Citation Context

...o-cultural context (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Values refer to rules, norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly functional sports shoe but “a vehicle to “just do it”” (Arnould et al., 2006, p. 95). Nike shoes help the consumers to achieve their fitness goals in their „keeping fit‟ projects by offering functional shoes and by enhancing their self-confidence and fitness identity: “I can do it – with Nike shoes”. The meanings of possessions are not linked to the identity projects only; offerings as symbols comprise multiple layers of meanings dependent on social groups and c...

Citation Context

...by using the value propositions the consumers can better perform their life projects and roles in different cultural environments. Despite the contribution of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006), the value propositions have remained de-contextualized. The objective of this paper is to contextualize value propositions in consumer practices and derive implications for marketing theory and practice. My approach is to investigate theoretically how consumers experience and evaluate the value propositions in their practices, based on the research contributions within service-dominant (S-D) logic (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008), practice theory (PT) (e.g. Schatzki, 1996), and consumer culture theory (CCT) (e.g. Arnould et al., 2006; Venkatesh et al., 2006). In the examination, I regard the value propositions as signs to which consumers ascribe intersubjective meanings while experiencing 3 them in different socio-cultural and spatio-temporal contexts. Thus the consumers are perceived as socio-cultural interpreters who assign intersubjective meanings to signs and act upon them (Mick, 1986). I look for conceptual explanations to three questions: (1) what is the essence of the value propositions as signs that are...

Citation Context

...rket value system, that is mezzo-cultural meanings, informs consumers‟ natural values, consumption goals and practices (Thompson and Troester, 2002); and how people use fashion discourses to 9 construct their identities in relation to their social spheres and consumer culture in general (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). In addition, they have evidenced how firms drawing on cultural discourses intentionally spread them via offerings and norms and standards in order to reach their ideological and competitive goals (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011, Thompson and Tian, 2008; Thompson 2004; Peñaloza, 2000; McCracken, 1986). Consequently, this CCT research stream suggests that cultural discourses and ideologies inform consumers what kind of meanings they seek from the value propositions. However, CCT studies neglect the influence of a micro-level context: a situation, and material and spatial surroundings. Now a practice, which ties value creation to a specific socio-cultural and spatio-temporal context, provides with a helping hand (Holttinen 2010a). Reckwitz (2002, p. 249) defines a practice as “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activ...

Citation Context

...s of practice-tied sign value (valuable meanings), use value (valuable meanings materialized into use), exchange value (price), and resources. From a value co-creation design perspective, it constructs value propositions as design architecture for reciprocal sign value, use value, exchange value, and resource integration. This paper therefore offers firms a conceptual tool for designing value propositions. Key words Exchange value, meaning, practice, resource, sign value, use value, value proposition Paper type – Conceptual paper 2 1 INTRODUCTION “The customer determines who the business is” (Drucker, 1977, p. 56). In the language of contemporary marketing one can rephrase Drucker‟s suggestion as follows: firms can only offer value propositions (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) - it is always a customer or any other beneficiary who accepts them. Thus firms get an opportunity to co-create value with their customers with the help of the value propositions (Grönroos, 2008). As the value proposition ties firms and their beneficiaries together, it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing. Since the introduction of the concept of a value proposition by Lanning and Michaels at McKinsey & Company in the ...

Citation Context

...s in order to reach their ideological and competitive goals (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011, Thompson and Tian, 2008; Thompson 2004; Peñaloza, 2000; McCracken, 1986). Consequently, this CCT research stream suggests that cultural discourses and ideologies inform consumers what kind of meanings they seek from the value propositions. However, CCT studies neglect the influence of a micro-level context: a situation, and material and spatial surroundings. Now a practice, which ties value creation to a specific socio-cultural and spatio-temporal context, provides with a helping hand (Holttinen 2010a). Reckwitz (2002, p. 249) defines a practice as “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, 'things' and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge”. According to PT-informed marketing researchers (e.g. Schau et al., 2009b; Warde, 2005), practices guide the use of offerings and not vice versa. Korkman, Storbacka and Harald (2010) suggest that the resource fit of different types of practice resources, such as places, tools, image...

Citation Context

...ss and values in a specific socio-cultural context (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Values refer to rules, norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly functional sports shoe but “a vehicle to “just do it”” (Arnould et al., 2006, p. 95). Nike shoes help the consumers to achieve their fitness goals in their „keeping fit‟ projects by offering functional shoes and by enhancing their self-confidence and fitness identity: “I can do it – with Nike shoes”. The meanings of possessions are not linked to the identity projects only; offerings as symbols comprise multiple layers of meanings dependent on social...

Citation Context

...groups and cultural contexts (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Think of the chocolate bar again. For consumers it is a source of many potential meanings, such as: „a vehicle for a fascinating taste sensation‟, „I deserve no less that the best‟, „I appreciate natural and pure ingredients, therefore chocolate is my choice‟, „feeling down, needing cheering up with the help of chocolate‟, and „what a nostalgic chocolate brand – reminds me of Grandma‟‟. The consumers are the co-creators of meanings who selectively interpret and use them for their own purposes (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011; Peñaloza, 2001; Firat and Venkatesh, 1995). Drawing on CCT research tradition and Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006), I suggest that for consumers the primary source value in the value propositions is their meanings: from their own subjective viewpoint the consumers experience and evaluate the value propositions in terms of their meanings which they may use (or may not use) for their own value-creation purposes. The potential array of meanings of the value propositions makes them dynamic consumer resources. The consumers mould the meanings of the value propositions to fit to their value creation. For example, consumers can enjoy the...

Citation Context

...ries together, it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing. Since the introduction of the concept of a value proposition by Lanning and Michaels at McKinsey & Company in the 1980s (Ballantyne, et al. 2011), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 1998), they have not examined the implicat...

Citation Context

...ation, and material and spatial surroundings. Now a practice, which ties value creation to a specific socio-cultural and spatio-temporal context, provides with a helping hand (Holttinen 2010a). Reckwitz (2002, p. 249) defines a practice as “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, 'things' and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge”. According to PT-informed marketing researchers (e.g. Schau et al., 2009b; Warde, 2005), practices guide the use of offerings and not vice versa. Korkman, Storbacka and Harald (2010) suggest that the resource fit of different types of practice resources, such as places, tools, images, physical spaces and actors, is central for value creation in practices. Drawing on Wittgenstein (1958), Schatzki (1996) takes another perspective. He prioritizes rules and teleoaffective structure over other practice elements; they orchestrate consumer activities in practices. The rules are explicit formulations of what to do (such as acts of law, precepts and instructions) whereas the teleoaffecti...

Citation Context

...rsistent goal-striving of parenthood (Fischer et al., 2007); how Protestant ethics influences credit card practices (Bernthal et al., 2005); how American masculinity ideologies and ideals influence males‟ masculine identity construction and thereby consumption (Holt and Thompson, 2004); how a natural health market value system, that is mezzo-cultural meanings, informs consumers‟ natural values, consumption goals and practices (Thompson and Troester, 2002); and how people use fashion discourses to 9 construct their identities in relation to their social spheres and consumer culture in general (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). In addition, they have evidenced how firms drawing on cultural discourses intentionally spread them via offerings and norms and standards in order to reach their ideological and competitive goals (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011, Thompson and Tian, 2008; Thompson 2004; Peñaloza, 2000; McCracken, 1986). Consequently, this CCT research stream suggests that cultural discourses and ideologies inform consumers what kind of meanings they seek from the value propositions. However, CCT studies neglect the influence of a micro-level context: a situation, and material and spatial surroundings. Now a prac...

Citation Context

...perform their life projects and roles in different cultural environments. Despite the contribution of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006), the value propositions have remained de-contextualized. The objective of this paper is to contextualize value propositions in consumer practices and derive implications for marketing theory and practice. My approach is to investigate theoretically how consumers experience and evaluate the value propositions in their practices, based on the research contributions within service-dominant (S-D) logic (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008), practice theory (PT) (e.g. Schatzki, 1996), and consumer culture theory (CCT) (e.g. Arnould et al., 2006; Venkatesh et al., 2006). In the examination, I regard the value propositions as signs to which consumers ascribe intersubjective meanings while experiencing 3 them in different socio-cultural and spatio-temporal contexts. Thus the consumers are perceived as socio-cultural interpreters who assign intersubjective meanings to signs and act upon them (Mick, 1986). I look for conceptual explanations to three questions: (1) what is the essence of the value propositions as signs that are experienced and evaluated by the consumers in thei...

Citation Context

...firms and their beneficiaries together, it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing. Since the introduction of the concept of a value proposition by Lanning and Michaels at McKinsey & Company in the 1980s (Ballantyne, et al. 2011), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 1998), they have not examine...

Citation Context

...he households prepared large portions of home-made food rather than ate unsatisfactory readymade food too often. This example shows that the value propositions need to address all the meanings which enable the valuable meanings to materialize into use, not only specific valuable meanings in isolation. Having different resources and experiences, each beneficiary interprets the sign value from their own viewpoint and therefore co-creates the meanings of the value propositions. The co-creation of meanings starts before the purchase of the value proposition, for example, through advertising (e.g. Mick and Buhl, 1992) or learning from others‟ experiences. Use value. According to S-D logic, offerings possess no value per se but instead they “derive their value through use” (Vargo and Lusch 2008, p. 7). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006) perceive use value and exchange value as derivations of sign value. Drawing on Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006), I argue that beneficiaries experience the use value of the value propositions in relation to their practice-tied sign value. The use value depends on the ability of the value propositions to materialize valuable practice-tied meanings into use. Hence use val...

Citation Context

...ue propositions in their practices, based on the research contributions within service-dominant (S-D) logic (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008), practice theory (PT) (e.g. Schatzki, 1996), and consumer culture theory (CCT) (e.g. Arnould et al., 2006; Venkatesh et al., 2006). In the examination, I regard the value propositions as signs to which consumers ascribe intersubjective meanings while experiencing 3 them in different socio-cultural and spatio-temporal contexts. Thus the consumers are perceived as socio-cultural interpreters who assign intersubjective meanings to signs and act upon them (Mick, 1986). I look for conceptual explanations to three questions: (1) what is the essence of the value propositions as signs that are experienced and evaluated by the consumers in their practices; (2) on what basis do the consumers evaluate the value propositions as signs; and (3) what implications can been drawn to the concept of a value proposition. By contextualizing value propositions in the beneficiaries‟ practices, the paper contributes to marketing theory in two ways. Firstly, it links the generic benefits and sacrifices of the value propositions to the practice-tied meanings and thereby illumin...

Citation Context

...est their meaningfulness and values in a specific socio-cultural context (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Values refer to rules, norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly functional sports shoe but “a vehicle to “just do it”” (Arnould et al., 2006, p. 95). Nike shoes help the consumers to achieve their fitness goals in their „keeping fit‟ projects by offering functional shoes and by enhancing their self-confidence and fitness identity: “I can do it – with Nike shoes”. The meanings of possessions are not linked to the identity projects only; offerings as symbols comprise multiple layers...

Citation Context

... are symbolic; they manifest their meaningfulness and values in a specific socio-cultural context (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Values refer to rules, norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly functional sports shoe but “a vehicle to “just do it”” (Arnould et al., 2006, p. 95). Nike shoes help the consumers to achieve their fitness goals in their „keeping fit‟ projects by offering functional shoes and by enhancing their self-confidence and fitness identity: “I can do it – with Nike shoes”. The meanings of possessions are not linked to the identity projects only; offerings as symbols co...

Citation Context

...he idea that consumers are buying meanings in (or through) offerings. The underlying assumption is that market actors are socio-cultural interpreters who assign intersubjective meanings to signs (such as offerings) and act upon them (such as buying or not buying offerings) (Mick, 1986). Consequently, all market actors‟ activities, such as market exchange phenomena and consumption, are symbolic; they manifest their meaningfulness and values in a specific socio-cultural context (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Values refer to rules, norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly function...

Citation Context

...el cultural discourses and ideologies, which are used as synonyms, inform consumption: for example, how the cultural discourse of biological parenthood influences the persistent goal-striving of parenthood (Fischer et al., 2007); how Protestant ethics influences credit card practices (Bernthal et al., 2005); how American masculinity ideologies and ideals influence males‟ masculine identity construction and thereby consumption (Holt and Thompson, 2004); how a natural health market value system, that is mezzo-cultural meanings, informs consumers‟ natural values, consumption goals and practices (Thompson and Troester, 2002); and how people use fashion discourses to 9 construct their identities in relation to their social spheres and consumer culture in general (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). In addition, they have evidenced how firms drawing on cultural discourses intentionally spread them via offerings and norms and standards in order to reach their ideological and competitive goals (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011, Thompson and Tian, 2008; Thompson 2004; Peñaloza, 2000; McCracken, 1986). Consequently, this CCT research stream suggests that cultural discourses and ideologies inform consumers what kind of meanings the...

Citation Context

...olic; they manifest their meaningfulness and values in a specific socio-cultural context (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Values refer to rules, norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly functional sports shoe but “a vehicle to “just do it”” (Arnould et al., 2006, p. 95). Nike shoes help the consumers to achieve their fitness goals in their „keeping fit‟ projects by offering functional shoes and by enhancing their self-confidence and fitness identity: “I can do it – with Nike shoes”. The meanings of possessions are not linked to the identity projects only; offerings as symbols co...

Citation Context

...), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 1998), they have not examined the implications further – with the exception of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006). These researchers argue for establishing meaningful links between the value propositions and consumers‟ goals and resources so that by using the value prop...

Citation Context

...allantyne, et al. 2011), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 1998), they have not examined the implications further – with the exception of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006). These researchers argue for establishing meaningful links between the value propositions and consumers‟ goals and resources so ...

Citation Context

... norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly functional sports shoe but “a vehicle to “just do it”” (Arnould et al., 2006, p. 95). Nike shoes help the consumers to achieve their fitness goals in their „keeping fit‟ projects by offering functional shoes and by enhancing their self-confidence and fitness identity: “I can do it – with Nike shoes”. The meanings of possessions are not linked to the identity projects only; offerings as symbols comprise multiple layers of meanings dependent on social groups and cultural contexts (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Think of the chocolate ba...

Citation Context

...d Lusch 2008, p. 7). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006) perceive use value and exchange value as derivations of sign value. Drawing on Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006), I argue that beneficiaries experience the use value of the value propositions in relation to their practice-tied sign value. The use value depends on the ability of the value propositions to materialize valuable practice-tied meanings into use. Hence use value is about materialized sign value. Since the use of the value proposition-related offerings can include pre-purchase, during-purchase, and post-purchase activities (Peñaloza and Venkatesh, 2006), the beneficiaries can experience the use value (the lack of the use value) before purchasing an offering, that is, before accepting the value proposition. The beneficiaries can 13 anticipate the use value via cues, such as via advertising and recommendations. If the beneficiaries have prior knowledge or experience on the skills and knowledge of the suppliers, they use this knowledge as an indication for the use value. Finally, the beneficiaries can actively search for information, in order to become convinced that the proposed sign value will materialize into use. This is well evidenced by c...

Citation Context

...ption (Holt and Thompson, 2004); how a natural health market value system, that is mezzo-cultural meanings, informs consumers‟ natural values, consumption goals and practices (Thompson and Troester, 2002); and how people use fashion discourses to 9 construct their identities in relation to their social spheres and consumer culture in general (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). In addition, they have evidenced how firms drawing on cultural discourses intentionally spread them via offerings and norms and standards in order to reach their ideological and competitive goals (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011, Thompson and Tian, 2008; Thompson 2004; Peñaloza, 2000; McCracken, 1986). Consequently, this CCT research stream suggests that cultural discourses and ideologies inform consumers what kind of meanings they seek from the value propositions. However, CCT studies neglect the influence of a micro-level context: a situation, and material and spatial surroundings. Now a practice, which ties value creation to a specific socio-cultural and spatio-temporal context, provides with a helping hand (Holttinen 2010a). Reckwitz (2002, p. 249) defines a practice as “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, i...

Citation Context

...ue proposition ties firms and their beneficiaries together, it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing. Since the introduction of the concept of a value proposition by Lanning and Michaels at McKinsey & Company in the 1980s (Ballantyne, et al. 2011), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 199...

Citation Context

...atural health market value system, that is mezzo-cultural meanings, informs consumers‟ natural values, consumption goals and practices (Thompson and Troester, 2002); and how people use fashion discourses to 9 construct their identities in relation to their social spheres and consumer culture in general (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). In addition, they have evidenced how firms drawing on cultural discourses intentionally spread them via offerings and norms and standards in order to reach their ideological and competitive goals (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011, Thompson and Tian, 2008; Thompson 2004; Peñaloza, 2000; McCracken, 1986). Consequently, this CCT research stream suggests that cultural discourses and ideologies inform consumers what kind of meanings they seek from the value propositions. However, CCT studies neglect the influence of a micro-level context: a situation, and material and spatial surroundings. Now a practice, which ties value creation to a specific socio-cultural and spatio-temporal context, provides with a helping hand (Holttinen 2010a). Reckwitz (2002, p. 249) defines a practice as “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: for...

Citation Context

...). In the language of contemporary marketing one can rephrase Drucker‟s suggestion as follows: firms can only offer value propositions (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) - it is always a customer or any other beneficiary who accepts them. Thus firms get an opportunity to co-create value with their customers with the help of the value propositions (Grönroos, 2008). As the value proposition ties firms and their beneficiaries together, it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing. Since the introduction of the concept of a value proposition by Lanning and Michaels at McKinsey & Company in the 1980s (Ballantyne, et al. 2011), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; B...

Citation Context

...e layers of meanings dependent on social groups and cultural contexts (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Think of the chocolate bar again. For consumers it is a source of many potential meanings, such as: „a vehicle for a fascinating taste sensation‟, „I deserve no less that the best‟, „I appreciate natural and pure ingredients, therefore chocolate is my choice‟, „feeling down, needing cheering up with the help of chocolate‟, and „what a nostalgic chocolate brand – reminds me of Grandma‟‟. The consumers are the co-creators of meanings who selectively interpret and use them for their own purposes (e.g. Peñaloza and Mish, 2011; Peñaloza, 2001; Firat and Venkatesh, 1995). Drawing on CCT research tradition and Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006), I suggest that for consumers the primary source value in the value propositions is their meanings: from their own subjective viewpoint the consumers experience and evaluate the value propositions in terms of their meanings which they may use (or may not use) for their own value-creation purposes. The potential array of meanings of the value propositions makes them dynamic consumer resources. The consumers mould the meanings of the value propositions to fit to their value cr...

Citation Context

...SIS DO CONSUMERS EXPERIENCE AND EVALUATE VALUE PROPOSITIONS? What makes value propositions more acceptable (unacceptable) and desirable (undesirable) than others? Adapting a post-structuralist perspective to consumption, certain CCT studies have illuminated how macro (culture) and mezzo (sub-culture or field) level cultural discourses and ideologies, which are used as synonyms, inform consumption: for example, how the cultural discourse of biological parenthood influences the persistent goal-striving of parenthood (Fischer et al., 2007); how Protestant ethics influences credit card practices (Bernthal et al., 2005); how American masculinity ideologies and ideals influence males‟ masculine identity construction and thereby consumption (Holt and Thompson, 2004); how a natural health market value system, that is mezzo-cultural meanings, informs consumers‟ natural values, consumption goals and practices (Thompson and Troester, 2002); and how people use fashion discourses to 9 construct their identities in relation to their social spheres and consumer culture in general (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). In addition, they have evidenced how firms drawing on cultural discourses intentionally spread them via offerin...

Citation Context

... monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 1998), they have not examined the implications further – with the exception of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006). These researchers argue for establishing meaningful links between the value propositions and consumers‟ goals and resources so that by using the value propositions the consumers can better perform their life projects and roles in different cultural environments. Despite the contribution of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006), the value propositions have remained de-contextualized. Th...

Citation Context

... it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing. Since the introduction of the concept of a value proposition by Lanning and Michaels at McKinsey & Company in the 1980s (Ballantyne, et al. 2011), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 1998), they have not examined the implications further –...

Citation Context

...places, tools, images, physical spaces, and actors. Consequently, they conceptualize the value propositions as resource integration promises. The promised value is derived from resource integration rather than using offerings in isolation. Finally, Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006) stress, based on CCT research contributions, that the consumers may derive value from value propositions creatively in ways which vary from firms‟ intents. This implies that the value creation in use proposed by firms is not always equivalent to the materialized one in the consumers‟ practices. Drawing on S-D logic (Korkman et al., 2010; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006) I argue that for consumers the value propositions are firms‟ proposals on how the consumers can derive value from integrating offerings with their other resources. My argument has four implications. (1) Firstly, since the value propositions are only firms‟ proposals, the consumers have the power to accept value propositions or not (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Acquiring an offering is an explicit sign of the acceptance of the value proposition. It signals that the anticipated use value at least meets the exchange value (the pa...

Citation Context

...et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2006; Lanning, 1998), they have not examined the implications further – with the exception of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006). These researchers argue for establishing meaningful links between the value propositions and consumers‟ goals and resources so that by using the value propositions the consumers can better perform their life projects and roles in different cultural environments. Despite the contribution of Arnould, Price and Malshe (2006), the value propositions have remained de-contextualized. The objective of this paper is to contextualize value propositions in consumer practices and derive implication...

Citation Context

...alues refer to rules, norms, goals, and ideals that serve as the basis for value judgments (Holbrook, 1999). Venkatesh, Peñaloza and Firat (2006, p. 258) give priority to meanings and 7 values over signs: when market actors exchange signs for signs, such as the offerings for money, the meanings and values “give the signs their currency”. CCT research in particular has illuminated the symbolic role of possessions and brands in identity projects (e.g. Schau et al., 2009a; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Belk and Costa, 1998; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Belk, 1988) and group identity projects (e.g. Martin et al., 2006; Kates, 2004). For example, a Nike shoe as a value proposition is not a highly functional sports shoe but “a vehicle to “just do it”” (Arnould et al., 2006, p. 95). Nike shoes help the consumers to achieve their fitness goals in their „keeping fit‟ projects by offering functional shoes and by enhancing their self-confidence and fitness identity: “I can do it – with Nike shoes”. The meanings of possessions are not linked to the identity projects only; offerings as symbols comprise multiple layers of meanings dependent on social groups and cultural contexts (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Think of th...

Citation Context

...önroos, 2008). As the value proposition ties firms and their beneficiaries together, it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing. Since the introduction of the concept of a value proposition by Lanning and Michaels at McKinsey & Company in the 1980s (Ballantyne, et al. 2011), marketing research has emphasized its resonance with customers and other beneficiaries. It has meant dividing the value proposition into generic benefit and sacrifice categories: economic, functional, emotional and symbolic benefits, and monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices (e.g. Rintamäki, et al. 2007; Day, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al., 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Keeney, 1999; Aaker, 1995). In addition to this, service-dominant logic-informed researchers have conceptualized it as a process of designing reciprocal value (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cova and Salle, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006). Even though scholars have acknowledged that the value propositions relate to specific users and use situations (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2011, Cova and Salle, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2009, 2007; Lusch et al., 2007; Arnould et al., 2006; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Payne et al....

Citation Context

...tegrate the offerings with their other resources, or they can choose to pursue their own plan. As with experiencing value 5 (Vargo and Lusch, 2008), consumers experience and evaluate the value propositions idiosyncratically: subjectively in each specific resource-integration context. When evaluating the value propositions, the consumers judge how they can fit the value proposition -related offerings with their other resources in order to derive value from their use. Because consumer goals and resources vary by consumer (Arnould et al., 2006), and by situation in the case of the same consumer (Holttinen, 2010a), the consumers can imagine different uses and resource integrations for the same offerings. Thus they apply value propositions flexibly and mold them to fit with their own value-creation circumstances. (4) Consequently, the scope of value propositions varies according to the resource integration needed to derive the desired value from integrating the offering with other consumer resources in a specific socio-cultural context and situation. The scope is unique to each value proposition. I illustrate this in Figure 1 via two value proposition examples: a chocolate bar and kitchen fitments. No...

Citation Context

...al elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, 'things' and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge”. According to PT-informed marketing researchers (e.g. Schau et al., 2009b; Warde, 2005), practices guide the use of offerings and not vice versa. Korkman, Storbacka and Harald (2010) suggest that the resource fit of different types of practice resources, such as places, tools, images, physical spaces and actors, is central for value creation in practices. Drawing on Wittgenstein (1958), Schatzki (1996) takes another perspective. He prioritizes rules and teleoaffective structure over other practice elements; they orchestrate consumer activities in practices. The rules are explicit formulations of what to do (such as acts of law, precepts and instructions) whereas the teleoaffective structures guide activities “by shaping what is signified to an actor to do” (Schatzki, 1996, p. 123). The teleological dimension relates to the goaloriented reasons for „doing‟, whereas the affective dimension refers to how different things matter at an emotional level (Schatzki, 1996, 2001). The...

Citation Context

...ke shoes as a value proposition represents a good example of this. 3 ON WHAT BASIS DO CONSUMERS EXPERIENCE AND EVALUATE VALUE PROPOSITIONS? What makes value propositions more acceptable (unacceptable) and desirable (undesirable) than others? Adapting a post-structuralist perspective to consumption, certain CCT studies have illuminated how macro (culture) and mezzo (sub-culture or field) level cultural discourses and ideologies, which are used as synonyms, inform consumption: for example, how the cultural discourse of biological parenthood influences the persistent goal-striving of parenthood (Fischer et al., 2007); how Protestant ethics influences credit card practices (Bernthal et al., 2005); how American masculinity ideologies and ideals influence males‟ masculine identity construction and thereby consumption (Holt and Thompson, 2004); how a natural health market value system, that is mezzo-cultural meanings, informs consumers‟ natural values, consumption goals and practices (Thompson and Troester, 2002); and how people use fashion discourses to 9 construct their identities in relation to their social spheres and consumer culture in general (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). In addition, they have evidence...