Avatar-Based Innovation: Consequences of the Virtual Co-Creation Experience

Abstract

Virtual worlds, such as the prominent Second Life (SL), offer unprecedented opportunities for companies to tap the innovative potential of consumers and consumer communities. Despite the potential, the studied corporate open innovation initiatives fail to attract sustained engagement among co-creating participants. The underdeveloped state of these islands in terms of innovation tasks and the lack of knowledge about how to attract innovative avatars raise key concerns about the nature of the experience avatars have on corporate sites. In a quantitative study we examine the importance of the experience in encouraging active participation in the innovation tasks. When participants experience an inspiring, intrinsically motivating, involving and fun cocreation experience, they participate more intensely. Prior research on virtual new product development is extended to the virtual world context and insights of the virtual co-creation experience serve as guidelines for the conception of avatar-based innovation initiatives.

The impact of hedonic and utilitarian value of online avatars on e-service quality

“…Establishing a social connection with a potential user is far more difficult on the internet than in the real world. According to Kohler, Fueller, Stieger, and Matzler (2011), when participants experience an online inspiring, involving and fun co-creation experience, they participate more intensely. Zhang et al (2014b) also focused on the importance of commitment in the case of social virtual worlds.…”

Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto

“…They show that consumers decision-making progresses from mostly rationally driven decisions (self-efficacy), to emotionally driven (satisfaction) to finally, habitual behaviors (habit) Hennig-Thurau et al (2006) X Authenticity of the emotional labor display (i.e., smiling) had positive effects on customeremployee rapport and future loyalty intentions; extent of smiling also influenced customeremployee rapport Brady, Voorhees, and Brusco (2012) X Authors investigate antecedents and outcomes of service sweethearting, a behavior where frontline workers give unauthorized free or discounted goods and services to customers Reynolds and Beatty (1999) X Customers who form relationships with clothing/accessories salespeople experience positive benefits; benefits associated with increased satisfaction, loyalty, word-of-mouth and purchases Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault (1990) X Authors identify customer-employee contact experiences that create very satisfactory service encounters from very dissatisfactory experiences for the customer Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner (1998) X Authors explore the benefits customers receive from long-term relationships with service firms; benefits include confidence, social, and special treatment benefits Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) X Introduce and test ideas of attachment styles in consumers and show that attachment styles predict consumers' desires for closeness, which ultimately influences cross-buying behavior Ashley and Noble (2014) X Front line employees issue cues to customers to signal the store's closing time is approaching; these cues influence territorial behaviors in customers Giebelhausen et al (2014) X When frontline employee-customer rapport is present, the use of technology can act as a barrier to employee rapport-building efforts and negatively impact the customer's experience; when rapport is absent the technology can enhance the overall evaluation of the experience because it acts as a barrier Wünderlich, Wangenheim, and Bitner (2013) X Authors introduce idea of ''service counterpart,'' which is the provider's employee remotely accessing and controlling smart interactive services; to gain user acceptance of these smart interactive services providers need to emphasize the interpersonal elements of the service Keng and Liu (2013) X Authors investigate website advertising elements. Results showed high-sensation seekers and low-need-for-cognition consumers prefer 3-D advertising elements with an avatar; whereas low-sensation seekers and high-need-for-cognition viewers prefer 2-D advertising elements with self-referencing Kohler et al (2011) X Avatar-based innovation (ABI) is when a new product development process is done in a virtual world where consumers are avatars (such as on second life); ABI was found to lead to successful outcomes Bente et al (2008) X Computer-mediated communication (CMC) methods compared; Avatar communication better than text communication on desirable interpersonal dimensions, however, avatar was no different than audio or visual CMC Pigini et al (2012) X Robotic support of elderly patients was only accepted in cert...…”

“…These experiences distinguish themselves from those in Quadrant 1 by incorporating technology that deliberately and effectively engages customers on a social level. Existing examples include virtual avatars (Kohler et al 2011) and Apple's language user interface Siri. In the future, we expect humanoid service robots that are truly social in their appearance and interactive in their behavior to be part of service frontlines high in ASP (Feil-Seifer and Mataric 2015).…”

Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research

“…Many contributions focus on the motivation of users in participating in communities/platforms (Spaeth et al 2010;Frey et al 2011;Füller et al 2011;Battistella and Nonino 2012;Füller et al 2012), the identification of key participants (Fleming and Waguespack 2007;Fichter 2009) and the effects of users' contributions on contemporary platform development (Boudreau 2012). Other contributions present concrete cases to illustrate the frameworks and business models that have proven successful in benefitting from the contributions of users (Angehrn et al 2009;Ebner et al 2009;Hildrum 2009;Kohler et al 2009;Leimeister et al 2009;Lohmann et al 2009;Adenbanjo and Michaelides 2011;Basole and Karla 2011;De Couvreur and Goossens 2011;Faraj et al 2011;Hutter et al 2011;Kohler et al 2011;Tickle et al 2011;Bullinger et al 2012;Feller et al 2012;Parjanen et al 2012;Shu and Chuang 2012;Ye et al 2012). Finally, the remaining publications clarify the meaning of user communities (West and Lakhani 2008) and crowdsourcing (Marjanovic et al 2012), and position these concepts within the broader frame of collaborative innovation (Baldwin and von Hippel 2011) and the private-collective model of innovation (von Hippel and von Krogh 2006;Garriga et al 2012).…”