Final Prep for MARK 444 Understanding Purchase Processes and Service Experiences 2026 -2027 Concord

Final Prep for MARK444: Understanding Purchase Processes and Service Experiences 2026 -2027 Concordia University

Purchase process for services 1. Shopping Mall Security A survey shows that fear of crime has led people to reduce their shopping in malls, with 25% no longer feeling safe. Malls, like Northwest Plaza Mall, have responded with security improvements, including private security, police presence, and technology such as high-tech camera systems. These measures serve to communicate security visibly to potential criminals and shoppers. Security personnel in these malls also influence perceptions of safety. The use of visible security, such as mounted patrols at malls like Alpha & Omega in Dallas, has proven effective in reducing crimes, and the visible presence of officers on horses enhances security and customer satisfaction.

2. The Service Environment

In the context of service encounters, the service environment plays a crucial role in customer perceptions and satisfaction. Key factors include: •

Tangible elements: These are physical items like tools, equipment, and décor.

•

Atmosphere: This includes elements such as cleanliness, noise levels, and odors that contribute to the overall ambiance.

•

Other customers: The behavior of fellow patrons, such as rowdy fans at a sports event, can influence the experience for others. The environment, therefore, shapes expectations and evaluations of services.

3. Service Personnel and Support Services •

Service Personnel: Direct interactions between customers and service personnel are essential to service quality. Employees need to understand their roles, follow scripts, and be adequately trained to meet customer expectations.

•

Support Services: These include the behind-the-scenes workers, such as cooks, dishwashers, or assistants, who ensure the service can be delivered effectively. Even though these workers might not interact with customers, their efficiency is vital

for service quality. Training and proper tools are necessary to maintain high service quality, as deficiencies can negatively impact customer satisfaction.

4. The Postpurchase Phase Once a service is received, customers evaluate its quality and their satisfaction. This evaluation leads to several possible behaviors: •

Repeat Purchases: Satisfied customers are likely to return.

•

Loyalty: Over time, good experiences can lead to loyalty.

•

Positive Word-of-Mouth: Satisfied customers share their positive experiences, promoting the service to others. On the flip side, dissatisfied customers may engage in firm-switching behavior (choosing another provider) or engage in negative word-of-mouth (telling others about their bad experiences). A study found that for every customer who complains, 25 others leave dissatisfied without voicing their complaints.

5. Types of Risk in Services When purchasing services, customers face several types of risks: •

Performance risk: Concerns whether the service will perform as expected.

•

Financial risk: Worry about the monetary cost if the service doesn't meet expectations.

•

Time loss risk: The risk of wasting time if the service is unsatisfactory.

•

Opportunity risk: Losing out on better alternatives due to a service choice.

•

Psychological risk: Potential negative feelings or distress from using a service.

•

Social risk: Fear of how the service choice will reflect on the individual in a social context.

•

Physical risk: Concern about personal safety during the service.

To reduce these risks, service firms can provide guarantees, certifications, or opportunities for customers to sample the service before committing.

6. Service Encounter The service encounter refers to the direct interaction between a customer and the service provider. Several factors influence this interaction: •

Role Theory: Customers and employees follow expected roles and scripts during the service encounter. If either party deviates from these roles, it could lead to dissatisfaction.

•

Service Environment: The setting in which the service takes place can influence customer expectations and experiences.

•

Service Personnel: The behavior, training, and competence of service personnel are critical to delivering a satisfactory encounter.

•

Support Personnel: Support staff who indirectly affect the service are also important, especially when they provide necessary tools or services for the primary service provider.

7. Postpurchase Behavior The postpurchase phase involves assessing the service quality and determining future behavior: •

If the service meets or exceeds expectations, customers will be satisfied and more likely to repurchase, show loyalty, and promote the service through word-of-mouth.

•

Dissatisfied customers may complain, switch providers, or engage in negative word-of-mouth. Research shows that for every formal complaint made, about 25 others will silently switch to another provider.

8. Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Satisfaction is crucial for customer retention. Positive experiences lead to repeat business, loyalty, and positive word-of-mouth, while negative experiences often result in customers defecting and sharing their dissatisfaction with others. The attribution theory plays a role here: customers will seek to understand the reasons behind a service failure, and if they attribute it to the service provider's fault, they are more likely to switch providers and spread negative word-of-mouth.

9. Case Example: A. J. Hackett Bungy

A. J. Hackett Bungy, the largest bungee jumping corporation, reduced physical and uncertainty risks by adhering to strict safety standards, providing clear instructions, and emphasizing customer safety. With no accidents reported, the company built a reputation based on customer satisfaction, which in turn fueled word-of-mouth promotion. This case illustrates how a company can effectively manage risks and customer satisfaction, leading to business growth.

Key Terms and Concepts •

Consumption Values: Functional, social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional values that influence purchase decisions.

•

Risk Types: Performance, financial, time loss, opportunity, psychological, social, and physical risks that influence the purchasing decision.

•

Service Encounter: Direct interaction between the customer and the service provider.

•

Attribution Theory: How customers attribute causes to service failures, which affects their behavior afterward.

•

Postpurchase Behavior: Actions taken by customers after a service encounter, such as repeat purchases or negative word-ofmouth.

Conclusion The materials highlight how service firms must consider various phases of the purchase process, from prepurchase risk management to postpurchase behavior, to ensure customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Understanding the service environment, personnel roles, and the risks involved is crucial for both attracting customers and maintaining longterm success.

Image as a Tool 1. Image Building and Its Importance •

Image as a Strategic Tool: The text explains that a company’s image is not just a matter of external perception but a critical aspect of its overall strategy. Image-building serves multiple purposes, including enhancing customer attraction, influencing negotiations, and providing leverage in resource acquisition. For

example, SAS (Scandinavian Airlines System) effectively used its image of providing high-quality service without raising prices, despite fierce competition and threats from other airlines. This image helped SAS create a distinct identity in the market and gain consumer trust, even amidst crises.

•

The Role of External Perception: Companies often rely on a carefully crafted image to shape their public perception. This can be a double-edged sword, as the image may not always align with the reality of the company’s offerings. For instance, John DeLorean's venture in the automobile industry was initially seen as innovative and daring, but the product did not live up to the hype, leading to a backlash. This highlights the risk of relying too heavily on image-building without ensuring that the product or service can live up to it.

•

Internal and External Marketing Link: The concept of imagebuilding goes beyond customers—it also affects the company internally. Employees play a crucial role in maintaining the image, and their perceptions and behaviors can either reinforce or undermine the company's public image. Companies need to ensure that internal values align with the external image to maintain consistency and avoid a gap between how they are perceived and how they actually operate.

2. Internal Marketing •

Definition and Purpose: Internal marketing is the process of aligning and motivating employees to embrace the company’s vision, goals, and values. This is particularly important in servicebased industries where employees are directly responsible for delivering the service to customers. It involves ‘selling’ the company's ideas, strategies, and standards to internal staff so that they can deliver the service effectively to customers.

•

Motivating Employees: One key aspect of internal marketing is ensuring that employees are motivated and aligned with the company’s goals. This motivation comes from not only understanding the company's objectives but also from adopting professional and ethical standards that directly influence service quality. A company cannot expect its employees to effectively

'sell' the company to customers if they are not fully convinced or motivated internally.

•

Consequences of Poor Internal Marketing: The text provides an example from a restaurant where a chef served a substandard dish. While the customer may not have noticed, the employees would perceive this as an indication that low standards were acceptable. This behavior can lead to a decline in professionalism, employee morale, and ultimately, service quality. A culture of poor internal marketing can undermine the company’s external reputation, leading to a negative impact on customer satisfaction.

•

Linking Internal and External Marketing: Internal and external marketing are deeply interlinked. A company’s internal marketing efforts are directly tied to how it positions itself in the marketplace. Poor internal practices will manifest in poor customer experiences, damaging the company's external image.

Similarly, a well-executed internal marketing campaign can motivate employees to deliver high-quality services, which will be reflected in the company’s external reputation.

3. Practical Applications of Internal Marketing •

•

When Internal Marketing Is Most Needed: The text suggests that internal marketing should be an ongoing process within a company, but there are certain situations where it is especially crucial: o

Addressing a Lethargic or Underperforming Company: Internal marketing can help rejuvenate a company in a period of stagnation by re-engaging employees and reinforcing high standards.

o

Strategic Repositioning or Change: When a company undergoes significant strategic shifts, such as launching new products or services, internal marketing campaigns are necessary to ensure that employees understand and support the change.

Examples of Internal Marketing Campaigns: o

Insurance Company Example: An insurance company launched an internal marketing campaign to implement a

new service concept to adapt to a more competitive environment. This involved seminars, conferences, and role model development, which helped employees adopt the new service standards. o

•

Bank Example: A bank shifted its strategy to target the commercial market. This involved internal marketing efforts like creating special internal publications, a new organizational structure, and significant involvement from top management to engage employees in the transformation.

Tools for Internal Marketing: Companies use various tools to execute internal marketing campaigns, including: o

Internal Universities or Schools to train employees on new skills and knowledge.

o

Internal News Publications like newsletters or magazines.

o

Conferences and Seminars where senior management engages with employees.

o

Management Publications such as "little red books" or personal statements from executives to share the company’s vision.

4. Integration of Internal and External Marketing •

The two types of marketing (internal and external) should work hand in hand to ensure consistent messaging and effectiveness.

The media can play a role in both internal and external marketing. For instance, Jan Carlzon’s media presence helped SAS internally by engaging employees and externally by reinforcing the company's image. This highlights the symbiotic relationship between internal and external marketing efforts, which can amplify the company's message to both employees and customers.

Conclusion The key concepts revolve around the importance of a company's image in both internal and external contexts. Building and maintaining a strong, consistent image requires motivating employees through

internal marketing, ensuring that their actions align with the company’s vision and values. Internal marketing helps maintain service quality, improve productivity, and recruit skilled staff, all of which contribute to the company’s external success. The relationship between internal and external marketing is crucial, as internal standards and culture ultimately influence the customer experience and the company’s public image

Co-Creation of Collective services The two texts you provided discuss the co-creation of collective service experiences and related practices, with a particular focus on how consumers and companies interact to shape and influence these experiences. Here's a detailed summary of the key concepts within these texts: 1. Collective Service Experiences: •

Definition: These experiences occur when consumers come together in a shared service context, where the actions and interactions of the consumers themselves play a significant role in shaping the overall experience. Unlike traditional service experiences, which focus on individual consumption, collective service experiences involve the collective actions of consumers and are co-created by both the company and the community of consumers.

•

The idea is that the service experience is not solely designed or controlled by the company but is developed through a combination of company-initiated practices and consumerinitiated actions. The collective nature of the experience is essential, as it depends on consumers engaging with each other and the service.

2. Eight Practices of Co-Creation: •

The first key concept is the eight practices that contribute to the co-creation of collective service experiences. These practices represent actions or behaviors that consumers enact, either individually or collectively, to shape and influence the service experience. These practices include:

1. Exulting: A shared expression of joy or triumph, often after achieving a common goal.

2. Helping: Consumers offering assistance to one another, embodying a sense of moral responsibility and community support.

3. Informing: Sharing information, facts, or knowledge to help others navigate or understand the service experience.

4. Judging: Forming and communicating evaluations or assessments of the service.

5. Performing: Engaging in artistic or entertainment activities, such as performing or showcasing talents within a group context.

6. Queuing: Waiting in line or participating in a ritualized form of waiting, which can shape the collective experience either positively or negatively.

7. Value Sharing: Sharing the values of the company or community, contributing to the group’s collective identity.

8. Volunteering: Contributing unpaid time and effort to benefit others or the company, which can be an integral part of the service experience.

3. Initiators of Collective Practices: •

These practices can be initiated by the company, the consumer community, or both working together. Companies can design and facilitate experiences for consumers, but the actual collective experience is co-created when consumers actively engage in these practices.

•

The role of the company in shaping the experience is generally supportive, providing a platform or context in which these consumer-initiated practices can unfold. The company may encourage certain practices but cannot completely control them.

4. Ambivalence of Practices: •

One of the significant findings is the ambivalence of the practices. This means that the same practice can have both

positive and negative effects depending on the context and how it is enacted by consumers or the company. For example:

•

o

Queuing: For some consumers, queuing is seen as an essential part of the experience, adding to the sense of ritual. For others, it is an irritating waste of time.

o

Volunteering: Volunteering can enhance the experience by fostering a sense of community and shared purpose.

However, if poorly managed, it can lead to frustration or dissatisfaction.

Ambivalence occurs because different consumers may have differing attitudes toward the same practice, and the company’s management of these practices can influence how consumers perceive and engage with them.

5. Co-Creation and Co-Destruction of Value: •

The text emphasizes the idea of co-creation of value, where the interaction between consumers and the company leads to a positive collective service experience. However, value can also be co-destroyed, meaning that interactions between the parties can result in a negative experience, reducing the overall value of the service.

•

For instance, poorly managed practices like volunteering, judging, or performing can result in negative outcomes, leading to value co-destruction. This concept highlights the complexities of managing collective experiences, as companies must balance facilitating co-creation while avoiding practices that might inadvertently undermine the experience.

6. Unmanageability of Collective Practices: •

Relative Unmanageability: The practices involved in cocreating collective service experiences are described as relatively unmanageable. This means that while companies can design certain aspects of the experience, they cannot completely control the actions and behaviors of consumers.

Collective experiences are shaped by the community, and efforts by companies to control or manage these experiences can often lead to unintended consequences.

•

For example, if a company tries to overly control the queuing process, it may disrupt the ritualistic nature that some consumers enjoy. Similarly, if the company doesn’t adequately support volunteers, it may lead to frustration among the community.

•

The unmanageability of these practices is relative, meaning that while some practices are difficult for companies to manage (especially when they are initiated by the community), others can be adjusted or refined to reduce unpredictability.

7. Role of the Company in Managing Collective Experiences (continued): •

The company’s role in managing collective service experiences should be supportive rather than controlling. Instead of dictating how the collective experience should unfold, companies should facilitate environments where consumers can interact and co-create the experience. This can involve providing platforms or tools that enable these practices to flourish while being flexible enough to accommodate the unpredictability of consumer-driven actions.

•

Positioning as Community Enhancers: Companies should aim to position themselves as community enhancers, providing support and guidance without overly controlling the collective practices. This allows consumers to take the lead in shaping their own experiences while ensuring the company's resources are available when needed to enhance or reinforce positive collective actions. This shift to a co-evolutionary perspective acknowledges that companies do not hold a dominant, unchanging role in the relationship with consumers, as consumers’ actions and practices are dynamic and can evolve over time.

•

In essence, instead of trying to manage every aspect of the collective service experience, companies should focus on monitoring, reacting, and adjusting their support in line with the practices emerging within the community. This reflects the balance between supporting the community’s actions while allowing the collective experience to evolve in ways that the company cannot fully predict or control.

Conclusion: To summarize the core concepts, the two texts focus on the cocreation of collective service experiences by both consumers and companies. The eight identified practices—exulting, helping, informing, judging, performing, queuing, value sharing, and volunteering—are central to how these experiences are formed and influenced. The roles of initiators (company vs. community) and the ambivalence of these practices (having both positive and negative outcomes) are also key themes. Finally, the company's role is positioned as a facilitator, enhancing and supporting the collective experience while accepting that some practices are unmanageable and will be driven by the community itself.

Service Dominant Logic Debate The texts you have provided focus on Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic, a conceptual framework that challenges traditional Goods-Dominant (GD) Logic in marketing. Here’s a summary of the key concepts explained thoroughly: 1. S-D Logic vs. G-D Logic •

G-D Logic (Goods-Dominant Logic) is based on the idea that value is created through the production of tangible goods.

Marketing within this logic treats goods as the core of value creation, and marketing is seen as a mechanism for distributing these goods to customers. Customers are considered passive recipients of the value created by the firm.

•

S-D Logic (Service-Dominant Logic), on the other hand, suggests that service is the fundamental basis of exchange, not goods. Service is defined as the application of specialized knowledge and skills for the benefit of another entity. The firm doesn’t create value directly, but instead, it makes value propositions, and customers play an active role in co-creating value.

2. Obviating the Need for Customer Orientation •

Traditional marketing includes a "customer orientation" that assumes the firm creates value and then delivers it to the

customer. This orientation stems from G-D logic, where the firm and the customer are seen as separate entities. S-D logic, however, eliminates the need for this customer orientation because in S-D logic, value is co-created. Customers are not passive recipients but active participants in the value-creation process. Therefore, in S-D logic, every firm is inherently customer-oriented, and this orientation is part of the logic itself rather than an added or separate component.

3. Relational Marketing and Relationship Marketing •

S-D logic inherently emphasizes relationships. Unlike G-D logic, where marketing is transactional (focused on the exchange of goods), S-D logic sees marketing as relational and collaborative.

This involves continuous interaction between the firm and customers in the value-creation process, making relationships central. Relationship marketing, therefore, is not just about repeat business but about creating deeper connections through collaboration and interactivity.

4. Operant Resources vs. Operand Resources •

Operand resources are the physical resources used in the production of goods (e.g., raw materials, machinery). In G-D logic, these are the central resources for value creation.

•

Operant resources, in contrast, are the intangible assets such as knowledge, skills, and competences, which are key to the process of service delivery and value co-creation. S-D logic places emphasis on operant resources because these are the resources that enable firms to create and deliver services, rather than just produce physical goods.

•

In traditional views, employees and customers are often treated as operand resources, meaning they are seen as replaceable assets. S-D logic, however, treats employees and customers as operant resources — critical to the innovation, knowledge creation, and overall value process.

5. Cross-Functional Integration •

S-D logic advocates for the integration of all parts of a firm toward value co-creation. Cross-functional integration refers to the need for collaboration across various departments or

functions within an organization. This is crucial for effectively delivering service because all parts of the organization must work together to serve the customer and create value.

Additionally, S-D logic stresses the importance of collaboration not just with customers but also with partners in the broader value network.

6. Marketing as a Social and Economic Process •

According to S-D logic, marketing is not just about transactions; it is a social and economic process involving the continuous exchange of services (i.e., the application of skills and knowledge). This perspective sees marketing as interconnected with broader societal processes, extending beyond a company's internal departments and the customer to include other stakeholders like suppliers, partners, and even broader economic networks.

•

This perspective positions marketing as central to broader social and economic well-being. Instead of focusing solely on the production and consumption of physical goods, S-D logic highlights the importance of creating value through cooperation and shared resources.

7. Sustainability and Public Policy •

Sustainability is a key concern in contemporary business, and S-D logic offers a framework for addressing it. Traditional G-D logic encourages overproduction and excess consumption of goods, leading to resource depletion. In contrast, S-D logic focuses on service flows, where the emphasis is not on selling tangible goods but on providing ongoing services that foster sustainability.

•

By focusing on the lifecycle of goods and services and shifting away from pure consumption, firms are encouraged to be more mindful of resource usage, contributing to sustainability goals.

This logic also points toward a societal role for marketing, with public policy encouraging firms to sell service flows, invest in knowledge, and develop human skills, which contributes to both societal well-being and the economy.

8. Macro-Marketing Implications

•

At a societal level, S-D logic advocates for a rethinking of marketing’s role in public policy and economics. It challenges traditional GDP metrics and encourages governments to focus on knowledge development, skills, and overall societal well-being. In terms of public policy, S-D logic supports frameworks that encourage collaboration, innovation, and the creation of public value through co-creation processes.

•

Marketing in this sense is seen as a bridge between various economic and social entities, emphasizing how marketing activities can contribute to broader societal objectives like sustainability, public welfare, and resource expansion.

9. Public Policy and the Role of Service •

The shift towards a service-centered perspective, as defined in SD logic, directly influences public policy. It suggests that public policy should promote the development of operant resources (knowledge, skills) within the population and encourage businesses to focus on service provision over the production of goods. This approach aligns with global goals like sustainability and corporate social responsibility by encouraging serviceoriented practices that consider long-term environmental and societal impact.

10. Value Cocreation in Society •

S-D logic emphasizes the idea of value as cocreated through the interaction of firms, customers, and other stakeholders. It suggests that value isn’t just created by firms and delivered to customers; instead, value is mutually created through the exchange of knowledge, skills, and resources. This perspective promotes a more collaborative and interconnected view of the economy, where firms and customers work together to create value.

Conclusion In essence, the texts argue for a shift from a goods-centered, transactional view of marketing (G-D logic) to a service-centered, relational, and collaborative view (S-D logic). By focusing on service as the core of value creation, S-D logic redefines the roles of customers, employees, and firms, fostering cross-functional integration,

sustainability, and a more holistic view of societal well-being. It also challenges traditional economic models by placing greater emphasis on intangible resources like knowledge and skills and promotes public policy that supports value cocreation and societal progress.

Co-creation of value outcomes Here’s a comprehensive summary of the key concepts from the texts you’ve shared: 1. Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) in Project Management: •

SDL Framework: This framework emphasizes the role of service interactions in creating value for clients over the medium and long-term in project contexts. Unlike traditional approaches that focus on tangible products or outputs, SDL sees value as cocreated through interactions between various stakeholders.

•

Co-Creation of Value: The concept of value co-creation is central, suggesting that value is not simply delivered by suppliers to clients, but emerges through collaboration and interaction during the project lifecycle. This approach stresses that both the client and the supplier influence the outcomes through their active participation.

2. Key Findings of the Study: •

Eight Key Value Interactions: The study empirically identifies eight key value interactions that can be used as management actions to enhance value outcomes in complex and uncertain project environments. These interactions are used to manage the project's uncertainty and complexity and can help ensure value creation throughout the project lifecycle. o

•

Examples of these interactions include sharing knowledge (co-learning), understanding and refining service systems (co-revealing), and aligning strategic needs (co-aligning).

Importance of Client Perspective: Previous research often focused on value creation from the supplier’s perspective, while this study specifically highlights the client perspective,

demonstrating how clients experience and perceive value outcomes over the long term.

•

Power Asymmetry: The study found that power imbalances among project stakeholders, especially between clients and suppliers, can influence the allocation of value outcomes. These imbalances can result in unethical behavior, such as suppliers taking advantage of poorly managed contracts or manipulating prices.

3. Value Outcomes and Their Types: •

Categorisation of Value Outcomes: The research categorizes value outcomes into five distinct types, both tangible and intangible. This categorisation differs from previous studies that treated benefits as a singular, homogeneous entity. o

•

These value outcomes are not isolated; instead, they are interconnected and can evolve over time, impacting the project from its inception through execution and beyond.

Medium and Long-Term Outcomes: While value outcomes were traditionally viewed as occurring post-project (long-term), this study reveals that value outcomes also materialize during the project’s execution phase, through service interactions and adjustments.

4. Implications for Project Practitioners: •

Practical Management Actions: The identification of the eight key value interactions provides project practitioners with actionable management tools to navigate and influence project outcomes. These interactions can help manage value creation, particularly in uncertain or complex environments.

•

Avoiding Over-Creation of Value: The study advises project practitioners to carefully manage the co-creation process, suggesting that it should not be an all-encompassing, continuous effort. In some cases, too much collaboration or engagement could lead to overspending, conflicts, or unnecessary complexity.

•

Value Outcome Planning: The research emphasizes the importance of properly addressing value outcomes at the planning stage, which is often overlooked. Workshops during the

early project phases could help define strategic value outcomes that will inform the project’s execution and specification.

•

Investing in New Processes: The study also stresses the need for investment in new processes, resources, and personnel training to ensure that value outcomes are effectively managed and protected, especially as modern, agile management practices are applied to project settings.

5. Limitations and Future Research: •

Contextual Limitations: The research’s focus on a single client organization means that its findings may not be fully generalizable to other organizations or industries. The study was not aiming to generate universal results, but rather to develop causal insights into the co-creation of value outcomes.

•

Future Avenues: o

Co-Creation Roles: Future research could explore how to better identify and categorize the different roles of cocreators in complex projects. Understanding the skills and knowledge required for effective co-creation can help improve the collaboration process.

o

Micro-Level Co-Creation: More exploration into the micro-level of co-creation practices is needed to understand the intricacies of stakeholder interactions at the individual or team level.

o

Contextual Influences: There’s a need for further research on how various contextual factors (institutional, project-specific) influence the co-creation process.

o

Service Design and Experience: The study suggests that service design practices should be explored further, as they can provide insights into how project teams can design service experiences and improve stakeholder engagement.

o

Integrating Co-Creation with Business Models: Lastly, future research should consider how co-creation can be better integrated with organizational business models, especially regarding financial and strategic considerations.

6. Conclusion: •

This study advances the understanding of the co-creation of value outcomes in project management by empirically identifying specific value interactions and demonstrating how these interactions can be used to manage value creation in complex environments. It offers theoretical contributions by refining the understanding of value outcomes and co-creation, with a particular focus on the client’s role. It also provides practical recommendations for project managers, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning, careful management of collaboration, and the need for investment in new processes and tools.

Overall, this research pushes the boundaries of traditional project management thinking by integrating Service-Dominant Logic and emphasizing the collaborative, dynamic nature of value creation across the lifecycle of projects.

Stakeholder collaboration in events (marathons) The text revolves around the business dynamics of marathon events, focusing on how event organizers manage relationships with different stakeholders. Key concepts include collaboration, networking, stakeholder theory, and strategic management within the context of marathon events. Here's a detailed summary: 1. Stakeholder Collaboration and Networking in Sports Events: •

Collaboration: The text emphasizes that organizing a successful marathon involves creating a complex network of relationships with various stakeholders. These relationships are necessary to meet the different needs and expectations of all parties involved.

Stakeholder collaboration is crucial, especially in events where multiple entities, both from the B2B (business-to-business) and B2C (business-to-consumer) markets, are engaged.

•

Networking: In the sports business industry, including marathons, networking with stakeholders such as sponsors, media, local governments, and suppliers is essential. As sports

organizations operate in an interconnected and competitive environment, the relationships that form through networking help build the success and sustainability of the event.

2. Stakeholder Theory: •

Definition: The theory, initially developed by R.E. Freeman, posits that organizations interact with various entities, or stakeholders, who can influence or be influenced by the organization’s actions. These stakeholders could include individuals, groups, institutions, or organizations that have an interest in the enterprise’s outcomes.

•

Stakeholder Categorization: Stakeholders are grouped based on their interest in and influence over the event. The theory suggests that successful management of stakeholder relationships depends on recognizing these groups' varying expectations and the level of influence they have on the event's success.

3. Mendelov Matrix for Stakeholder Analysis: •

•

This model helps categorize stakeholders based on two variables: o

Influence: How much power a stakeholder has over the event.

o

Interest: How much interest they have in the event's success.

The matrix classifies stakeholders into four categories: o

Key Players: Stakeholders with high influence and high interest (e.g., sponsors, local government, prevention entities).

o

Satisfy: High influence but low interest stakeholders (e.g., certain businesses or authorities that influence but aren't deeply invested).

o

Inform: Low influence but high interest (e.g., media, volunteers) who need regular updates or engagement but don't have decision-making power.

o

Minimal Effort: Low influence and low interest (e.g., general spectators, citizens) with whom interaction is minimal, usually just informational.

4. Role of Stakeholders in Marathon Events: •

B2B and P2B Stakeholders: These stakeholders are more integral to the success of marathon events, with a focus on sponsors, local governments, and service providers (e.g., medical teams, police). These relationships are more strategic, as these stakeholders have significant influence and their satisfaction is crucial for both the current and future events.

•

B2C Stakeholders: These include spectators and citizens who have a lower impact on event management but still require attention for effective communication, especially through media and information dissemination.

•

Strategic Management: Organizers need to manage these relationships strategically, focusing on high-priority stakeholders (key players) while maintaining basic communication with lowerpriority groups.

5. Research Methodology and Findings: •

Research Approach: The research conducted interviews with directors of major Polish marathons, aiming to identify key stakeholders, categorize them using the Mendelov matrix, and understand their role in event success.

•

Findings: The study identified ten key stakeholder groups, such as runners, sponsors, local government, and media. Based on their influence and interest, these stakeholders were categorized into four groups, with the most important being "key players."

•

Strategic Approaches: Organizers focus their efforts on building long-term, reciprocal relationships with key players, while their approach to less influential groups like spectators is more passive, often involving one-way communication.

6. Conclusions and Future Research: •

Strategic Focus on Key Stakeholders: The success of marathon events depends heavily on maintaining strong relationships with stakeholders in the B2B and P2B markets, such

as sponsors and local governments. Organizers must align their strategies with the needs and expectations of these key groups.

•

Long-Term Relationships: The research stresses the importance of fostering long-term, stable relationships with key stakeholders to ensure both current event success and future opportunities.

•

Future Research: While the research provides valuable insights, limitations exist, and further studies are encouraged to explore more deeply into stakeholder management and its application across different types of sports events.

7. Key Takeaways: •

Successful marathon event management relies on the strategic management of a complex network of stakeholders, categorized based on their influence and interest.

•

Stakeholders from both B2B and P2B markets are critical for the success of the event, while B2C stakeholders play a supporting role.

•

Event organizers must tailor their engagement strategies according to the specific characteristics of each stakeholder group, ensuring that high-priority stakeholders receive the most attention and involvement.

In essence, the text provides a comprehensive overview of how marathon event organizers use networking and collaboration to navigate the complex landscape of stakeholders, ensuring the event’s success and sustainability.

Fan value in co-creation in sports 1. Value Co-Creation in Sports •

Value Co-Creation refers to the process through which consumers (in this case, sports fans) actively participate in creating value, rather than merely receiving a product or service.

In sports, fans are not just passive consumers but integral players in shaping the brand, experience, and meaning associated with their favorite teams or athletes.

•

Fan Ecosystems: The study emphasizes that fans exist within a broader service ecosystem, interacting not just with the sports brand (such as a football club) but with other entities like sponsors, media, and other fans. This interaction creates a dynamic process of value creation, where fans influence brand narratives, team culture, and the meaning of the sport itself.

2. Theoretical Frameworks: SDL, CCT, and Their Application in Sports •

Service-Dominant Logic (SDL): The SDL theory posits that value is co-created through interactions between service providers and consumers. Unlike the Goods-Dominant Logic (GDL), where value is embedded in a product and delivered to consumers, SDL stresses the active role of consumers in shaping value during their interactions with brands. The study extends SDL into the sports domain, exploring how fans, as active participants, influence the creation and reshaping of value within the sports ecosystem.

•

Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): CCT focuses on the cultural and social dimensions of consumption. It examines how people use products and brands to express their identities, social values, and group affiliations. In sports, CCT highlights how fans engage with brands and teams not just for the product itself (e.g., a jersey) but for the cultural and symbolic meanings attached to these items. This approach links with SDL to show how fans cocreate value in a deeply cultural, emotional, and communityoriented way.

•

Integrating SDL and CCT in Sports: The study integrates SDL and CCT to provide a richer understanding of fan value cocreation. While SDL focuses on the exchange of resources and services between actors (e.g., sports teams and fans), CCT focuses on the symbolic, emotional, and identity-driven aspects of these interactions. The combination of these perspectives helps to show that fans do more than engage with the team or brand—they redefine its meaning, create new narratives, and impact how value is experienced and perceived.

3. Fan Value Co-Creation Activities

•

Evaluation: Fans assess the value of the sports brand (team, players, products) and decide whether it aligns with their values or identity. This evaluation process can reshape the brand's value proposition. For instance, fans might reject certain sponsorships or merchandise if they perceive them as inconsistent with the team's identity.

•

Redefinition: Fans actively reinterpret the meaning of a team or brand, often through personal or collective narratives. For example, fan-driven movements can lead to the redefinition of what the team stands for, as seen in movements like Manchester United’s “United We Stand,” which was fan-driven and embraced by iconic players.

•

Repositioning: Fans take on the role of repositioning the brand in the broader cultural or social context, creating new meanings that are not controlled by the brand but are instead rooted in fan culture and collective identity.

4. Implications for Sports Brands •

Active Participation: Sports brands can gain from engaging in the co-creation process by participating directly in fan-driven activities. This involvement can help brands connect with fans on a deeper level, as seen in the collaboration between St. Pauli FC and Nike, where the brand adapted to fan culture by incorporating the fans' symbolic use of the "skull and crossbones."

•

Passive Observation: Brands can also choose to observe fan behaviors and adapt their marketing strategies accordingly. For example, GoPro monitors fan-generated content on social media to better understand how their products are being used and to incorporate fan-driven content into their campaigns.

•

Respecting Fan Values: Brands should be mindful of the values that fans hold dear and avoid interfering with or disrupting these values. Instead, brands can transform their engagement to support and enhance the fan experience, without overstepping the boundaries of fan identity.

•

Transformative Engagement: In some cases, brands can take a more transformative approach by blending real-world and

virtual experiences, such as gamification or fantasy sports leagues, to create a more interactive and immersive fan experience.

5. Fan-Driven Value Creation Beyond Brands •

Autonomous Value Creation: Fans sometimes create value propositions that exist independently of the brand, using the team's or sport’s symbolism and narrative in their own ways.

This process can lead to the formation of fan communities that are not necessarily aligned with the brand’s official narrative, and sometimes even challenge or critique it.

•

Self-Governed Value Creation: The study shows that fans can create and distribute value without direct brand involvement, suggesting that the process of co-creation is not always within the company’s control. This can lead to situations where the meaning of a brand or team is altered in ways that are outside the original scope intended by the team or its sponsors.

6. Limitations and Future Research Directions •

Narrow Focus: The study primarily looks at sports fans who are deeply involved with specific teams, neglecting other types of consumers who may watch sports for different reasons (e.g., casual viewers or individuals motivated by sponsorship). Future research could expand to consider other ecosystems, such as casual sports fans or non-sports-related fandoms.

•

Further Exploration of Fan Processes: The study identifies three main fan-generated processes (evaluation, redefinition, repositioning) but acknowledges that other processes might exist. Future research could investigate additional activities or behaviors that contribute to value co-creation in sports, as well as explore other stakeholders like sponsors, media, and athletes.

•

Macro-Level Analysis: More research is needed at a broader, macro level to understand how various actors (fans, teams, sponsors, media, etc.) collaborate and compete in the cocreation process, and how these relationships affect value generation across the sports ecosystem.

7. Conclusion

This research provides a comprehensive view of how fans co-create value in sports, stressing the importance of their cultural, emotional, and social engagement. It blends theoretical insights from SDL and CCT to offer a nuanced understanding of fan behavior and its implications for sports brands. The study underscores that fan involvement in the co-creation process is unpredictable and often uncontrollable, suggesting that brands should find ways to engage with and respect fan-driven narratives while managing brand identities in a more flexible and participatory way.

Coopetition in sport management 1. Coopetition: Coopetition refers to a strategic interaction where organizations both cooperate and compete simultaneously. In this context, it typically occurs between nonprofits and for-profit organizations or among different nonprofits within the same or related sectors.

•

Cooperative-Dominant Coopetition: This is the primary form of coopetition discussed, where organizations are cooperating more than competing. This can occur between organizations that are in competition with each other in certain areas but collaborate to leverage resources, enhance offerings, or achieve mutual goals (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000).

•

Cooperation in Competition: Coopetition can happen when competitors come together for certain joint efforts or strategic partnerships, such as shared offerings, joint ventures, or pooled resources. While there is competition in some aspects, the main aim is to create synergies that benefit both parties.

•

Nature of Coopetition: o

Direct vs. Indirect Coopetition: In some strategies, nonprofits are in indirect competition, where their cooperation is aimed at achieving mutual benefits and cost savings. In others, they are direct competitors who transform their rivalry into a cooperative partnership due to mutual needs, often financial difficulties or external pressures (Dowling et al., 1996).

2. Coopetition Strategies:

The texts describe several coopetition strategies observed in the nautical sports sector. These strategies are categorized based on the nature of the cooperation and the level of competition involved.

•

Strategy D (Vertical Coopetition): Involves partnerships between nonprofits and for-profit organizations, where both parties cooperate to offer combined services or products that neither could achieve alone. The relationship is vertical (i.e., one nonprofit and one for-profit company) and operates at a singlevalue level, meaning they primarily collaborate in one aspect of their business. However, these partnerships carry the risk of value destruction if contracts are breached or not renewed.

•

Strategy E (Horizontal Multisport Coopetition): This involves different nonprofits that specialize in different sports (but are located near each other) working together to share resources, facilities, and knowledge. By joining forces, they create a broader offering to attract customers, such as school groups, and mitigate risks like weather disruptions. They also gain flexibility in scheduling and market offerings, which helps sustain their financial positions.

•

Strategy F (Horizontal Multilocation Coopetition): This strategy involves nonprofits operating in the same sport but across multiple locations. These nonprofits cooperate by pooling resources, sharing facilities, and integrating management systems. The main benefit is the ability to leverage economies of scale and improve service offerings across different locations.

However, this strategy faces the risk of "turf wars" or conflicts arising from the competition between divisions.

3. Complexity of Coopetition: Each of the coopetition strategies varies in terms of the complexity of the relationships and the degree of interdependence between the involved parties.

•

Vertical Coopetition Complexity (Strategy D): The cooperation occurs between organizations at different levels (nonprofit and for-profit) and involves pooling resources for the creation of new services. However, each party retains autonomy but must rely on the other for success. These relationships are at

risk of disruption if one party withdraws or fails to meet expectations, leading to potential value destruction.

•

Horizontal Coopetition Complexity (Strategies E and F): These strategies involve cooperation between organizations within the same sector or sport. Strategy E sees nonprofits cooperating at the local level in multisport offerings, while strategy F focuses on nonprofits that are geographically separated but cooperate to improve efficiency. Both strategies involve pooling human, material, and facility resources, sharing marketing efforts, and improving operational efficiency. However, they also face coordination challenges and the risk of losing their original organizational identity or mission.

4. Value Creation and Destruction: The coopetition strategies aim to create value through cooperation, but they also pose risks of value destruction due to factors like lack of coordination, financial instability, or loss of identity.

•

Value Creation: The strategies highlight several positive outcomes, such as pooling resources, sharing expertise, attracting larger markets, reducing operational costs, and gaining flexibility. In particular, the enhanced employability of workers and improved local branding through cooperation are significant benefits.

•

Value Destruction: Risks include financial instability if one party in a partnership fails, conflicts over responsibilities or priorities, and the potential loss of nonprofit missions if their core values are overshadowed by commercial objectives. The informal nature of some partnerships also makes them vulnerable to sudden disruption, further contributing to the risk of value destruction.

5. Managerial Implications: The paper offers insights for managers, particularly in the nonprofit and sport sectors. It suggests that coopetition strategies can enhance financial performance, offer more diverse services, and create better employment opportunities, particularly in tourist-driven markets like nautical sports. However, managers must be cautious of the risks

involved, such as maintaining organizational identity and avoiding conflicts between cooperating parties.

•

Local Coordination: It emphasizes the importance of local government powers in coordinating these coopetition strategies and structuring the market for sport services. Local authorities could help ensure that coopetitions are beneficial by creating frameworks that allow nonprofits to thrive without compromising their mission.

6. Theoretical Contributions: The research provides several contributions to the academic literature on coopetition: •

It expands the understanding of coopetition by exploring both same-sector and cross-sector coopetition, which are relatively under-researched.

•

It incorporates network theory to explain the strength of relationships in coopetition and the challenges faced in coordinating complex partnerships.

•

It contributes to the literature on interorganizational relationships in the sport industry, particularly in the context of nonprofit and public sector collaboration.

7. Limitations and Future Directions: The paper acknowledges some limitations, such as the specific context of the study (nautical sports in Northern France) and the qualitative nature of the research, which limits generalization. Future research could involve quantitative studies, international comparisons, and a closer examination of the impact of government regulation on coopetition strategies.

Conclusion: In summary, the texts explore the evolving dynamics of coopetition strategies, particularly in nonprofit and for-profit collaborations within the sport and tourism sectors. They highlight the potential for value creation through shared resources, operational synergies, and market expansion. However, they also caution against the risks of value

destruction due to misalignment of goals, financial instability, and the potential loss of organizational identity. The paper provides valuable insights into how nonprofit and for-profit organizations can collaborate effectively while managing these complexities

Value Creation in Service Here's a comprehensive summary of the key concepts from the texts regarding value co-creation within the framework of Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic:

1. Value Creation: From G-D Logic to S-D Logic •

•

Goods-Dominant (G-D) Logic: o

Traditionally focuses on value being embedded in tangible goods or services during production.

o

Views consumers as passive recipients of value and emphasizes value-in-exchange (e.g., price paid for a product or service).

Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic: o

Views value as being co-created by all participants in a network of exchange.

o

Emphasizes value-in-use, which arises when a beneficiary integrates and applies resources in a specific context.

o

Highlights that value creation is a collaborative process requiring active involvement from producers, consumers, and other stakeholders.

2. Value-in-Use and Value-in-Context •

Value-in-Use: o

Value emerges during the actual use or application of a product or service.

o

Example: A car only gains value when it is used, which depends on factors such as the manufacturer’s quality

(market-facing resources), customer’s driving skills (private resources), and infrastructure like roads (public resources).

•

Value-in-Context: o

Extends the concept of value-in-use by recognizing that value is always determined in a specific situational or environmental context.

o

Environmental factors such as laws, social systems, and ecological conditions influence how value is created and perceived.

3. Value Co-Creation: The Central Idea •

•

Collaborative Process: o

Value is co-created through interactions between service systems, which are configurations of people, technology, and resources.

o

All actors—producers, customers, suppliers, governments— are seen as resource integrators who jointly create value.

Dynamic Interactions: o

•

The process of value creation depends on the exchange and integration of both operant resources (skills, knowledge, expertise) and operand resources (tangible items like goods or physical infrastructure).

Examples of Co-Creation: o

A barber applies skills (operant resource) and tools (operand resource) to cut a customer’s hair, with the customer bringing preferences and participation to the process.

o

Tax preparation services rely on both the service provider’s expertise and the client’s data, time, and effort.

4. Service Systems and Resource Integration •

Service Systems:

•

o

Defined as entities (individuals, firms, or organizations) that interact with others to exchange services and cocreate value.

o

Service systems depend on the resources of others to function effectively, emphasizing interdependence.

Resource Integration: o

Successful value co-creation requires the seamless integration of internal, private, public, and market-facing resources.

o

Resources like technology, knowledge, and infrastructure are combined to produce value for both the provider and the beneficiary.

5. The Role of Knowledge and Skills •

•

Core Operant Resources: o

Knowledge and skills are fundamental to value co-creation, as they enable participants to apply their expertise and create meaningful outcomes.

o

Example: IT outsourcing firms apply their technical expertise to manage a client’s technology systems, resulting in mutual benefit.

All Participants as Contributors: o

In S-D Logic, the producer-consumer distinction dissolves, as every actor in the service system contributes to and benefits from the process.

6. Value-in-Exchange as a Supporting Concept •

While value-in-use is central, value-in-exchange (e.g., monetary transactions) still plays a role in accessing resources.

•

Exchange enables the acquisition of resources that are not naturally available, facilitating co-creation. For instance, a customer pays for tax software to access embedded expertise.

7. Contextual and Environmental Factors •

•

Influence of Context: o

Social, legal, ecological, and cultural contexts shape value creation.

o

Example: Laws and infrastructure (like roads) act as public resources that participants integrate into their valuecreation processes.

Beyond Control: o

While certain factors (e.g., weather, time) are uncontrollable, they are nonetheless integrated into value creation, highlighting the interconnectedness of systems.

8. Service Science and Its Implications •

•

•

Service Science: o

An interdisciplinary approach to studying how resources are integrated across service systems to create value.

o

It seeks to establish a systematic understanding of service innovation and the dynamics of value co-creation.

Innovation and Knowledge Creation: o

New ways of creating value emerge through collaborative efforts among actors across disciplines, including business, technology, and social sciences.

o

Focus on resource adaptability and the improvement of service systems in their environments.

Future Research Areas: o

Developing methods to measure co-created value.

o

Understanding sociotechnical factors influencing value creation.

o

Exploring the role of technology in enhancing service systems.

9. The Symbiotic Nature of Value Creation •

•

Interdependence of Systems: o

Service systems rely on symbiotic relationships, exchanging services to enhance mutual well-being.

o

Example: Symbiotic organisms may not explicitly measure or evaluate their exchanges, yet both benefit through mutual service.

Emergent Value: o

Value emerges not just from explicit exchanges but also from subtle, dynamic interactions that improve the capabilities of all involved systems.

Conclusion The shift from G-D Logic to S-D Logic represents a paradigm change in understanding value creation. It emphasizes: •

The importance of resource integration and dynamic interaction.

•

The active roles of all participants in co-creating value.

•

The critical role of context in determining value.

•

The necessity of interdisciplinary approaches to study and innovate service systems.

This reconceptualization underscores that value is not merely delivered but co-created through active collaboration and interaction across diverse actors and contexts