Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbehAvatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience

Thomas Kohler a, Johann Fueller b, Daniel Stieger c, Kurt Matzler c,aDepartment of Management and Marketing, College of Business Administration, Hawaii Pacific University, 1132 Bishop Street, Suite 504-13, Honolulu, HI 96813, USAbHYVE AG, Schellingstrasse 45, Munich 80799, GermanycDepartment of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, Innsbruck University School of Management, Universittsstrasse 15, Innsbruck 6020, Austriaa r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 30 August 2010

Keywords:Co-creationVirtual worldsInnovation0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2010 Published bydoi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.019

Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 512 507 7180.E-mail addresses: thomas.kohler@uibk.ac.at (T. K

ac.at (J. Fueller), daniel.stieger@avaty.com (D. StiegerMatzler).a b s t r a c t

Virtual worlds, such as the prominent Second Life (SL), offer unprecedented opportunities for companiesto tap the innovative potential of consumers and consumer communities. Despite the potential, the stud-ied corporate open innovation initiatives fail to attract sustained engagement among co-creating partic-ipants. The underdeveloped state of these islands in terms of innovation tasks and the lack of knowledgeabout how to attract innovative avatars raise key concerns about the nature of the experience avatarshave on corporate sites. In a quantitative study we examine the importance of the experience in encour-aging active participation in the innovation tasks. When participants experience an inspiring, intrinsicallymotivating, involving and fun co-creation experience, they participate more intensely. Prior research onvirtual 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.

2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.1. Introduction: avatar-based innovation

Faced with slow growth, global competition and heterogeneouscustomer needs, innovation is viewed as critical for corporate suc-cess, but new product development is characterized by high riskand high market failure (e.g. Sawhney, Wolcott, & Arroniz, 2006).The main reason identified is the lack of market orientation (Ogawa& Piller, 2006) and traditional market research seems to fail inretaining customers needs and wants (von Hippel, 2001). There-fore, both theory and practice recommend collaborating with cus-tomers for the creation of new products (Alam, 2002; Fang,Palmatier, & Evans, 2008; Gruner & Homburg, 2000). We defineopen innovation in the context of this paper as a customer-centricinnovation process, where value is co-created together with se-lected customers. Open innovation characterizes an innovation pro-cess where the customer is involved as a source for ideas, technicalsolutions, design or even first prototypes. Instead of the firm creat-ing innovations and exchanging it with their customers, duringopen innovation consumers take an active role and co-create valuetogether with the company (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Eversince the emergence of the Internet, unique and inventive opportu-nities to capitalize on users innovative potential and knowledgehave emerged, resulting in various approaches to integrate consum-ers into new product development (Dahan & Hauser, 2002;Elsevier Ltd.

ohler), johann.fueller@uibk.), kurt.matzler@uibk.ac.at (K.Nambisan, 2002). Recent Internet-based virtual reality technologieslike virtual worlds and its most prominent example Second Life point out the latest technological developments. Virtual worlds likeSecond Life are computer-generated physical spaces, representedgraphically in 3D that can be experienced by many users, or so-called avatars, at once. An avatar is the graphic representation ofthe self in a given physicalmedium that other users can see or inter-act with in a virtual environment (Castranova, 2005).

Virtual worlds have created new ways to experience products(Jiang & Benbasat, 2007) and herald the next leap of evolutionfor open innovation. The potential is nurtured by two main rea-sons: First, incorporating the latest technological advances of vir-tual worlds into co-creation practice enriches existing web-basedcustomer integration methods by allowing real-time, media-richand highly interactive collaboration between manufacturers andconsumers. Influenced by interactivity and media richness (e.g.Steuer, 1992), virtual worlds increase telepresence (Suh & Lee,2005), which is the sensation of being there in a mediated envi-ronment in time and place (Ijsselsteijn, de Ridder, Freeman, &Avon, 2000). Finally, this leads to a closer and richer interaction be-tween consumers and between consumers and actors inside thecompany. Second, virtual worlds build on a new mode of produc-tion where the host firm (e.g. Linden Lab for Second Life) facilitatesunrestrained consumer freedom and empowerment (Bonsu &Darmody, 2008). The built-in tools encourage users to iterativelyand interactively create almost anything imaginable, while sharingthe act of creation with other users. The playful environment,allowing anyone to create nearly anything they can imagine andlook like nearly anyone they want to be, has proven to be fertile

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.019mailto:thomas.kohler@uibk.ac.atmailto:johann.fueller@uibk.ac.atmailto:johann.fueller@uibk.ac.atmailto:daniel.stieger@avaty.commailto:kurt.matzler@uibk.ac.athttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.019http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbehAdministrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168 161ground for many innovative thinkers. Therefore, user-generatedworlds resemble engines of creation that provide the freedom toexperiment and lead to unprecedented rates of innovation (Ond-rejka, 2007). Virtual worlds creative activities have become morevisible and extensive and as the boundaries of the virtual and thereal-world dissolve, avatars might very well use their creativityto design products with real-world potential (Hemp, 2006).

We use the term avatar-based innovation (ABI) to refer to aninteractive new product development process, in which manufac-turers collaboratewith virtualworlds avatars along the entire inno-vation process beginning with the identification of new trends andunsatisfied needs and ending with the launch of new products andthe improvement of existing ones. The aim of the virtual collabora-tion for a specific task or during an entire product development cycleis to generate superior and more customer-centered new productsand services, but also to provide value for its participants. Basedon virtual world technology and using open innovation mecha-nisms, consumers and manufacturers jointly develop innovationsin a media-rich and interactive environment. Several companieshave already tried to leverage the innovative potential especiallywithin Second Life and asked residents to engage in different inno-vation activities along various stages of the innovation process. Forexample, Osram, a light manufacturer, started an idea contest andinvited Second Life residents to contribute ideas on the topic oflightning. Toyota Scion launched a virtual carmodel and encouragedparticipants to modify and customize their cars. Another exampledemonstrating the numerous opportunities of virtual worlds forinnovation is the case of Aloft, a new hotel concept from StarwoodHotels. Before the real hotel was built, a virtual mockup was dis-cussed, evaluated, modified, and further developed in Second Life.Based on the feedback, several changes to the overall design of Aloftresulted. These changes have been applied both to the virtual and tothe physical hotels (Kohler, Matzler, & Fller, 2009).

To summarize, interactivity andmedia richness of virtual worlds(e.g. Steuer, 1992) increase telepresence (Suh & Lee, 2005), i.e. thesensation of being there (Ijsselsteijn et al., 2000). As a conse-quence, virtual worlds enable a closer and richer interaction andunrestrained freedomand empowerment. This playful environmentcan enhance creativity and innovation. The process of co-creation ismainly influenced by the user himself, and therefore also the expe-rience largely depends on the participants themselves. This creates acontext that is highly different from traditional Internet applica-tions. Therefore, in this study we aim at understanding how theusers co-creation experience influences his future attitudes andbehavior regarding such activities.

2. Compelling co-creation experience

Regardless of the promising opportunities provided by avatar-based innovation, one major challenge impeding its developmentis the lack of interest in corporate projects among avatars. Theoverwhelming majority of avatar-based innovation pioneers ischallenged by too few interested participants and, therefore, toofew activities that make the place a vibrant source of great connec-tions and innovations. The underdeveloped state of these islands(also known as Sim),1 in terms of innovation tasks and the lackof knowledge of how to attract innovative avatars, inhibit the com-panies from achieving their product development goals, which, inturn, puts a damper on avatar-based innovation. On a general level,many reports point toward nascent corporate presences being ghosttowns (Rose, 2007), and the Second Life community is more inter-ested in their own homegrown activities (Au, 2006). An analysis of1 In Second life, islands are privately owned and operated, separate from themainland. Islands can be purchased directly from existing owners or directly fromLindon Lab. Islands then are usually customized to suit particular needs of the owner.multiple companies experiments with avatars as a source of innova-tion confirmed the companies inability to attract sustained engage-ment among avatars. After all, for virtual co-creation theparticipation of engaged customers is crucial. Evaluating these inno-vation initiatives on the basis of participation rates, they are far fromsuccessful (Kohler et al., 2009).

One possible explanation for this shortcoming is that the path-finding companies fail to create a compelling experience for usersof virtual worlds. In this paper, we use the term compelling expe-rience to refer to an experience that is characterized by intrinsicenjoyment, engagement, and interest. Academics have both high-lighted the need for a compelling experience (Fller & Matzler,2007; Nambisan & Nambisan, 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy,2003) and acknowledged the positive relationship with a numberof characteristics. Fller (2006) stresses the interaction experienceas a key motivator to join co-creation projects, and von Hippel andKatz (2002) regard it as critical for inspiring consumers to makecreative contributions. Others such as Hoch (2002), Hoch andDeighton (1989) or Jiang and Benbasat (2007) highlight the impor-tance of such an experience for consumers ability to becomefamiliar with the innovation, discover its qualities, and learn fromself-generated, non-ambiguous experiences. Despite these implicitendorsements of the topics importance, little empirical researchhas examined the co-creation experience (Nambisan & Nambisan,2008). Recently, academics have called for a focus on the interac-tion experience (Nambisan & Baron, 2007). This article tackles thisresearch task and explores how consumers experience co-creationactivities within a virtual world. We are especially interested in theconsequences of a compelling virtual world innovation experience.Toward this aim, the article is structured as follows: first, webriefly review relevant literature on co-creation to discuss the nat-ure of the interaction experience in virtual worlds. Then we intro-duce our research setting before presenting the results of ourstudy, which focused on assessing the consequences of a compel-ling co-creation experience. Finally, we discuss the studys theoret-ical as well as practical implications.

3. Designing the co-creation experience

In the most general and broadest use of the term, experience isthe mental state that occurs in any given individual, at any con-scious moment (Poulsson & Kale, 2004). For the purpose of this re-search, experience is understood as the content of directobservation or participation in an event, specifically in a co-crea-tion process (Takatalo, Nyman, & Laaksonen, 2008). Experience isa complex interplay of situations, the individual and the systemover time (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006) and designers of the vir-tual co-creation interaction do not control all aspects of the expe-rience. While the setting, the atmospheric cues, can be providedand largely controlled, the process or activities that occur withinthis setting are mostly determined by the users and also the con-ception of the experience is created by the participants themselves(Marsh, Wright, & Smith, 2001; Rijken, 1999). Understood this way,users always have an experience whether good, bad or indiffer-ent. To add a quality dimension to the co-creation experience, weuse the term compelling experience to refer to an experience thatis characterized by fun, intrinsic enjoyment and engagement. It isthe quality of experience consumers feel when involved in the cre-ative activity which drives them to continue and keeps them moti-vated to perform at their best (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Enjoyableand engaging experiences provide intrinsic value (Deci & Ryan,1985), they offer a state of jouissance which people try to main-tain and seek to repeat (Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2000).

For the web context, a number of studies address the user expe-rience subject, but only a few recent studies focus on the co-crea-tion context. Hoffman and Novak (1996b) proposed that creating a

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

162 T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168compelling website depends on facilitating a state of flow a termintroduced by Csikszentmihalyi (1977) to describe a highly enjoy-able and rewarding optimal experience, in which challenge andskills match. Flow has been applied to various online activities,such as browsing (Novak, Hoffman, & Yung, 2000), playing games(Chen, 2007; Hsu & Lu, 2004), or engaging in computer-mediatedcommunications (Ghani & Desphande, 1994). For the Internet con-text, additionally telepresence and interactivity are consideredantecedents of flow (Hoffman & Novak, 1996b).

Nambisan and his colleagues (Nambisan & Baron, 2007; Nambi-san & Nambisan, 2008) studied customers actual interaction expe-riences in the limited context of online product forums. Theauthors provide empirical support for Prahalad and Ramaswamys(2003) assertion that the customers interactions in value co-crea-tion can themselves be an important source of value. The extent towhich interactions in the virtual customer environment offer ben-efits (cognitive, social integrative, personal integrative and hedo-nic) shape the actual participation. The results reveal thatcustomers actual experiences and their beliefs about the expectedbenefits significantly influence their actual continued participationin such forums.

Due to the embryonic nature of virtual worlds and the fact thatacademic research has only recently picked up, there is both adearth of studies that address issues concerning experiences in vir-tual worlds in general and for avatar-based innovation specifically.While findings of studies concerned with the user experience onthe web may provide some interesting insight, the transfer is diffi-cult, as virtual worlds are in many respects significantly differentfrom the traditional web. Navigation in a 3D environment, ava-tar-mediated communication, user-generated nature, and interac-tivity with virtual tools pose unique issues for co-creation. AsHoffman and Novak (2007) correctly point out in a recent updateof their paper that in examining flow in virtual worlds such asSecond Life, there are a number of ways in which our original con-ceptual model (Hoffman & Novak, 1996a) could be augmented:The social context of virtual worlds, the increased interactivity,the virtual representation of physical spaces, and the manipulationopportunities especially demand a re-examination of the flowunderstanding for the traditional web.

Before turning to the empirical study, we introduce the researchsetting that was set up to study the consequences of compellingco-creation experiences.

4. The research setting: ideation quest in Second Life

To shed light on the co-creation experience and its conse-quences, we started the ideation quest initiative in Second Life.In three consecutive projects, the virtual environment featuredseveral stages and creative tasks within Second Life. Participantswere invited to immerse themselves in the problem context, ex-plore inspirational stimuli, take part in creative challenges suchas word association and brainstorming, before submitting ideasand evaluate other submissions (see Fig. 1). Implementing an ava-tar-based innovation project to generate insights on the interactionexperience was necessary, since existing corporate projects wereonly frequented by a small number of avatars. In addition, theinterest of the approached companies in academic research wasrather limited. The virtual environment featured a number of veryspecific design characteristics that resulted from insights gener-ated in an exploratory netnographic study2 (Kozinets, 2002) of Sec-ond Life places and communities, complemented by formal andinformal discussions with expert residents. After this initial research2 Netnography is an interpretative method based on traditions and techniques ofcultural anthropology, extended to the study of the consumer behaviour of culturesand communities present on the internet.phase we designed, realized, and conducted the project. Theelements and core characteristics are briefly explained by decon-structing the process as it applies to the participants point of view.A five-step process was used to orchestrate the activities andinteractions among its participants.

Stage 1: Upon arrival, participants were welcomed and receivedintroductory information aiming to spark a sense of purpose and toset the stage for the following activities. In the so-called welcomearea, one of our guide avatars introduced the functions and fea-tures of the ideation quest, the various stages participating avatarshave to master and supported means of communication andinteraction.

Stage 2: During the second stage of inspiration, participantswere confronted with informational and entertaining stimulimaterial in the form of 3D content, pictures, or video. They wereconfronted with an initial scenario, consisting of an immersiveenvironment that framed the problem (e.g. green energy in thegreen ideation quest). We strived to appeal to multiple senses. In-stead of describing the situation, we relied on 3D models. Considerthe green ideation quest: objects included a coal plant, an atomicreactor, oil pump and overall the environment made a dirty en-ergy impression. To stimulate participants creativity, the processfeatured a number of challenges such as word association, knowl-edge questions and sentence-completion tasks. We extrapolatedthe mechanism of collecting points from game design to tap intothe users competitive drive and provide feedback on their contri-butions. The users goal was to collect as many points as possiblealong the different dimensions of (1) creativity, (2) collaboration,and (3) expertise. Each task in the IQ allowed participants to earnpoints on these dimensions in the one or other way. E.g. the wordassociation game increased the creativity score by one when mas-tered by dropping more than seven words. Knowledge question in-creased expertise and discussion tables collaboration points.Furthermore, participants submissions could be rated by othersin the exhibition area.

Stage 3: Emphasizing the social nature of virtual worlds, semi-structured group discussions were integrated to explore customerneeds, work out problems, or examine innovative opportunities.An object called discussion table was employed to encourage dis-course by planting conversations and provocative ideas. Each timefour participants sat around the table, the script triggered pre-de-fined question to stimulate the discussion.

Stage 4: During the idea-generation phase, avatars were askedto visualize and express their ideas either in the form of a 3Dmodelor a text description and illustrative images. E.g. we integrated atoolkit, which employed a module library, from which participantscould choose to visualize their own green idea. Additionally, theSecond Life building tools were available, so that participating ava-tars with comprehensive Second Life knowledge were not con-strained. We made sure to encourage users to build by providingspace (sandbox), the integration of their creations into the inspira-tion stage and the display of their creations.

Stage 5: All ideas were displayed for the stage of idea review, inwhich participants were able to review, comment on, and judgeother submissions for inspiration and to leverage the social com-munity aspect. 3D models built with our toolkit as well as newideas or recommendations written on note cards were accepted.

In order to initiate a vibrant meeting place where participantscome back to interact with like-minded peers and discuss the top-ics related to the project, frequent events were conducted and up-dated information was sent to the community.

In summary, we built on four general components to facilitate acompelling co-creation experience. (1) Immersion was encouragedby addressing multiple senses of participants and promoting inspi-rational stimuli. Immersion was relevant for the communication ofproduct-related information and information concerning the

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Fig. 1. KTM ideation quest arrival and word-association (top), Philips ideation quest ideation platform and knowledge questions (middle), green ideation quest (to visit thegreen ideation quest in Second Life: http://hyvebox.de/secondlife/).

T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168 163system-usability. (2) A social component captured the manifoldinteraction capabilities of virtual worlds. Especially communityinteraction was promoted. (3) The humancomputer-interactioncomponent focused on usability and navigation concerns. Andfinally (4), an entertainment component encouraged the competi-tive drive and added various challenges to the ideation quest.Components and their features are summed up in Table 1.

The main benefit of hosting the idea competition was a realisticbut also experimental setting, which we were able to adjust andmanipulate. By engaging participants in hands-on idea generationand evaluation rather than hypothetical scenarios, the experimentadded more realism. Besides integrating in-depth interviews andan online survey, we were able to observe and track participantsbehaviors allowing the exploration of avatars experience andbehavior in-depth. To add further realism we collaborated withtwo companies to conduct the first two projects: KTM, world lead-ing producer of motocross motorcycles, and Philips, Europes larg-est manufacturer of consumer electronics. The topics for the ideageneration were chosen accordingly (Table 2).

A total of 599 avatars visited the three ideation quest projects inSecond Life, which took place in summer 2008 and spring 2009.However, we only considered those avatars that spent more thanten minutes on the site as ideation quest participants. Visitorsspending less time were regarded as explorers who either ran-domly teleported into this area or came with the intention to visitother activities on the same island. Details on the three projects aregiven in Table 2. While the first two projects were mainly to gainmore insights into the design requirements for compelling experi-ences, the participants of the third project the green ideationquest were the respondents to the questionnaire of the empiricalstudy.5. Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience concep-tual framework

In this study we seek to shed light on the role of a compellingexperience for effective co-creation. The applied conceptual frame-work and derived hypotheses are based on the flow theory, re-search on co-creation experience, and creativity literature.

For the web context, Hoffman and Novak (1996b) proposed thatcreating a compellingwebsite depends on facilitating a state of flow.Compelling experience, similarly to flow or peak experience is char-acterized by intrinsic enjoyment (Hoffman & Novak, 1996b). It isconsidered as extremely gratifying (Novak et al., 2000, p. 22),engaging, and highly involving (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Consum-ers completely immerse themselves in the activity. They no longerdifferentiate between the virtual and the physical world, betweenreal and virtual yet to be realized innovations (Biocca, 1992;Schlosser, 2003; Schlosser, 2006). As a compelling experience isextremely gratifying (Novak et al., 2000, p. 22), enjoyable, andengaging, it causes a number of positive consequences. For example,it attracts consumers and positively influences attitudes and behav-iors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Deighton &Grayson, 1995; Mathwick & Rigdon, 2004; Novak et al., 2000).Ideally, co-creation projects offer consumers such optimal andcompelling experiences (Piller & Walcher, 2006).

Time and contribution: Optimal and compelling experiences leadto increased persistence and interest in activities (Csikszentmihal-yi, 1990). Participants try to maintain and re-experience compel-ling, flow-like experiences. Such an experience encouragesconsumers to be highly creative and perform at peak levels(Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 2002). During flow-likeexperiences, people reach unconscious, playful levels of thought

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Table 1Components and their features in the ideation quest.

Component How the IQ addressed the requirement/key feature

Offer product-related information, information regarding underlyingtechnologies or it s usage

Welcome area: billboards with product-Information, product-related videos, virtualproduct prototypeProduct course: virtual product prototypes, knowledge questions, 3D modelsToolkita: various parts, product framework, product informationExhibition area: interacting with other participants and company representatives,rating system

Enable customers to perceive themselves as members of a group or community Welcome area: gathering placeDiscussion tables: guided discussions with participants and community membersExhibition area: built prototypes, talkative environment, commenting system, ratingsystemTours: fostering talkative environment, shaping participants expectationsEvents: fostering talkative environment, shaping participants expectationsSL group tools: group forumExpert users, company stuff and community members: guiding and fostering discussions

Quality of the humancomputer interactions Island design: open space and spacious buildingsThe road and road signs: navigation hint and location referenceTeleportersb: direct access to target destinationsGuides: assistance and explanationsEvents and tours: introduction and advice

Mentally stimulating or entertaining, a source of pleasure and enjoyment Word association: creativity gameKnowledge questions: knowledge challengeVirtual prototypes: try and error functionsToolkit: building challengeIdea-box: idea submission, rating and commentingDiscussion tables: mutual avatar rating

a Toolkits are internet based systems that assist customers to perform webbed customer innovation, they enable customers to both express their input and to find creativeideas for a desire or need.

b A teleport is an instant change of your locations.

Table 2Project details.

Project Name KTM ideation quest Philips ideation quest Green ideation quest

Topic The future motor biking experience Sustainable living in the year 2020 Ideas for a more sustainable futureCompany involvement KTM motorcycle AG Philips design NoneProject start/end 6/13/20087/16/2008 6/20/20087/16/2008 2/23/20093/20/2009Second Life Island ui2 campus island Philips island ui2 campus islandAvatars joining project 166 167 266Time spent on average 76 minutes 80 minutes 85 minutesResearch conducted Qualitative interviews Qualitative interviews Qualitative interviews

Participant monitoring Participant monitoring Participant monitoringQuantitative survey

164 T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168considered as vital for innovative outputs (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002;Deci & Ryan, 2002). This leads to the first set of hypothesis:

H1: Compelling experience has a positive impact on partici-pants actually spent time.H2: Compelling experience has a positive impact on the amountof participants contributed content.

Further interest: Consumers interest in further engaging inco-creation activities is influenced by consumers previous experi-ences associated with the activity. Positive experience and success-ful outcomes stimulate future interest in co-creation activities.Negative experience and failures, as confirmation of incompetence,lead to frustration and decreased motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985;Deci & Ryan, 2002). Playful and enjoyable activities provide value(Deci & Ryan, 1985). They offer a state of jouissance which peo-ple try to maintain and seek to repeat (Belk et al., 2000). It is thequality of experience creative consumers feel when involved inthe activity which drives them to continue and keeps themmotivated (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). We state:

H3: Compelling experience has a positive effect on participantsinterest in future participation.Word-of-mouth and evangelism: Individuals tend to share posi-tive and negative experiences with others if the topic is importantto them and they consider it also of interest to others (Gruen,Osmonbekov, & Czaplewski, 2007; Porter & Donthu, 2008). Litera-ture on electronic word-of-mouth has found that consumers en-gage in communicating their experiences with products orservices to others via the web for a number of reasons: their desirefor social interaction, economic incentives, their concern for otherconsumers, and the potential to enhance their own self-worth arethe primary factors that lead to eWOM behavior (Hennig-Thurau,Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). Hence, word-of-mouth is avehicle for the individuals that helps to materialize these desiresor states. However, a positive and rewarding consumption experi-ence is an important requirement. Consumers engage in positiveword of mouth if they associate enjoyable and rewarding experi-ences with it (Porter & Donthu, 2008). In our context, therefore,it is more likely that consumers who have experienced a rewardingand compelling co-creation process or episode will recommend itto friends. Recent marketing literature, however, argues thatword-of-mouth does not comprehensively capture the missionaryintention of delighted, committed, and devoted customers. Pimen-tel and Reynolds (2004) have shown that truly devoted consumersnot only spread positive word of mouth but eventually engage in

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168 165recruiting in order to actively convince others of their belovedbrand. Rozanski, Baum, and Wolfsen (1999) portray the actionsof brand zealots whose extreme loyalty and emotionality towardstheir favorite brand can inspire them to extreme acts: Some loyalconsumers experience a relationship that goes well beyond the ful-fillment of a functional need. They are militant in their commit-ment to their brand: creating positive word of mouth for thebrand, experiencing the product to its fullest and, if defrauded,launching frontal attacks on the company . . . These brand zealotshave the potential to become the brands biggest allies or, at theother extreme, a renegade army . . . Their strong feelings result inattempts to convert others, ultimately causing changes in publicopinion or legislation (Rozanski et al., 1999).

Based on this evidence, we propose the term co-creation evan-gelism for describing a more active and committed way of spread-ing positive opinions and trying fervently to convince or persuadeothers to get engaged in the co-creation project. By choosing theword evangelism we would like to emphasize the missionary com-ponent of this type of consumer behavior (Matzler, Pichler, &Hemetsberger, 2007) after experiencing a compelling interaction.Thus, we state:

H4: Compelling experience has a positive impact on partici-pants intended evangelism.

Intention to live more sustainably: A compelling experience pos-itively affects someones attitude (Hoffman & Novak, 1996b; Hoff-man & Novak, 2007). Participants who co-create creative contentbecome familiar with it. They may at the same time become inter-ested in and attached to it (Belk, 1988). Familiarity and knowledgelead to increased levels of involvement and commitment(Pritchard, Havitz, & Howard, 1999). This is especially the case ifparticipants associate a compelling experience with it (Schouten,McAlexander, & Koenig, 2007). Consumers may become awareand enthusiastic about the content they co-design and co-create(Pine & Gilmore, 1999). In our case, they may intend to live moresustainably. Literature on mass-customization, for example, statesthat consumers will show high interest in and willingness to payfor their self-designed products if they enjoy the design processdue to a flow experience (Franke & Piller, 2004). We state:

H5: Compelling experience has a positive effect on participantsintention to live more sustainably.6. Empirical study

To test the developed hypotheses, we conducted an online sur-vey in which we asked avatars who previously engaged in the thirdavatar-based innovation project the green ideation quest abouttheir experience and intention of future participation and abouttheir interest in persuading others to join the project. Additionally,active participation and commitment was measured by observingthe time spent on the island and the words written in chats andbrainstorming sessions. Out of all 266 green ideation quest partic-ipants, 114 completed the survey. This corresponds to a total re-turn rate of 42.8% for the survey. The high participation rate wasachieved by asking avatars, who spent time in the green ideationquest, for survey participation via personal instant message. Inaddition we offered a donation of USD 5 per participant to a non-profit organization and LD 300 (= USD 1.10) for each participant.On average, the age of the participants of the survey is 1.5 years.With a self-provided Second Life skill-level of 3.54 on average(1 = newbie, 5 = expert), our data indicate that not only expertusers participated in our survey. However, the majority of partici-pants can be considered as highly involved residents of Second Life.On the familiarity with SL functionality scale our sample showsan average of 3.68 (1 = basic, 5 = sophisticated). Twenty-five ava-tars said that building is their preferred activity in SL, 28 concernedwith learning activities, and 27 prefer socializing. Attending liveperformances (eight avatars), scripting (four avatars) and otheractivities (22 avatars) account for the rest of the sample. Fifty-sixavatars have been in SL for one year or less, 44 have been in SLfor 2 years and 14 have been in SL for three years or even longer.More female (63) than male (51) participants answered thequestionnaire.

6.1. Measures

Three indicators were adopted from Delle Fave and Massimini(1988) and another two indicators from Fller (2008) to measurecompelling experience. We have chosen five items to operational-ize compelling experience covering the enjoying, emerging andinvolving aspect of it. The intention to engage in future co-creationactivities was measured with two items similar to Bagozzi andWarshaw (1990), Barki and Hartwick (1994), and Loken (1983).Three items from the Evangelism scale as suggested by Matzleret al. (2007) have been taken and adapted to the context of thisstudy. The three items to measure intention to live more sustain-ably are based on Ajzen (2006). All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Allincorporated measurement models are reflective. Additionally ac-tive participation was operationalized with two measures, timeand words written. The time avatars spent on the project islandwas observed with sensors, which generate timestamps per min-ute. The dialogue between avatars in brainstorming sessions wasrecorded; words were counted with software and assigned to thecorresponding avatar name. Thus, we were able to measure actualactive participation instead of felt active participation (Ghani &Desphande, 1994).

6.2. Data analysis and results

Because validated measures known from literature have beeneither directly applied or only slightly adapted, confirmatory factoranalysis could be used to determine the psychometric properties ofthe measures. First, reliability and validity of the measures in themeasurement model were tested to calculate the composite reli-ability of the constructs, the average variance extracted (Fornell& Larcker, 1981), and the FornellLarcker-Ratio (1981) for discrim-inant validity. The results are displayed in Table 3.

Besides discriminant validity for compelling experience(FLR = 1.1), the local fit measures for the applied constructsmeet all required standards concerning average variance extracted(>.5), composite reliability (>.6), and discriminant validity (For-nellLarcker-Ratio

Table 3Psychometric properties of scales.

Construct Item Indicatorloadings

Mean(SD)

Compelling experience (CR = .88, AVE = .59,FLR = 1.10)

1. The idea quest helped me to get inspired .75 2.19

2. I enjoyed the mere participation .84 2.263. I got involved .72 2.464. I enjoyed the experience, and/or the use of my skills .73 2.275. Participation was fun .79 2.31

Further interest (CR = .81, AVE = .69, FLR = .96) Participating in ideation quest led to the result that . . .1. . . . I intend to engage in the future with the ideas of the ideation quest .90 2.182. . . . I would like to further contribute to the development of the ideationquest

.75 2.45

Evangelism (CR = .78, AVE = .54, FLR = .98) 1. I would make a perfect sustainable living salesperson .66 3.122. I try to convince as many as possible of sustainable living .85 2.63. If someone tries to decry sustainable living, I will tell him off unmistakably .67 2.78

Intention to act (CR = .83, AVE = .71, FLR = .46) After participating in idea quest,1. I will try to consume less energy .73 1.832. I am more aware of the pollution problem .96 2.06

Time spent Minutes spent 90.19

Contribution Words contributed 292.6

166 T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168H1H5 tested. Compelling experience positively effects furtherinterest (c = .83***), evangelism (c = .77***), intention to act(c = .61***), time spent (c = .23*), and contributed words (c = .16+.).

7. Discussion and conclusion

7.1. Theoretical contributions

This research contributes to a theoretical understanding of anew medium for co-creation during an open innovation process.Original to this study is the concept of avatar-based innovation,which was used as a starting point to advance the perspective thatvirtual worlds present opportunities for companies to engage withcustomers in new and interesting ways during co-creation.Through exploring the consequences of the co-creation experiencein virtual worlds, this study establishes the importance of the vir-tual co-creation experience and is an early step on the path towarda more comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior inthese new media environments. A compelling co-creation experi-ence leads participants to spend more time on an avatar-basedFig. 2. Consequences of a compelling co-creation experience. Notes: Chi2 = 86.30;df = 72, p = .120; Chi2/df = 1.199; NFI = .905; CFI = .982; TLI = .978; IFI =.983;GFI = .901; AGFI = .855; RMSEA = .042; *** p < .001; ** p < .01, * p < .05, +p < .10innovation platform. This time is not passively spent, but our find-ings indicate that more content is added to the innovation project.A compelling experience further leads to increased persistence andinterest in further co-creation activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990),which is considered an important prerequisite for creative inputand promising solutions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihal-yi, 2002; Dahl & Moreau, 2007).

In addition, someones engagement in a virtual co-creation pro-ject also leads to higher awareness and mobilizes ones desire toact on the topic discussed. As pointed out in other studies (Hoff-man & Novak, 1996b; Hoffman & Novak, 2007), a compelling expe-rience positively affects participants attitudes towards theconsidered topic. We demonstrated in our study that a compellingexperience has a positive effect on participants intention to livemore sustainably. Participants becomemore aware of the pollutionproblem and intend to act more sustainably by wasting less energyin our case. This could be seen as strong indicator that behaviorand action in virtual worlds also influence real life behavior of par-ticipants and their attitudes.7.2. Managerial implications

This study indicates several areas of action formanagers. Thefirstimplication refers to embracing avatar-based innovation. Using thelatest technological advances can help leverage a firms innovationprocess, both by harvesting the medium-related benefits, and bytapping into avatars creativity. Given the illustrated potential,man-agers need to acquaint themselves with the phenomenon of virtualworlds and consider usingavatars as equal partners in thenewprod-uct development process. The second implication relates to the needfor open innovation practitioners to fully acknowledge the impor-tance of the co-creation experience. If companies decide to use anavatar-based innovation strategy, they must recognize that an invi-tation for avatars to actively participate in co-creation is not enough.Present corporate activities in virtual worlds imply that the criticalchallenge to use the emerging technology is not somuch in devisingthe technological infrastructure but in creating and maintaining arewarding experience for visitors. Companies need to go beyondimplementing the visual presence and instead seek to actively en-gage customers by recognizing their motivations and deliveringbenefit to them. Developers should endeavour to emphasize intrin-sic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. The inhabitants of

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168 167virtual worlds want to be engaged and involved and, therefore, pro-vide a fertile ground for creative activities. The key to becoming suc-cessful in virtually collaborating with customers will depend on theability to aggregate participants, retain themand encourage them tomake contributions.7.3. Limitations, future research and conclusions

There are limitations to this study that point toward promisingfuture research avenues. One limitation of this study can be seenin the studys participants. Since a non-commercial setting with ageneral topic of interest was chosen for the ideation quest, a nonrepresentative SecondLife audiencewas attracted. Therefore, the re-sults cannot be generalized without any reservation to commercialinnovation projects. Future research should focus on antecedentsof a compelling co-creation experience. Itwould be of interestwhichfeatures and components of thedescribed ideationquest platform inthis study have the strongest impact on the compelling co-creationexperience and how the experience can be enriched.

In conclusion, virtual worlds offer an inspiring perspective forenhancing innovation activities through collaborating with cus-tomers. Firms recognition of the customer as a valuable partnerin an open and interactive approach to innovation has extendedto the emerging technology of virtual worlds. With the right ap-proach, companies can enhance their innovation efforts by learninghow to engage and co-create with avatars the latest visual repre-sentation of their potential or actual customers.References

Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodologicalconsiderations. .

Alam, I. (2002). An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new servicedevelopment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 250261.

Au, W. J. (2006). The mixed success of mixed reality. (retrieved from 23 October 2006).

Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 17(September), 127140.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994). Measuring user participation, user involvement, anduser attitude. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 5982.

Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research(17),127140.

Belk, R., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2000). The missing streetcar named desire. In S.Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The why of consumption(pp. 98119). London: Routledge.

Bentler, P., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in theanalysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin(99), 588606.

Biocca, F. (1992). Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space forresearch. Journal of Communication, 42(Autumn), 522.

Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Co-creating second life. Journal ofMacromarketing, 28(4), 355368.

Castranova, E. (2005). Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games.Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.

Chen, J. (2007). Flow in games and everything else. Communications of the ACM,50(4), 3134.

Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. MISQuarterly(March), viixvi.

Chin, W. W., & Todd, P. A. (1995). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use ofstructural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. MISQuarterly(June), 237246.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: Psychology of optimal experience. New York:Harper & Row.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery andinvention (1st ed.). New York: Harper Perennial. p. 456.

Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. (2002). The virtual customer. Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 19(5), 332353.

Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoyconstrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 44(3),357369.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:The University of Rochester Press.Deighton, J., & Grayson, K. (1995). Marketing and seduction: Building relationshipsby managing social consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(March),660676.

Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). Moderinization and the changing contexts offlow in work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.),Optimal experience. Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 193213).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2008). Influence of customer participationon creating and sharing of new product value. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science(36), 322336.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(February), 3950.

Franke, N., & Piller, F. (2004). Value creation by toolkits for user innovation anddesign: The case of watch market. Journal of Product InnovationManagement(21), 401415.

Fller, J. (2006). Why consumers engage in virtual new product developmentsinitiated by producers. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 639646.

Fller, J. (2008). Consumers experience during co-creation activities on the internet,Whitepaper, MIT.

Fller, J., & Matzler, K. (2007). Virtual product experience and customerparticipation A chance for customer-centred, really new products.Technovation(27), 378387.

Ghani, J., & Desphande, S. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimalflow in humancomputer interaction. Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381391.

Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2007). Customer-to-customerexchange: Its MOA antecedents and its impact on value creation and loyalty.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 537549.

Gruner, K., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new productsuccess. Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 114.

Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience: A research agenda.Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 9197.

Hemp, P. (2006). Avatar-based marketing. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 4857.Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic

word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers toarticulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1),3852.

Hoch, S. J. (2002). Product experience is seductive. Journal of Consumer Research,29(3), 448454.

Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience.Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 120.

Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1996a). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediatedenvironments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3),5068.

Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (2007). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects.Working Paper, University of California, pp. 128.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996b). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(July),5068.

Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAMwith social influences and flow experience. Information and Management, 41(7),853868.

Ijsselsteijn, W., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., & Avon, S. (2000). Presence: Concept,determinants, and measurements. Proceedings of the SPIE, 520529.

Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation formats and taskcomplexity on online consumers product understanding. MIS Quarterly, 31(3),475500.

Kohler, T., Matzler, K., & Fller, J. (2009). Avatar-based innovation: Using virtualworlds for real-world innovation. Technovation, 29(67), 395407.

Kozinets, R. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketingresearch in online communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 6172.

Loken, B. (1983). The theory of reasoned action: Examination of the sufficiencyassumption for a television viewing behavior. Advances in Consumer Research,10(1), 100105.

Marsh, T., Wright, P., & Smith, S. (2001). Evaluation for the design of experience invirtual environments: Modeling breakdown of interaction and illusion.CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(2), 225238.

Mathwick, C., & Rigdon, E. (2004). Play, flow, and the online search experience.Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 324332.

Matzler, K., Pichler, E., & Hemetsberger, A. (2007). Who is spreading the word? Theinfluence of extraversion and openness on consumer passion and evangelism. InAmerican marketing associations winter educators conference 2007, San Diego,CA.

Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new productdevelopment: Toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3),392413.

Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments:Implications for product support and customer relationship management.Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 4262.

Nambisan, S., & Nambisan, P. (2008). How to profit from a better Virtual CustomerEnvironment. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 5361.

Novak, T., Hoffman, D., & Yung, Y.-F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience inonline environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1),2242.

Ogawa, S., & Piller, F. (2006). Reducing the risks of new product development. SloanManagement Review, 47(2), 6571.

http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdfhttp://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2006/10/why_mixed_reali.htmlhttp://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2006/10/why_mixed_reali.htmlAdministrator

Administrator

168 T. Kohler et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 160168Ondrejka, C. (2007). Collapsing geography (second life, innovation, and the future ofnational power). Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2(3), 2754.

Piller, F., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method tointegrate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307318.

Pimentel, R. W., & Reynolds, K. E. (2004). A model for consumer devotion: Affectivecommitment with proactive sustaining behaviors. Academy of Marketing ScienceReview(5), 145.

Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and everybusiness a stage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2008). Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtualcommunities. Management Science, 54(1), 113128.

Poulsson, S., & Kale, S. (2004). The experience economy and commercialexperiences. The Marketing Review, 4(3), 267277.

Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating uniquevalue with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. p. 256.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new frontier of experience innovation.MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 1218.

Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1999). Analyzing the commitmentloyalty link in services contexts. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3),333348.

Rijken, D. (1999). Information in space: Explorations in media and architecture.Interactions, 6(3), 4457.

Rose, F. (2007). How Madison Avenue is wasting millions on a deserted second life.Wired Magazine, 15(8).Rozanski, H. D., Baum, A. G., & Wolfsen, B. T. (1999). Brand zealots: Realizing the fullvalue of emotional brand loyalty. Strategy and Business(17), 5162.

Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C., & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways forcompanies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 7581.

Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goaland imagery in influenceint attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal ofConsumer Research, 30(2), 184198.

Schlosser, A. E. (2006). Learning through virtual product experience: The role ofimagery on true versus false memories. Journal of Consumer Research(33),377383.

Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2007). Transcendent customerexperience and brand community. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,35(3), 357368.

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence.Journal of Communication, 42(4), 7393.

Suh, K.-S., & Lee, Y. E. (2005). The effects of birtual reality on consumer learning: Anempirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(4), 673697.

Takatalo, J., Nyman, G., & Laaksonen, L. (2008). Components of human experience invirtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 115.

von Hippel, E. (2001). PERSPECTIVE: User toolkits for innovation. The Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, 18(4), 247257.

von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits.Management Science, 48(7), 821833.

Avatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experienceIntroduction: avatar-based innovationCompelling co-creation experienceDesigning the co-creation experienceThe research setting: ideation quest in Second LifeConsequences of the virtual co-creation experience concep-tual frameworkEmpirical studyMeasuresData analysis and results

Discussion and conclusionTheoretical contributionsManagerial implicationsLimitations, future research and conclusions

References