when I play. 6. I like that I can choose what to do when I play. 7. I like observing the consequences of my actions and decisions. 8. The game encourages me to communicate with other players. 9. It is important for me to compare my actions/achievements with those of other players. 10. I enjoy the feeling of satisfaction after winning. 11. I enjoy playing games. 12. I feel happy when I play. Extrinsic 13. The awards (badges, virtual gifts, motivation money) that I can get after I pass a level or perform a certain task make me play the game. 14. Being a good player is about prestige for me. 15. Reward promised at the outcome of the game is important for me. 16. The game is an inseparable part of myself. 17. The game helps me to develop my personality. 18. The game helps me to develop useful social and intellectual skills. 19. I feel I am obliged to play games. 20. I feel I have to play in order to feel better. Game elements Game 1. Games allowing to explore, learn more mechanics and encouraging self-education. 2. Games offering to collect something.

Authors Lin et al. (2012)

The research authors following Hainey et al. (2011) The research authors following Hainey et al. (2011) Koo et al. (2007) Koo et al. (2007) The research authors following Hainey et al. (2011) The research authors following Hainey et al. (2011) Koo et al. (2007) The research authors following Hainey et al. (2011) The research authors following Hainey et al. (2011) Koo et al. (2007) Koo et al. (2007) The research authors following Lafreniere et al. (2012)

The research authors following Werbach and Hunter (2012), Blohm and Leimeister (2013), Seaborn and Fels (2015) (continued)

Ž. Piligrimienė

124 Table 2 (continued) Construct

Scale items 3. Games encouraging healthy competition with other players.

4. Games that require a lot of effort to win and become a leader. 5. Games in teams, games where a community is created. 6. Games posing serious challenges. 7. Games educating and developing certain skills. Game 1. Score showing the progress of components the game. 2. Announcement of leaders (visual demonstration of achievements in comparison with other players). 3. Achievements/badges (performance of certain tasks, visual demonstration of achievements). 4. Levels—gradually increasing the complexity of the game environment. 5. Feedback—information provided about your actions as a player. Engagement in a gamified activity Flow state 1. While I was playing I did not notice how time flies. 2. I was totally immersed in the game. 3. I was totally absorbed in my mind. 4. It was interesting to play the game. 5. It was fun to play the game. 6. I was curious while playing the game. 7. I felt I could control the situation in the game. Consumer brand engagement Cognitive 1. I devote a lot of attention to anything related to the brand/company. 2. Anything related to the brand/company attracts my attention. 3. I enjoy learning more about this brand/ company. Emotional 4. I feel good when I use this brand/ product/services of this company. 5. I am a passionate fan of the brand/ company. 6. I love this brand/company. 7. I feel happy to have a chance to use this brand/product/services of this company.

Authors

The research authors following Bunchball (2019), Werbach and Hunter (2012), Blohm and Leimeister (2013), Seaborn and Fels (2015)

Engeser and Rheinberg (2008) Choi and Kim (2004) Engeser and Rheinberg (2008) Choi and Kim (2004) Choi and Kim (2004) Choi and Kim (2004) Choi and Kim (2004)

So et al. (2014) So et al. (2014) So et al. (2014), Hollebeek et al. (2014) Hollebeek et al. (2014) So et al. (2014) So et al. (2014) Hollebeek et al. (2014)

(continued)

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

125

Table 2 (continued) Construct

Scale items 8. I am proud to have a chance to use this brand.

Authors Hollebeek et al. (2014)

9. Usually, I use this brand/company in the category of the same or similar products or services. 10. I enjoy getting engaged in the discussions of the community of this brand/ company. 11. I often participate in the activities of the community of this brand/company. 12. I enjoy sharing ideas with other members of the community of this brand/ company. Consumer perceived value Functional 1. The quality of this brand/company value products (services) is always stable. 2. The quality of this brand/company products (services) is high. 3. Products (services) of this brand/company fulfil my needs. 4. By engaging in gamified activities of this brand/company, I contribute to quality improvement of the product/ service. 5. I feel satisfied that I have the possibility to influence the product/service design. 6. By engaging in gamified activities of this brand/company, I get more information about the product/service. 7. Information that I got having engaged in the gamified activities of this brand/ company helps me to develop personal/ professional skills. Social value 8. The use of this brand/company products (services) enhances my self-respect. 9. The use of this brand/company products (services) improves my image. 10. By using this brand/community products (services), I feel part of the community. 11. Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company stimulates me to communicate and establish new contacts. 12. Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company allows me to expand my personal/social network (contacts).

Hollebeek et al. (2014)

Behavioural

So et al. (2014)

So et al. (2014) So et al. (2014)

Sweeney and Soutar (2001) Sweeney and Soutar (2001) Wang et al. (2013) The research authors

Nambisan and Baron (2009)

Lee et al. (2014), Nambisan and Baron (2009) Chen and Lin (2015)

Lee et al. (2014) Lee et al. (2014) The research authors

Lee et al. (2014)

Nambisan and Baron (2009)

(continued)

Ž. Piligrimienė

126 Table 2 (continued) Construct

Scale items 13. By participating in gamified activities of this brand/company, I enhance my status as an expert on the product/service in the community.

Authors Nambisan and Baron (2009)

Emotional value

14. Using products (services) of this brand/company makes me feel joy. 15. This brand/company always makes me feel good. 16. Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company captures and stimulate my mind. 17. Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company brings me joy to solve problems, generate ideas, etc. 18. Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company makes me satisfied. 19. The price of products (services) of this brand/company is reasonable. 20. The price of products (services) of this brand/company matches its value. 21. Products (services) of this brand/ company are worth my investment (time, effort, etc.). 22. Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company gives me tangible economic profit (awards, price discounts, special prizes).

Wang et al. (2013)

Economic value

Wang et al. (2013) Nambisan and Baron (2009)

Nambisan and Baron (2009)

Nambisan and Baron (2009) Sweeney and Soutar (2001) Sweeney and Soutar (2001) Choo et al. (2012)

The research authors

• Data distribution according to the normality curve was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. • In order to correctly determine the nature of the phenomenon under analysis, the suitability of the measurement instrument has to be proven. Many scales of measurement used in this research were adapted from the scales proposed by several other authors or new scales were composed; therefore, it is essential to test each variable used in the research by Factor analysis and scale reliability tests. Only when a set of indicators that is appropriate for the research construct is determined, the analysis may be continued and conclusions regarding the analysed phenomenon may be formulated. All this serves as the grounds for the use of Factor analysis. Factor analysis provides a possibility to classify different variables according to their mutual correlation into mutually unrelated groups, i.e. factors. Moving from a big number of variables to factors makes the information more comprehensive. Values of latent factors are later used as substitutes of original data in correlation, regression, difference, etc. analyses. The suitability of variables for Factor analysis was tested by Bartlett’s spherical test and KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient. Factor analysis is considered unacceptable

Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value. . .

127

Table 3 Interpretation of correlation coefficients Correlation coefficient value 0.00–0.19 0.20–0.39 0.40–0.69 0.70–0.89 0.90–1.00

• •

•

•

•

Interpretation Very low correlation Low correlation Moderate correlation High correlation Very high correlation

Very weak relation Weak relation Moderate relation Strong relation Very strong relation

when the p value in the Bartlett’s spherical test is α (the chosen significance α level in this research is 0.05) and KMO < 0.5 (Čekanavičius and Murauskas 2011). The reliability of scales and consistency of their internal structure was tested using the Cronbach alpha coefficient (0.5  α  1). The closer the coefficient value is to 1, the more reliable the scale. Descriptive statistical analysis allows evaluating the frequency distribution of variables, necessary to demographically characterise the respondents and describe the measures of central tendency (mean, mode and median) of the research variables as well as distribution characteristics (standard deviation). Correlation analysis is necessary to evaluate the interdependence between the analysed research constructs (variables). Interpretations of different strengths of associations, indicated by obtained correlation coefficients, may be determined. In this research, it is recommended to refer to the interpretation proposed by Cohen et al. (2003) (see Table 3). Regression analysis is essential in order to evaluate the impact of independent variable(s) on the dependent variable. In this research, several causal hypotheses are raised, and their testing should include procedures of simple and/or multiple linear regression analysis. In order to evaluate the role of the mediator, the mediation effect analysis needs to be performed. For this purpose, depending on the mediation type, SPSS PROCESS macro v2.13 is used (Hayes 2013). According to Hayes (2013), to evaluate a parallel mediation effect, SPSS PROCESS model 4 is used; meanwhile, SPSS PROCESS model 6 is employed when an effect of two serial mediators in relation between the independent and the dependent variable is being tested. Mediation reflects the hypothetical causal chain where one variable has an effect on the other variable, which in turn affects the third variable, etc. Such a causal chain is reflected in Hypothesis H11, which claims that gamification has a positive impact on consumer perceived value through consumer engagement. Graphically, the indirect effect may be reflected as in Fig. 3. According to Hayes (2013), the total effect of the independent variable X on the dependent variable Y in the model with mediators consists of the direct and the indirect effect. The direct effect of X on Y is interpreted as the Y difference between two cases when X is changed by one unit but the values of the mediator (s) remain the same. Indirect effects are composed by multiplying the regression weights corresponding to different steps in the indirect pathway and are

Ž. Piligrimienė

128

X (Gamification)

M (Consumer engagement)

Y (Consumer perceived value)

Fig. 3 Research model indicating the indirect impact of the mediator

interpreted as the Y difference between two cases different by only one unit on X in the causal sequence from independent variable X to mediator(s) (Hayes 2013). In order to determine how (directly or indirectly mediated by consumer engagement) gamification affects consumer perceived value, the bootstrap method is employed (Hayes 2013). Confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap replicates are composed. In order to judge whether the effect is statistically significantly different from zero, it is estimated whether the bootstrap confidence interval covers zero.

Žaneta Piligrimienė, Ph.D. in Social Sciences (Management and Administration), Associate Professor at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. She took part in different research projects. Her current research interests are related to research methodology and techniques, impact of religion and moral values on consumer behavior, sustainable consumption.

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in the Context of ICT Development Žaneta Piligrimienė, Agnė Gadeikienė, Rimantas Gatautis, and Elena Vitkauskaitė

1 Qualitative Research Results The aim of the qualitative research is to uncover game elements employed for gamification of activities of companies and find out what value for company is created by consumers engaged through gamification in value co-creation. Another purpose of the research is to identify the research context and specify the construct of gamification for subsequent quantitative research. The aims set were achieved by using several research methods—target group discussions and content analysis of selected gamified activities. Further on, qualitative research results are presented by separating the results of the target group discussion and content analysis of gamification cases in Lithuania.

1.1

Results of the Target Group Discussion

The goal was to include into the research the representatives of organisations employing gamification; therefore, the monograph authors faced the difficulties in practical implementation of the research in terms of the search for and attraction of possible participants. In fact, the selection of participants was based on the search for cases of gamification on the internet and by personal contacts. The moderate amount of outcomes determined the decisions to include into the research not only the representatives of the organisations employing gamification, but also independent experts of the field. In the initial stage, 16 possible participants were contacted; however, only 11 expressed their consent to take part in the research. Of them, six Ž. Piligrimienė (*) · A. Gadeikienė · R. Gatautis · E. Vitkauskaitė Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Gatautis et al. (eds.), Gamification and Consumer Engagement, Progress in IS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4_7

129

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

130 Table 1 Description of participants of the discussion Subject Marius (M) Ingrida (I)

Martynas (MA) Gediminas (G) Audrius (A) Vaidas (V)

Represented company/sphere Representative of one of the first companies in Lithuania to employ gamification. Teacher of university, head of the Youth Information Centre in Vilnius. At the university, she teaches gamification; and at the youth centre, she uses gamification solutions to assess competences of young people. Founder of the webpage X, gamification enthusiast, developing gamification solutions on the webpage. President of Lithuanian Game Developers Association, with long-term experience in the field of digital marketing. Representative of online company. His professional activity is closely related to the use of game elements. He is responsible for the internet portal, tests gamification and game elements on the portal.

participants came to the target group discussion on the dedicated time. With respect to the flexibility of the qualitative research in terms of the sample size and orientation towards the criterion of the chance to obtain information that would be valuable for the research rather than towards the amount, such a number of the participants in the qualitative research is considered sufficient. Thus, six invited participants took part in the target group discussion. Each of them may be considered an expert in the analysed field (see Table 1). Four participants represented the companies operating in virtual environment, themselves creating and actively employing gamification solutions. Two other participants represented the experts in the field from the perspective of game developers and researchers. One was the president of Game Developers Association who had proficient knowledge in the specifics of game development and deals with orders of companies. The other was a higher education school teacher teaching theory and practice of gamification, who was also the head of a nonprofit organisation that practically employed gamification solutions in the activity of the organisation. The discussion participants matched the target population of the research according to their features and competence in the analysed field and could provide the information necessary for the research. The results of the discussion are presented following the intended scenario of the discussion where the primary goal is to find out how the participants understand and define the concept of gamification as well as why and how gamification is employed, to determine the employed game elements (involving game dynamics, mechanics and components), and to find out what value for company is created by engaging consumers in gamification. Understanding the Concept of Gamification At the beginning of the discussion, the goal was to find out how the participants understand and define the term gamification. It turned out that all the participants understood the concept of gamification very similarly to how it is defined in the theory indicating that in fact gamification refers to the use of game elements in

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

131

Table 2 Concept of gamification Subcategory Use of game elements

Educational simulation

Psychological need to play

Quotations Gamification is a certain employment of games, a certain logic to achieve the aim First, there is the aim, and then you look for the means how to achieve a solution. Gamification is one of the means. on a theoretical level, it is the use of game elements. Game is in fact a simulation, it is not a real thing. If you go to the chain store Rimi and buy something, you perform a real action and get a sticker for this job. And the game historically is part of the human learning process, i.e., I perform a certain action in a safe environment, which will prepare me for the real action. „ when you talk about gamification of certain processes at companies and that gamification is used for certain training, this is, in my opinion, greater gamification than when you show better results – you get a pizza. Gamification is simulation to teach something, so that later in the real situation you perform something well. Gamification means converting inner emotional and psychological features to some tangible, audible, perceived expression. a psychological moment – certain aims achieved by putting some natural individual human features to a public, visible, perceived evaluation system.

situations unrelated to games. On the other hand, a deeper textual analysis highlights certain nuances of the attitudes maintained by the participants demonstrating different aspects of the gamification concept (see Table 2). The results reveal that gamification is first of all based on the human psychological need to play; thus, the use of game elements with the specific aim (whether business or social) has a clear perspective of engaging in processes of an organisation. In defining gamification, its educational purpose which helps to gain benefit for the company offering the game and the consumer playing the game is clearly expressed. In general, the participants of the discussion defined gamification as a certain simulation of the reality in a safe environment (which may be both virtual and physical) helping to learn something (develop skills or acquire knowledge), motivating and inspiring to participate in activities by arousing the natural need to play, which is enhanced by offering a reward. When the participants were asked to define gamification, a discussion broke out about what can be considered gamification and what cannot. The conversation turned towards the practice of collection of stickers employed by the majority of supermarket chains in Lithuania, and the participants had different opinions about this practice. Some participants claimed that the use of the smallest game element (e.g. one sticker–one point) already allows talking about gamification. ... these are just means, and the stickers may also be called gamification. It is an easy, superficial gamification.—G.

However, other participants thought that this only reflected the simplest quantitative discount with a different visual solution.

132

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

... but in fact what is gamified by this? You get stickers, but I don’t think it is gamification. It is simply an attempt to introduce a certain element, it encourages to buy, that is, it is a quantitative discount, only a visual solution has been made. we have never considered that as gamification, it was only promotion of loyalty.—M

Finally, the participants reached the consensus that whether gamification is present or absent depends on the psychological limits in the consumer’s mind. ... gamification teaches you to become better, even if you buy toothpaste, you start to clean your teeth better. Although this is not related to sales, it is not a bad example. And a blunt buy-get is not gamification.—M.

The analysis of the opinions of the participants on the concept of gamification demonstrated that they saw a big difference between complex gamification of activities of companies and separate game elements used to achieve the aims set. The experts thought that the latter was dominant in the activities of Lithuanian companies. When the participants analysed the concept of gamification, they presented several examples of gamification cases that allowed identifying certain spheres of gamification employment (see Table 3). In summary, gamification does not necessarily have to take place in virtual space; there are a lot of examples of gamification in physical space. The social, educational purpose of gamification and gamification for business purposes may be distinguished and may both be oriented towards employees of a company or consumers. Gamification may manifest at different levels when a complex of activities of a company are gamified through the use of various game elements, which requires a lot of investment, and when only certain game elements are used, which may vary from very superficial gamification (e.g. collect a certain number of stickers and get a free cup of coffee) to very complex. Aims and Forms of Gamification Employment The discussion was aimed at identifying the aims why companies use gamification to engage consumers. The analysis of the results revealed that the main reasons were economic motives, such as increase of revenues, recognition of the brand, collection of the data about consumers allowing creation and development of consumer databases, the attraction of new consumers and boosting the loyalty of existing consumers (see Table 4). The analysis of the ways that companies use to involve consumers into certain activities through game elements showed that the participants emphasised three consumer engagement ways: (1) communication (by asking for feedback), (2) involvement into product improvement (by asking to suggest an idea for product package design or improvement of product features) and (3) reward/feedback (as a separate or sales-integrated function) (see Table 5). The information provided in Table 5 allows making associations between the indicated consumer involvement forms and two main consumer involvement forms usually distinguished in the scientific literature: (1) involvement into product improvement and innovations, and (2) consumer communication about a company or its brand (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014). In the former case, consumers are

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

133

Table 3 Examples of gamification cases Subcategory Space of application

Examples in the physical space

Social, educational purpose Self-assessment of skills

For staff

Examples in the virtual space

Development of relations with customers Promotion of customer activity

Social purpose for staff

Quotations Whether something is gamification or not does not depend on the environment, be it physical or online, but on whether there is a reward. not necessarily digital, it may have a very simple physical form. And in the reality, it is always harder to do, because you need to communicate to people in some ways and distribute that information for example, scouts have been using gamification for many years. They collect badges, pins, they have a well developed process . Youth competences pass. a paper book, 3-level system. at level 1, a person assesses himself/herself and sticks the stickers. if you get all the stickers, you can move to another level. At the second level, you have to perform tasks that we already control . We have understood that this is professional orientation. This helps to assess oneself and systemically organise information about oneself. Social purpose. Solution to a professional orientation problem in the gamified form. Company elect the best employee of the moth. Maybe not all the elements are there, but they do have some elements . Company now is performing gamification with cards and application which shows your progress . such a thing was there as loyalty, a very simple one, which should be treated as not functional, that is, a six-hearts system. Every day when you visit [the portal – authors’ note], you get a heart, and when you collect six hearts, you get a prize, credits, etc., but you have to visit the portal every day. And this worked damn good, although very simple . Brand game is a very good example developing recognition of the brand. But in this case, the investment is really big . In our company, free unrestricted work is recognised, a planner system has been created when people write down their tasks and everybody can see who does what a notification system has been implemented indicating that you have still not done something, and if you do your yesterday’s tasks, you will get a badge that you are always late there’s a game system used for planning.

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

134 Table 4 Aims of gamification Subcategory Increase of revenues

Boosting brand recognition, attraction of consumers

Boosting consumer loyalty

Quotations We teach to spend more and pay attention. Our aim is revenue. And the more of the process [game] we give to the community when they spend money, virtual credits, buying gifts, the more it returns to us as real money. there is one more model when the sales function is integrated into the game. Instead of sending discounts for Christmas, they produce an advent calendar when for 20 days a retailer comes every day and plays a game to get some proposal of the day with a discount that he/she may purchase. They could get the same proposals even without the game, but the first 2
3 games had a certain narrative, there was a story being told from the first day to the last, and thus participants were involved in the story so that they would wish to come next day early to find out how the situation evolved. So they created a selling position in the product and their investment automatically paid off. When engaged consumers associate the game as giving them a positive emotion with the brand of the company finally people are attracted. There is a very good example with brand game it achieved excellent results of the brand recognition. Mostly to enhance the brand recognition and develop a consumer database. Gamification involving consumers is in fact part of a marketing strategy. Usually, they work according to the traditional loyalty principle, create a system where certain actions are rewarded with certain resources which are exchanged to real gifts, etc. . Gamification produces retention. The aim is to develop loyalty, it is important that it comes back.

Table 5 Ways of consumer engagement Subcategory Reward/feedback (game components)

Communication

Participation in product improvement

Quotations It is a virtual community. You want to show interest – you buy virtual gifts every day you come, you get a heart and when you collect six hearts you get a prize, credits, etc., but you have to visit every day. And this thing worked damn good, although very simple “. They have to collect badges. There are three levels and if you want to collect them, you have to do certain tasks. every day a retailer comes and plays a game to get a proposal of the day with a discount that he/she may purchase. People used the product and had to write their comment about it and send photos Comments of consumers were used to communicate about the brand attract other consumers because it builds trust . They were so engaged because the prize was very tangible. Like a possibility to feel like a designer, to have a personal product this motivates.

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

135

Table 6 Attitudes towards the employment of game elements Subcategory Ad hoc development

According to player types

Quotations it is impossible to say. You have an idea, develop it and see what works. This question may be answered only in a very particular situation . It is hard to say. Now when making a decision, I have started to trust casinos, because they have it very simple, but very well done. That the element of achievement is emphasised – that is one of the most important things. We start from how this achievement should be represented and shown, and then we think of the way towards it. Everything goes according to player types. If we talk about killers – then high score for them, they want to be first, they don’t want to be overtaken, the progress bar is important. Achievers are very similar, except that they have more motivation themselves because they want to be leaders , appreciated in the society as personalities, etc. Awards, likes are important to them. This all goes to business. You will not find applications without likes. Socialisers who want to communicate have to have more contacts, and if one can see how many contacts (friends) you have – then it is good. Explorers – difficult to apply in business, they are more dominant in non-profit organisations.

encouraged to suggest ideas and help develop suggestions on the company’s side, and in the latter case, a company gets informative material (about the company or the brand) that may be used in communicative activities of the company. Of note, the participants of the discussion separated the ways how to involve consumers at different levels. These two cases cover consumer involvement into activities of companies through gamification. However, the experts also emphasised possible ways of consumer involvement into gamified activities by listing particular game components (e.g. badges, prizes, i.e. reward, hearts, i.e. points) often employed to encourage ongoing consumer participation in gamified activities. Game Elements Used by Companies (Game Components, Mechanics, Dynamics) One of the objectives of the target group discussion was to define game elements employed by companies. However, the participants of the discussion could not provide specific information about the employment of particular game elements. They expressed an opinion that this was case-dependent, and decisions to employ certain game elements were not discussed in advance but were made on a case-basis (see Table 6). The ad hoc attitude towards collection, development and analysis of game elements leads to the situation when the meaning of separate game elements is not analysed and is not clear. First, the desired consumer behaviour is being anticipated, and then the scenario how to encourage that behaviour is created. In this case, there is not much consideration how game elements correspond to the needs of the target audience. This reverse process is obvious in the analysis of gamification results, too. Gamification results are typically analysed after implementation, and game elements

136

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

may be improved in the course of game development as well. Rather often the efficiency of separate elements becomes obvious only when they are refused. It is difficult to calculate whether it generates revenue, because if you don‘t stop it, you won‘t know. If it was good and you stop it, you notice right away that revenue decreases.—A.

Although the participants of the discussion agreed that different player types needed different games and game elements, usually profiling of players was not performed or was rather primitive, only taking into consideration sociodemographic rather than psychographic parameters. In fact, in our company, the collection principle works, and achievement has not been tried a lot. And we only did profiling into men and women .—A.

In order to gamify a complex of activities of a company, a comprehensive and psychological analysis of target customers requiring high costs is needed, and business companies are not inclined to do that in Lithuania. According to the participants of the discussion, even large-scale companies with ample resources that conduct analysis rarely use the analysis results. Those companies that conduct analysis, don‘t act in accordance with the conclusions made. They perform analysis only to have them.—G.

Game developers obviously analyse player behaviour and costs, calculate user lifetime value by employing the measures needed in order to gamify activities as efficiently as possible. However, when activities are gamified, their further development is performed in the process. All the time, there is investment in project creation, and maintenance and improvement of the game is performed in the real time. There is no such thing that we give the created game to a specific selected audience to test and only then launch it to the market. No, it is created and launched immediately, and improvement takes place in the real time.—G.

Regarding the employment of gamification in Lithuania, more and more business companies use specific game elements to engage consumers; however, so far this has been noticed in businesses developed in virtual space rather than physical (see Table 7). Thus, the employment of gamification is not widely used in the Lithuanian business market and the main cause of this is that companies do not believe in return on investment. Gamification of activities of companies requires a lot of investment, and companies usually allocate small budgets for that. The Lithuanian market is too small for complex and costly gamification projects. Besides, there is a lack of IT specialists who would be able to implement gamification solutions. All these reasons determine the now dominant greater attention on the employment of game elements rather than on investment into complex gamification of activities of a company. Value for Company in Relation to Consumer Involvement into Gamified Activities One of the core research objectives was to find out what value consumers create for company by engaging in gamified activities as well as identify the dimensions of value for company distinguished in the theoretical analysis. The obtained results

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

137

Table 7 Gamification in business companies in Lithuania Subcategory Employment of gamification

Problems occurring when games are offered to business companies

Quotations To transfer gamification to business is still not very popular in Lithuania, at least for now. If we talk about Lithuania, this depends on the type of a company, whether it has gone that direction or not. Online companies are advanced. But retailers with difficulty accept that, and it is more difficult to convince them than companies working online. Technological companies understand well those processes, they are simple to evaluate and simple to implement. For other companies, it is complicated. future is not bringing down gamification processes from the company, but integration of a business into a game. It has been popular abroad for a while. When business comes to the game. But often it turns out that it is too expensive. And it is limited to such things as upload a recipe and the winner of the best recipe will get a trip to the mountains . If businesspeople are in general educated, know what gamification is, they understand that it comes out of inner intentions, and if you employ extrinsic gamification which pushes you, then don‘t wait for good. That‘s why it is not so easy to sell. You cannot offer gamification clichés to business. It has to be individualised. The main problem is that business does not believe in return on investment. Even those companies that think of going digital have a deeply-rooted belief that this means zeros and ones, which is really cheap. That‘s why there are not many such projects in Lithuania. Just because such things need a big budget. Often it is not a businessperson who comes and says that they need gamification (except for technological companies), but otherwise. Accessing business is ad hoc. There are no specialists, there‘s a big competition in the IT sphere. Game industry cannot compete very much in terms of human resources with other IT spheres. All this is generated to small budgets and ideas that are very big and impressive at the idea level, and when it comes to implementation, then there is something and not what has been planned. A small market in Lithuania. They don‘t think about investing into a game, because it‘s not going to pay off.

allow confirming the multidimensional structure of value for company, consisting of economic, social and functional value (see Table 8). The analysis of the results allows identifying the economic value for a company that comes through consumer profitability, consumer lifetime value, number of

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

138 Table 8 Value for company Subcategory Economic value

Social value

Functional value

Quotations the greater part of revenue comes from advertising. Another thing, it is important for us to have a bigger community. Gamification allows retaining consumers, loyalty is developed, and it is important that it comes back. The more people will use it for free, the more will pay for it. Lithuania is a small market and everyone assesses what financial return gamification gives. I would say that the biggest value in many cases is enhancement of brand recognition . . . . Consumer loyalty and brand recognition engagement generates a lot of word of mouth communication. usually consumer loyalty is developed . Engaged consumers communicate with others , build trust with the company and its products in the society ; an image of a reliable company was created “. They [consumers] know that they can ask and get answers; they trust us more now and bring others. These [consumers] who play are considered as experts. Their opinion is trusted more than, for example, you will write how good and beautiful you are. It is much better to have engaged consumers, because consumers trust other consumers more. we had to offer a recipe, the best recipe was produced as a new product, so you can find something tangible here . Some ideas that they [consumers] suggest are logical . The benefit is twofold: for idea improvement and ongoing communication about us, and we don’t pay anything . Feedback is important, and you don’t need surveys. You get ideas, you know your consumers’ needs and you can adapt . I any case the consumer himself/herself is value. Information about him/her.

newly attracted consumers, expanded brand or company community, consumer retention, loyalty, and brand recognition. The social value is reflected through positive word of mouth communication, which forms an appropriate opinion about the company, develops its image and enhances the trust of the society. The functional value is reflected through ideas suggested by consumers on product or service improvement, information about consumers themselves (creation and development of consumer database), and feedback allowing adaptation of the company’s activities (services, communication strategies, etc.) according to consumers’ needs. Various opinions exist in the scientific literature about the value received by the company in the process of co-creation. Some researchers emphasise only economic benefit, others suggest a broader classification involving both direct and indirect, tangible and intangible value. However, the results of this research allow making an assumption that value for company, as the outcome of consumer involvement through gamified activities, may be defined in terms of three value dimensions distinguished by the authors of the monograph—economic, social and functional. To summarise the analysis of the results of the target group discussion, the following main aspects may be highlighted:

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

139

• Gamification is understood as reality simulation in a safe environment (that may be both virtual and physical), which helps to learn something (develop skills or acquire knowledge) and serves as a motivating measure to participate in certain activities by promoting a natural psychological human need to play, which is enhanced by offering a reward. • There are two purposes of gamification: social/educational and commercial. Gamification is also usually consumer-oriented. • Gamification may be manifested at different levels when there is a complex gamification of activities of a company, which requires a lot of investment, and when certain game elements are employed, which is typically based on the principle of collection. • More and more business companies in Lithuania employ gamification of activities to involve consumers; however, so far this practice has been more often used in the businesses developed in virtual rather than physical environment. • The main reason why employment of gamification is not widespread in Lithuania is that companies are sceptical about the return on investment and the market is not big. This determines the dominant tendency to devote greater attention to the employment of separate game elements rather than investment in complex gamification of activities. • Decisions regarding the choice of certain game elements to gamify activities are often based not on the comprehensive analysis of target consumers, but are chosen and developed ad hoc and are mostly determined by lack of funds and reluctance to invest. • Companies employing gamification to involve consumers usually seek to enhance income/revenue and recognition of the brand, to obtain information about consumers allowing them to create and develop a consumer database, attract new consumers and enhance the loyalty of the existing ones. • Three main ways of involving consumers into certain activities through game elements may be distinguished: (1) communication, (2) involvement into product improvement and (3) reward/feedback. • In respect of value for company created by consumer involvement through gamified activities, the three-dimensional (economic, social and functional) structure of the construct may be confirmed. The economic value refers to consumer profitability, number of newly attracted consumers, size of the brand community, consumer loyalty and brand recognition. The social value is revealed through the creation of organisation/brand reputation/image in the society. The functional value is defined by information from and about consumers allowing companies to create consumer databases, improve the existing products/services or develop innovations.

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

140 Table 9 Gamification cases under content analysis Code G01 G02 G03 G04 G05 G06 G07 G08 a

Aim of gamification/gamified activitya Getting familiar with the process of acquiring a driver’s license Sorting the used primary cells for recycling Reading books Reduction of discrimination, intolerance and inequality of the disabled in the society Getting familiar with management of personal finances Enhancement of brand recognition Preparation for final exams/additional training Organising dates/evaluation of dating matches

Determined by game observation and trial

1.2

Results of Content Analysis of Gamification Cases

The target group discussion was not successful enough to provide an in-depth analysis on employment of games elements; therefore, it was decided to conduct the content analysis of selected gamification cases. The methodological solutions of the search for cases, selection, etc. are described in the chapter on the qualitative research methodology (see Sect. 2 in chapter “Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in the Context of ICT Development”). The search yielded eight cases of gamification (see Table 9), satisfying the criteria set. For analysis, eight selected cases were studied in order to identify the gamification aim, define the target audience and distinguish the core game elements (see Table 10). The results on the target audience of the analysed gamification cases demonstrated that gamified activities in Lithuanian organisations were most often oriented towards young customers. Another aspect important for the analysis and providing valuable information about gamification of activities in Lithuanian organisations is related to peculiarities of the employment of game elements. The selected cases of gamified activities were analysed according to two types of game elements: game mechanics and game components. It may be asserted that in all the analysed gamification cases, consumers were encouraged to compete and engage in an attractive, challenging activity providing a possibility to acquire knowledge in a certain field or develop certain skills (Table 11). The analysis of gamification cases showed that Lithuanian organisations employed very different game components. The decision to choose a certain game component is associated with the aim formulated for consumers. If the aim is related to acquiring knowledge, organisations choose to employ such game components as tasks or levels. Other components are employed when organisations seek to enhance brand recognition or develop consumer skills in a certain field. In such cases, organisations employ more diverse (e.g. G06) or more unusual (e.g. G02, G05) game components. Points, feedback/reward (often in the form of prizes), leader

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

141

Table 10 Analysis of game elements employed in gamified activities Code G01

G02

Aim on the consumer’s part Get familiar with the process of acquiring a driver’s license (category B) Collect points given when primary cells are thrown away into special containers and use the points to play a game online

G03

Correctly answer closed questions about various books

G04

Get familiar with human rights, expressions of discrimination and groups experiencing discrimination in society Understand how money comes and goes

G05

G06

G07

G08

Participate and compete in the simulation process of the particular business in order to become the king of product Get ready for the final exam(s) of the chosen subject(s) by doing tasks Find a friend

Target audience Adults who plan to get a driver’s license (category B) Families with children

5- to 8-year old children who are active, enjoy adventures and reading books Teenagers

Game mechanics Challenges

Game components Points (stars), 6 levels

Competition; challenge; improvement; ranking system

Achievements/ badges; points; virtual money; prizes (cheques of 100 Lt (approx. 29 Euros), the main prize—iPad mini); tasks Points for correct answers to the questions; leader boards; prizes for more than 55 points; 13 levels Points for time answering questions; leader boards; prizes for the shortest time; 20 randomly selected questions Feedback about money spent, points, awards, prizes; tasks; levels Leader boards (king of product); points; achievements/badges; feedback; group tasks

Competition; improvement; challenge; status acquisition Competition; improvement; challenge

7- to 25-year old children and youngsters

Exploration; challenge; improvement

Consumers of the product

Competition; challenge; status acquisition; cooperation; ranking systems

Grade 5
12 schoolchildren

Competition; collection; challenge

Points; badges; leader boards, feedback

Adults (older than 18)

Status acquisition; collection

Hearts, game currency —points; everyday prizes—surprises; gifts

boards, achievements/badges and levels are most common game components used regardless of the consumer-oriented aim in a gamified activity and game mechanics. Another purpose of the analysis of gamification cases was to identify what value consumers obtain having engaged in a gamified activity and what value the company obtains by gamifying activities. Table 12 provides the results of this analysis.

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

142 Table 11 Use of game elements in analysed gamification cases Game mechanics Challenge Competition Improvement Status acquisition Collection Exploration Cooperation

Number of cases 7 5 4 3 2 1 1

Game components Points Feedback/reward (prizes) Leader boards Achievements/badges Levels

Number of cases 8 5 4 3 3

Table 12 Gamification-based value for company and consumers Code G01

G02

Consumer value • Fun to play; • Getting familiar with the process of acquiring a driver’s license (category B). • Fun to play; • Deeper knowledge about nature preservation and environment protection; • Satisfaction with positive individual behaviour changes.

G03

• Fun to play; • Enhanced reading competences; • Satisfaction with reading new books and correctly answering questions in relation to the books read.

G04

• Enhanced awareness of different social groups, human rights and gender equality in various fields—politics, medicine, work, etc. • Fun to play; • Greater awareness how to plan expenses, save and invest.

G05

G06

• Fun to play; • Socialisation; • Weekly prizes; • Regular update of the content.

Value for company • Enhanced number of individuals seeking to obtain a driver’s license. • Enhanced knowledge of the target group about environment protection; • Increased amount of collected used primary cells; • Communication about socially responsible activities of the company for society (the target group); • Increased awareness of the target group about environment protection issues; • Education of the target audience. • Enhanced reading competences of the target audience encouraging school children to read more books; • Enhanced recognition and popularity of books involved into gamified activities in the society. • Reduced level of discrimination; • Contribution to education of open society. • Enhanced financial literacy of the younger generation; • More educated and informed consumers; • Enhanced number of young consumers. • Enhanced brand recognition in the target audience of the Lithuanian market; • Brand engagement; • Presentation of the new brand before introducing it to the market; • Enhanced positive image of the brand; • Positive reviews in print and digital media; • Creation of fan blogs; (continued)

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

143

Table 12 (continued) Code

Consumer value

G07

• Enhanced motivation to learn; • Better preparation for reporting and exams; • Higher grades.

G08

• Daily prizes; • Weekly prizes according to collected credits; • Possibilities of gifts according to collected credits; • High quality of services due to constant visiting and participation of potential daters.

Value for company • Enhanced level of knowledge about product features among potential consumers; • Feedback from consumers, which helped to make the brand more popular; • Positive word of mouth communication about the brand. • Enhanced consumer satisfaction through greater engagement; • Promotion of self-development of young people; • Improved tasks and quality of services. • Constant consumer engagement; • Ongoing participation of the majority of consumers increasing the general quality of services for all consumers.

Table 12 shows that value obtained by the consumer because of engagement in a gamified activity is related in many cases to the fun to play. Another consumer value is associated with the aim of consumer engagement in a gamified activity. For example, in cases G01, G02, G03, G04, G05 and G07, it involves acquiring deeper knowledge in a certain field, and in cases G02, G03 and G06, it means personal satisfaction and being proud of the results achieved through engagement in a gamified activity. The value obtained by the company is directly related to a gamified activity. If the activity is associated with consumer educating aims, value for company to a large extent involves greater consumer awareness (G01, G03, G06), level of knowledge (G02) and literacy in a certain field (G04, G05). In the case of G07 and G08, the entire service (product) is gamified, which results in a more intensive use of services provided by the company. Although some analysed gamification cases reflect the solutions employed by nonprofit organisations (G01, G03, G04) and in the majority of these cases the social educational purpose is present, different aspects of value for company may still be singled out supporting the assumption of the multidimensional structure of value for company. The analysed cases clearly demonstrate the social value expressed through enhanced image in the society, creation of a reliable, socially responsible company image, etc. The economic value is most evidently seen through enhanced brand recognition and greater consumer engagement. The functional value is defined by consumer feedback allowing the company to develop and improve products/services. The identified dimensions of value for the company in the analysed gamified activities are generalised in Table 13.

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

144 Table 13 Dimensions of value for company created by gamified activities

Code G01 G02 G03 G04 G05 G06 G07 G08

Dimensions of value for company Economic Social Functional +


+ +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + +
+

In summary of the content analysis of selected gamification cases in Lithuania, the following main aspects may be distinguished: • Consumers engaging in gamified activities are usually younger (up to 35 years); • The analysis of the employed game elements showed that game mechanics in many cases was oriented towards challenges, competition, improvement, status acquisition and collection. Employment of game components (which are very diverse) depends on the aim of the game. The most common game components applied are points, feedback/reward, leader boards, achievements/badges, and, regardless of the aim, levels. • The analysis of gamification cases allows identifying different aspects of value for company reflecting the social, economic and functional dimensions. The social value manifests through the creation of positive image and desired reputation in society; the economic value is revealed through enhancement of brand recognition and consumer attraction as well as retention; and the functional value is defined by feedback from consumers allowing the company to develop and improve their products/services.

2 Analysis of Quantitative Research Results The aim of the quantitative research was to reveal how consumers engage in company/brand value co-creation through gamified activities and what consumer value this generates. In order to achieve the research aim, several research questions were formulated, of which the main reflect three component parts of the conceptual model, i.e. how gamification determines consumer engagement; how consumer engagement in value co-creation manifests through gamified activities; and what perceived value consumers identify by engaging in value co-creation through gamified activities? The results of the quantitative research are detailed below. In analysing the quantitative research results, the respondents are first characterised, then the quality indicators of the research methodology are presented

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . . Table 14 Demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristics of respondents Sex Men Women In total: Age Up to 25 years 26–35 years More than 35 years In total:

N 87 260 347 69 216 62 347

145 % 25.1 74.9 100.0 19.9 62.2 17.9 100.0

including the results of the Factor analysis and scale reliability, and finally the research data analysis is conducted according to the research questions and hypothesis testing results. Description of Research Participants In total, 749 respondents participated in the study, of which 72% were women (539) and 28% were men (210). The age range of the participants was between 15 and 55 years, with the average age of 30 years. The qualitative research revealed that there was no possibility to reach consumers engaged in a gamified activity of a certain company or brand; therefore, in the quantitative research, the aim was to include people engaged in any gamified activity. Hence, the respondents who participated in the survey were asked an inclusion-related question regarding their engagement. More than half of the respondents (53.7%) stated that they never participated in gamified activities, but 11.3% played games unrelated to activities of companies in virtual environment. It turned out that 46.3% of all the respondents of the survey had participated in a gamified activity; thus, the main research information is based on the answers of 347 respondents. The demographic characteristics of these respondents are provided in Table 14. The data provided demonstrate the dominance of the female sex (75%), which should be taken into consideration in interpreting the research results. More than half (62%) of the respondents are in the age group of 26–35 years, which shows that not only young people, as it has been thought, engage in gamified activities; mature people with a status and awareness of their needs also engage. The oldest respondent who indicated to have engaged in gamified activities was 49 years old. The respondents to have been engaged in gamified activities were asked to indicate the company/brand of the game. The majority of the respondents indicated to have played the brand game, analysed in the case G06. The second most common game to have involved the respondents was the other food product brand game followed by the educational game of the bank. The other games that were mentioned among the leading ones were the competition of a personalised bottle label, supermarket games and gamified activities (such as collection of stickers), the competition of brand label creation and bank youth programme investment game analysed as the case G05. The category Other comprising the biggest percentage proportion included all other gamification cases indicated by the respondents reflecting similar activities with other brands (e.g. socks drawing competition, sandwich creation, lotteries and competitions organised by juice or chocolate brands, registering beer

146

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

bottle caps, sending photos of consumed products to online competitions, etc.) or other more interesting but rare games (e.g. digital game about place of tourist attraction—castle where a knight may walk in the castle, fight in the battle, etc.). A tendency is evident that companies mostly offer to consumers to engage in such activities as collection or product (usually its package) design improvement. Consumers collect stickers, caps, etc., in order to win a possibility to buy certain products for lower price or get gifts for free. Competitions of drawings or photos are very popular where the main prize is a brand product or a personalised edition of product package design. It is of note that the majority of gamified activities indicated by the respondents used separate game elements rather than a complex of gamified activities, and the main intention of engagement in a gamified activity was an expected tangible award (extrinsic motivation dominates). On the other hand, it is obvious that a complex of gamified activities is also of interest, as demonstrated by the popularity of the game both analysed in the case G06 and mostly often mentioned among the respondents. Educating gamification cases also have a niche. In this respect, banks offering gamification solutions raising financial literacy may be singled out. In conclusion, gamification cases indicated by the respondents surely reveal the current situation of the application of gamification for consumer engagement in Lithuania (with respect to the results of the qualitative research), which allows referring to the collected data in further analysis. The dominant age of respondents (up to 35 years) displays the characteristics of the target audience of gamified activities, and the prevalence of women possibly shows their greater disposition to engage in similar activities. Nevertheless, the analysed phenomenon is relatively new, thus making its understanding, whatever fragmented, important from the scientific point of view.

2.1

Structure of Research Constructs and Methodological Quality Indicators

Following recommendations for research, before analysis of the research results, it is important to evaluate the psychometric quality of the research instrument, i.e. its reliability and validity characteristics. The reliability of the composed scales was assessed using the Cronbach alpha coefficient. The Factor analysis of distinguished values of factorial weights shows the validity of the scale items within the construct and their latent factors. Mathematically extracted factors reflecting the multiplex statistical correlations of the variables are further qualitatively analysed and interpreted by the researcher. The possibility to theoretically meaningfully interpret the obtained results is one of the arguments for the validity of the construct. In such a way, the methodological quality of the instruments is tested. The Factor analysis allows not only testing and assessing the validity of the instrument constructs, but also revealing the inner structure of the analysed phenomenon. The Factor analysis is conducted on the basis of mathematical calculations

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

147

Table 15 Structure of the motivation construct: results of the primary factor analysis Types of motivation Intrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation

Scale items I like observing the consequences of my actions and decisions; I like that I can choose what to do when I play; I improve my knowledge and skills when I play; The game is a good way to learn new things; I enjoy the feeling of satisfaction after winning; I like that I can assume a certain role and related responsibilities when playing; I like that I can become another person/player or designer when I play; I feel happy when I play; It is important for me to compare my actions/achievements with those of other players; I like when the game gets more complicated in each higher level; I enjoy playing games. The game is an inseparable part of myself; The game helps me to develop my personality; Being a good player is about prestige for me; The game helps me to develop useful social and intellectual skills; The awards (badges, virtual gifts, money) that I can get after I pass a level or perform a certain task make me play the game; Reward promised at the outcome of the game is important for me. Total variance explained, % KMO

Factorial weights 0.503– 0.765

Cronbach alpha 0.859

% of variance 26.259

0.709– 0.892

0.901

23.657

49.916 0.862

Table 16 Structure of the game mechanics construct: results of the primary factor analysis Game mechanics Games 1

Games 2

Scale items Games that require a lot of effort to win and become a leader; games played in teams, games where a community is created; games encouraging healthy competition with other players; games posing serious challenges; games offering to collect something. Games educating and developing certain skills; games allowing exploration, learning and encouraging self-education. Total variance explained, % KMO

Factorial weights 0.488– 0.799

Cronbach alpha 0.703

% of variance 35.343

0.836– 0.885

0.702

22.158

57.501 0.660

only, and the extracted factors may be uninterpretable as a structural part of the research phenomenon; therefore, only theoretically explainable factors may be studied in further stages. To test whether the structure of empirical factors of the used scales reflects the theoretical categories of the constructs, the exploratory Factor

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

148

Table 17 Structure of the game components construct: results of primary factor analysis Game components

Scale items Score showing progress of the game; achievements/badges (performance of certain tasks, visual demonstration of achievements); leader boards (visual demonstration of achievements in comparison with other players); feedback—information provided about your actions as a player; levels—gradually increasing complexity of the game environment. KMO

Factorial weights 0.663– 0.750

Cronbach alpha 0.756

% of variance 50.936

0.762

Table 18 Structure of the construct of engagement in a gamified activity (flow state): results of primary factor analysis Flow state

Scale items It was fun to play the game; it was interesting to play the game; I was totally immersed into the game; I was curious while playing the game; While I was playing I did not notice how time flies; I was totally absorbed in my mind; I felt I could control the situation in the game. KMO

Factorial weights 0.606– 0.816

Cronbach alpha 0.844

% of variance 53.789

0.817

analysis was performed with the principal component analysis and Varimax rotation. The results of the Factor analysis are presented in Tables 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. After empirical testing, the theoretically composed motivation construct retained the structure of two dimensions: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, the indices of factor weights determined a rejection of one item (the game encourages me to communicate with other players) on the intrinsic motivation scale and two items (I feel I am obliged to play games and I feel I need to play to feel better) on the extrinsic motivation scale. Thus, the motivation scale consists of 17 items, of which 11 allow measuring intrinsic motivation to play game, and six are related to extrinsic motivation. High Cronbach alpha coefficients support the validity of composed scales. After empirical testing, two factors were distinguished in the game mechanics construct, reflecting different types of game mechanics. It may be inferred that games describing the factor Games 1 are more oriented towards challenges, collaboration and competition, and the factor Games 2 involves educational games intended for individual self-education. Empirical testing confirmed the one-dimensional structure of the construct of game components. The indices shown in Table 18 demonstrated that the 5-scale items rather accurately describe the main game components, and in further analysis, this construct may be used as a substitute for original data.

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

149

Table 19 Structure of the construct of brand engagement: results of primary factor analysis Dimensions of engagement Cognitive

Emotional

Behavioural

Scale items Anything related to the brand/company attracts my attention; I devote a lot of attention to anything related to the brand/company; I enjoy learning more about this brand/ company. I feel happy to have a chance to use the products/services of this brand/company; I am proud to have a chance to use this brand; I feel good when I use the products/services of this brand/company; I love this brand/company; I am a passionate fan of this brand/ company. I enjoy getting engaged in the discussions of the community of this brand/company; I often participate in the activities of the community of this brand/company; I enjoy sharing ideas with members of the community of this brand/community. Total variance explained, % KMO

Factorial weights 0.681– 0.834

Cronbach alpha 0.870

% of variance 24.442

0.539– 0.741

0.908

26.452

0.827– 0.850

0.911

26.760

76.661 0.925

The empirical testing also confirmed the one-dimensional structure of the construct of flow state, representing engagement in a gamified activity. The indices of scale reliability and the latent factor also show that one variable of a higher abstraction level may represent flow in further analysis. The factor analysis confirmed the presence of three dimensions of brand engagement. The factors expressing cognitive and emotional engagement confirmed the identical structure determined during the theoretical analysis. Out of four items describing the dimension of behavioural engagement distinguished during theoretical analysis, one was rejected (Usually I use this brand/company in the category of the same or similar products or services) because mathematical calculations showed that the respondents struggled understanding this item in connection with other items on behavioural engagement. With respect to the research context where consumer engagement through gamified activities is analysed, it may be stated that other items measuring the behavioural dimension of engagement are more closely related to participation in activities of the brand/company; therefore, rejection of the classical measure (describing the use of the brand) is logically sound. The factor analysis demonstrated that the construct of consumer perceived value was divided into six factors, unlike anticipated in the theoretical model dividing it into four. The factors reflecting the dimensions of economic and social value showed the initial structure. The functional dimension of value was divided into two factors, which were named according to their meaning as functional brand value and functional engagement value. In the same way, the social dimension was divided

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

150

Table 20 Structure of the construct of consumer perceived value: results of primary factor analysis Dimensions of value Economic value

Social engagement value

Social brand value

Functional engagement value

Functional brand value

Emotional value

Scale items The price of products (services) of this brand/company matches its value; The price of products (services) of this brand/company is reasonable; Products (services) of this brand/company are worth my investment (time, effort, etc.); Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company gives me tangible economic profit (awards, price discounts, special prizes). Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company allows me to expand my personal/social network (contacts); Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/ company stimulates me to communicate and establish new contacts; By participating in gamified activities of this brand/company, I enhance my status as an expert of the product/service in the community. The use of this brand/company products (services) improves my image; The use of this brand/company products (services) enhances my self-respect; By using the products (services) of this brand/community, I feel part of the community. By engaging in gamified activities of this brand/company, I get more information about the product/service; I feel satisfied that I have a possibility to influence the product/ service design; By engaging in gamified activities of this brand/company, I contribute to quality improvement of the product/service; Information that I got having engaged in gamified activities of this brand/company helps me to develop personal/professional skills The quality of this brand/company products (services) is high; The quality of the products (services) of this brand/company is always stable; Products (services) of this brand/company fulfil my needs. This brand/company always makes me feel good; Using products (services) of this brand/company make me feel joy; Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/ company brings me joy to solve problems, generate ideas, etc.; Engagement in gamified activities of this brand/company capture and stimulate my mind; Engagement in gamified

Factorial weights 0.478– 0.808

Cronbach alpha 0.832

% of variance 14.940

0.755– 0.837

0.921

14.839

0.574– 0.861

0.891

13.555

0.609– 0.740

0.770

10.209

0.756– 0.838

0.866

11.944

0.692– 0.722

0.887

11.511

(continued)

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

151

Table 20 (continued) Dimensions of value

Scale items

Factorial weights

activities of this brand/company makes me satisfied. Total variance explained, % KMO

76.998 0.920

Cronbach alpha

% of variance

Table 21 Results of the second- and third-order factor analysis Factor Motivation

Game mechanics

Game elements

Brand engagement

Gamification

Consumer engagement

Consumer perceived value

First (second) order factors Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation KMO Games 1 Games 2 KMO Game mechanics Game components KMO Cognitive engagement Emotional engagement Behavioural engagement KMO Game elements Motivation KMO Engagement in a gamified activity (flow state) Brand engagement KMO Economic value Social engagement value Social brand value Functional engagement value Functional brand value Emotional value KMO

Factorial weights 0.829

Cronbach alpha 0.612

% of variance 68.772

0.500 0.757

0.599

57.248

0.500 0.868

0.662

75.299

0.875

80.798

0.725 0.891

0.724

79.464

0.500 0.810

0.663

65.676

0.886

65.162

0.500 0.868– 0.923

0.500 0.650– 0.902

0.858

into two factors: social brand value and social engagement value. These results do not contradict the general logic of the research phenomenon and can be explained by its novelty as, in fact, the customer receives benefit not only by using the product or service, but also the engagement fact itself creates value. It is an important finding since the solutions have to be based on data collected by using the research instrument reflecting the multidimensional nature of the construct. The factor analysis and scale reliability indices presented in Table 21 reveal that all the six factors of

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

152

the construct are homogeneous, and the composed measurement scales are reliable, which supports the use of six variables in describing the construct of consumer perceived value in further analysis. The results of the primary factor analysis allow stating that the formulated factors adequately reflect the first-order variables analysed in the study. Following the logic indicated in the research model (see Fig. 2 in chapter “Research Methodology of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in the Context of ICT Development”), these first-order variables further integrate into more abstract higher-order variables. For this purpose, the second- and third-order factor analysis was conducted. The results are presented in Table 21. Based on the second- and third-order factor analysis, higher abstraction level variables were composed. This provides a possibility to analyse the empirical research results on different levels, taking into consideration the research aims, research questions and associations foreseen in the research model.

2.2

The Role of Gamification in Consumer Engagement

In analysing the role of gamification in consumer engagement, questions are raised as to what motivates consumers to engage in gamified activities and whether intrinsic or extrinsic motivation stimulates consumers to engage in a gamified activity. In order to answer the questions, the indices of consumer motivation are studied (see Table 22). It is evident that intrinsic motivation expressed because of desired personal satisfaction, fun, curiosity or interest more substantially encourages consumers to engage in gamified activities than extrinsic motivation associated with tangible results of gamified activities. The figures below show detailed indices for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (see Figs. 1 and 2). The analysis of the construct of intrinsic motivation demonstrates that the respondents were most often stimulated to engage in gamified activities by the feeling of satisfaction after winning. Hence, in fact, this implies the need for appreciation, which does not necessarily have to come from the surroundings. It might also imply that it is important to prove to oneself that it is possible to win. Competition (It is important for me to compare my actions/achievements with those of others) is shown to stimulate the least. In the respondents’ opinion, a game is a good way to learn new things; therefore, curiosity is another important aspect of intrinsic motivation as a

Table 22 Consumer motivation to play games

Parameter Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Total motivation N—299

Mean (M) 3.8452 3.2241 3.5053

Standard deviation (SD) 0.57141 0.77942 0.63535

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . . It is important for me to compare my actions/achievements with hose of others

3.53

I feel happy when I play

3.55

I like that I can become another person/player or designer

3.56

I like that I can assume a certain role and related responsibilities while playing I like when the game gets more complicated in each higher level of the game I improve my knowledge and skills when I play

153

3.7 3.86 3.92

I like observing the consequences of my actions and decisions

3.96

I enjoy playing games

3.97

I like that I can choose what to do when I play

3.97

The game is a good way to learn new things

4.06

I enjoy the feeling of satisfaction after winning

4.17

Fig. 1 Intrinsic motivation to play games

The game is an inseparable part of me

The game helps me to develop my personality

Being a good player is about prestige for me The game helps me to develop useful social and intellectual skills Reward promised at the outcome of the game important to me The awards (badges, virtual gifts, money) that I can get after I pass a level or perform a certain task make me play the game

2.69

2.89

2.96

3.13

3.74

3.91

Fig. 2 Extrinsic motivation to play games

possibility of control reflected in the item I like that I can choose what to do when I play. The analysis of extrinsic motivation shows that the most important motivating factor for the respondents is award. Low mean values of other aspects indicate that the respondents do not tend to consider extrinsic motivation, except for expected awards, as stimulating to engage in gamified activities. Further on, as the expression of motivation to engage in gamified activities has been determined, a question is raised as to what game mechanics are most attractive to consumers in gamified activities. The respondents indicate the most attractive gamified activities as those developing their skills, teaching, allowing exploration,

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

154 Table 23 Game mechanics employed in gamified activities

Parameter Improvement Exploration Challenge Competition Status acquisition Cooperation Collection

Mean (M) 4.32 4.24 3,66 3.62 3.21 3.12 2.98

Standard deviation (SD) 0.655 0.736 0.839 0.821 0.934 1.023 1.001

N—324 Table 24 Significance of game components Parameter Levels Points Feedback/reward Achievements/badges Leader boards

Mean (M) 3.9 3.85 3.76 3.65 3.56

Standard deviation (SD) 0.721 0.745 0.817 0.865 0.973

N—331

encouraging self-education (see Table 23). The respondents evaluate the possibility to collect as the least motivating factor in gamified activities. The gamification cases in which the respondents were engaged to show the dominance of the latter game mechanics. This fact has to be taken into account in the further interpretation of the results, as it is obvious that the results are determined by the cultural and economic gamification context in Lithuania. When the respondents were asked to indicate how important were certain game components for their participation in gamified activities, they said that the most important was a gradually increasing complexity of the game and points showing game progress. On the other hand, the importance of all game components was indicated to be higher than the medium by the respondents (see Table 24). Since the type of motivation stimulating consumers to engage in gamified activities and most attractive game mechanics and game components have been determined, the monograph seeks to find out the relations between these variables. The correlation analysis results between total motivation and game elements (construct involving game mechanics and game components) show a moderate positive statistically significant correlation between the variables (r ¼ 0.589, p < 0.001). These results allow confirming Hypothesis H2 that there is a positive relation between consumer motivation and game elements. In order to clarify this association, a correlation between game elements and intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation is performed. Table 25 provides detailed correlation analysis results. There is a positive statistically significant correlation of weak or moderate strength between all first-order variables. The strongest correlation exists between intrinsic motivation and game mechanics as well as game components. Based on that, it may be stated that individuals affected by intrinsic motivation pay more

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . .

155

Table 25 Correlation between motivation and game elements

Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Game mechanics Games 1 Games 2 Game components

Intrinsic motivation 1.000

Extrinsic motivation 0.325**

Game mechanics 0.582**

Games 1 0.421**

Games 2 0.436**

Game components 0.593**

1.000

0.268**

0.433**


0.031

0.303**

1.000

0.734**

0.732**

0.490**

1.000

0.114* 1.000

0.445** 0.298** 1.000

**p < 0.001; *p < 0.05; Spearman correlation coefficient is calculated Table 26 Correlation between game elements and engagement in gamified activities (flow) Flow

Games 1 0.361**

Games 2 0.222**

Game mechanics 0.393**

Game components 0.392**

**p < 0.001; Spearman correlation coefficient is calculated

attention to gamified activities where they participate. Individuals encouraged by extrinsic information are less interested in what activity they engage in if there is award promised for engaging. However, in terms of different games (Games 1 and Games 2) based on different gamification, different game mechanics and gamified activities, rather different correlation results are obtained. In the group of Games 1, oriented more towards challenges, mutual cooperation and competition, a positive moderate correlation is typical with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as game components. In the group of Games 2, involving educational games intended for individual self-education and exploration, a negative (although insignificant) correlation with extrinsic motivation is determined. In these games, usually, there is no tangible reward which would extrinsically encourage to play; thus, it is natural that the games are played based on intrinsic incentives. The correlation between motivation and game elements being determined, it is further important to find out the correlations between game elements and engagement in gamified activities (flow). The aim is to test the theoretically presupposed assumption that engagement in gamified activities may be to a great extent determined by the solutions on used game mechanics and components. The correlation analysis results confirm a positive moderate statistically significant correlation between these two constructs (r ¼ 0.443, p < 0.001), which confirms Hypothesis H3. Below, correlation results between first-order variables composing the construct of game elements and the flow are presented indicating that the group of Games 1 shows a stronger correlation with the flow state in comparison with the group of Games 2; however, generally, there is a positive, rather weak correlation between game mechanics, game components and consumer engagement in gamified activities (see Table 26).

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

156

Table 27 Correlation between motivation and engagement in gamified activities (flow state) Flow

Intrinsic motivation 0.517**

Extrinsic motivation 0.352**

Total motivation 0.510**

**p < 0.001; Spearman correlation coefficient is calculated Table 28 Parameters of consumer brand engagement Parameter Cognitive engagement Emotional engagement Behavioural engagement Brand engagement

Mean (M) 3.0504 3.0254 2.6606 2.9145

Standard deviation (SD) 0.86206 0.80030 0.93413 0.77832

N—329

The relation between game elements and engagement in gamified activities (flow) being set, another step is to determine whether there is a relation between motivation and engagement in gamified activities or, in other words, whether motivation is related to the flow state which may be achieved by the consumer when playing games. The correlation results demonstrate a positive moderate statistically significant correlation between these two constructs (r ¼ 0.510, p < 0.001), which confirms Hypothesis H4. Table 27 provides detailed correlation results separately for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The correlation results show a positive statistically significant correlation between all these constructs. Nevertheless, the correlation between intrinsic motivation and engagement in gamified activities is much stronger in comparison with that between extrinsic motivation and engagement in gamified activities, which might be considered as weak. A conclusion could be drawn that individuals stimulated by intrinsic motivation have substantially more possibilities to engage in a suggested gamified activity to reach the so-called flow state.

2.3

Expression of Consumer Engagement in Gamification

In analysing the expression of consumer engagement when gamification is applied, a question is raised as to which dimensions of brand engagement (cognitive, emotional or behavioural) engage consumers more. The results are obtained by analysing the central trend measures of consumer engagement (see Table 28). General brand engagement of the respondents is evidently rather low (a 5-point Likert-type scale was used for measurement). Consumers mostly engage by cognitive dimension, i.e. through the process of brand/company cognition. Emotional engagement manifests almost as often as cognitive. The weakest engagement is behavioural engagement showing that the respondents are rather passive in their interaction with the engagement object.

Research Results of Gamification-Based Consumer Engagement in Value Creation in. . . I was totally absorbed in my mind I felt I could control the situation in the game I was totally immersed into the game While I was playing I lost track of the time

157

3.19 3.54 3.64 3.9

It was fun to play the game

4.02

I was curious while playing the game

4.03

It was interesting to play the game

4.05

Fig. 3 Engagement in gamified activities (flow state)

The analysis of the flow state demonstrates a higher level of engagement in gamified activities in comparison with brand engagement (M ¼ 3.7731, SD ¼ 0.56562), which indicates that consumers who decide to engage in gamified activities immerse into those activities more than they are attached to a certain brand or company. Figure 3 shows the means of assessment of engagement in gamified activities on a 5-point scale. The theoretical study allowed making an assumption that the flow state creates conditions for the consumer to move to another state of engagement, i.e. brand engagement. This hypothesis was tested by regression analysis. In the model of linear regression, the flow state represents an independent variable, and consumer brand engagement is a dependent variable. However, the determination coefficient R2 ¼ 0.096 of the regression model (F (1.326) ¼ 34.650; p < 0.000) is much smaller than the recommended minimal interpreted value (R2 < 0.2), which shows that the model with the flow as a regressor is not appropriate. Therefore, Hypothesis H5— engagement in gamified activities has a positive effect on brand engagement—is not confirmed. In the context of the conducted research, engagement in gamified activities does not determine consumer brand engagement. Although the causal relation between flow and brand engagement cannot be determined, the research model indicates that these two constructs represent the general consumer engagement construct. In order to answer the question how gamification affects consumer engagement, a linear regression model between these higher abstraction level variables is composed. In this model, gamification is considered to be a regressor and general consumer engagement as a dependent variable. The determination coefficient R2 of the composed regression model shows that gamification accounts for more than 37% of the change in consumer engagement (R2 ¼ 0.372; F (1.306) ¼ 180.909; p < 0.001). The regression results allow confirming Hypothesis H1 that gamification positively affects consumer engagement. Since the hypothesis about the impact of gamification on the general consumer engagement is confirmed, further on it is necessary to determine the impact that gamification has separately on consumer engagement in gamified activities and on brand engagement. For this purpose, two regression models are composed where gamification is considered a regressor, but dependent variables are different (see Table 29).

Ž. Piligrimienė et al.

158

Table 29 Results of linear regression between gamification and engagement in a gamified activity as well as brand engagement Regression model 1

Independent variable Gamification

2

Gamification

Dependent variable Engagement in a gamified activity Brand engagement

R2 0.232 0.300

F (df) 90.245 (1.299) 129.555 (1.303)

p value