Service Experiential Attributes as the Basis of Customer Value Co-creation in Technology Product–Services: A Service-dominant Logic Perspective

Abstract

The process through which customers engage in value co-creation through their consumption experience lacks clarity. For value co-creation to be successful, all players, including customers, should be involved. Based on a service-dominant logic (SDL) perspective, this study examines four customer technology product–services with different levels of tangibility (video game consoles, smartphones, video games and TV streaming platforms). It aims to show how customer experiential attributes facilitate value co-creation, ultimately fostering customer satisfaction, perceived value and purchase intention. This study begins with an exploratory phase to identify key purchase decision experiential attributes. Next, an empirical phase is conducted, involving samples of 194 customers, or larger, for each product–service category. After that, the effect of the perceived performance of each attribute on satisfaction, perceived value and intentions is tested. Using structural equation modelling (SEM), these relationships are supported. The findings confirm that experiential attributes significantly contribute to value creation, allowing customers to decide their modes of interaction.

Keywords

Service-dominant logic perceived attribute performance customer satisfaction customer perceived value customer value co-creation

Introduction

Information technology products and services constitute a sector that leads how customers co-create value before, during and after the moment of exchange, where service transformation and performance are seemingly particularly relevant for advancing services (Ostrom et al., 2015). Under the perspective of the service-dominant logic (SDL), technology companies are in a special position to offer customers radically new and interesting value propositions (Hartwig et al., 2021). Therefore, conducting this study on consumer technology products/services is particularly meaningful because customers are a relevant force driving the transition of a technology manufacturer from a goods-dominant logic to SDL (Hartwig et al., 2021).

According to the SDL perspective, the distinction between goods and services is to be transcended, where a tangible product serves merely as the delivery point for the service within a broader mechanism (Lusch & Vargo, 2018). Therefore, the term product–service is proposed (the ‘en’ dash acknowledges the equal importance of both components). This inseparability recognizes the integral value of the co-creation process (proposed by Vargo, 2018).

In technology products, consumer perceived benefits have been described as the magnitude to which the perceived performance of a brand’s attributes fulfils a customer’s needs (Vera-Martínez, 2021). Thus, customer perceived benefits have been measured in terms of the seeming performance of a specific set of relevant purchase decision attributes of a product–service (e.g., Loureiro, 2013). Perceived attribute performance is likely to positively affect customer satisfaction (Busacca & Padula, 2005) and perceived value (Vera-Martínez & Ornelas, 2019). In turn, satisfaction and perceived value are considered important antecedents of loyalty (intentions) to a brand (Canguende-Valentim & Vale, 2023). This suggests that the stronger these relationships are, the more important a specific product–service attribute becomes in the customer-purchase decision scheme. Accordingly, the strength of the relationship between attribute performance and expected outcomes is also influenced by the brand’s ability to implement a set of attributes to create relevant experiences for the customer. Therefore, attribute performance can foster business profitability (Anderson & Mittal, 2000). Functional perceived value is traditionally based on the notion of exchange in marketing and is associated with the benefits received by the customer in exchange for the payment (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). However, according to the SDL perspective, value does not arise during the exchange but through the experience of usage (Lemke et al., 2011). Therefore, the customer can co-create value through experience and by providing feedback (Grönroos & Voima, 2012; Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Further, positive experiences can elicit customer satisfaction and purchasing intentions (Bhattacharya et al., 2019).

The SDL can play a prominent role in re-understanding the marketing field by providing an overall framework to build a general theory for this discipline, which can help overcome its current theoretical fragmentation (Vargo et al., 2023). According to this approach, service exchange and value co-creation are dynamic and asymmetrical social constructs essential for understanding SDL. In this context, the customer and provider act as resource integrators and beneficiaries within the broader service social system (Edvardsson et al., 2011). However, a gap exists in the literature where the role of product–service experiential attributes is not sufficiently considered in constructing perceived value for the customer and the process of value co-creation. Acknowledging the importance of experiential attributes as precursors to value co-creation strengthens the framework through which SDL contributes to the theoretical integration of marketing (suggested by Vargo et al., 2023). Customer experience quality can be understood as the subjective response of a customer to their overall encounter with a firm’s offering in terms of fulfilment (Lemke et al., 2011). Thus, utilizing a business-to-consumer approach, this study aims to address this gap by assessing the effect of product–service attribute performance on customer perceived value, customer satisfaction and intentional brand loyalty across four categories. Many of the identified attributes pertain more to experiential qualities than to the tangible aspects of the technology. Recurrently, the customer plays a vital role in the value co-creation process through their level of involvement (customization). These customer technology product–service categories were selected to represent different levels of tangibility, ranging from more tangible to more intangible product–services (such as game consoles, smartphones, video games and TV streaming platforms).

As the unique contribution of this work, the importance of the product–service experiential attributes for the participation of the customer in the value coproduction process is highlighted, suggesting the importance of experiential marketing for the SDL framework. Experiential marketing focuses on generating relevant customer experiences by providing experiential clues that replace functional attributes, connecting the brand with the customer’s lifestyle and placing the purchase occasion within a broader social context (Schmitt, 1999). According to this idea, the customer will increase the value of the coproduction process as their experiences are more favourable and relevant. Additionally, this work identifies a set of relevant attributes (precursors of satisfaction, value and intentions) for each product–service category under study, which may serve as a reference for gaining marketing insights.

Attribute Performance as an Antecedent of Customer Value

Value creation is a research priority as it is a fundamental objective from the SDL perspective, characterized by a combination of roles and resources along the value chain, including customer participation (Ostrom et al., 2015). To understand value creation for the customer, it is important to understand how product–service attributes may generate perceived value. Perceived attribute performance is based on the notion that attitudes toward a brand result from the belief that the brand holds certain product attributes relevant to the customer, is proficient in those attributes, and that this proficiency can drive customer purchase decisions (Johar & Joseph Sirgy, 1989). Overall, product–service attribute performance has been established as a consistent antecedent of customer satisfaction and perceived value, and it has been measured as the extent to which the customer evaluates how well the product–service performs on each attribute or characteristic (Matzler et al., 2004; Mittal et al., 2001). However, service attribute performance generates value primarily when it results in a perceived differentiation compared with other brands (Vera & Trujillo, 2013). Additionally, satisfaction and perceived value have been confirmed as reliable antecedents of intentional brand loyalty under different circumstances (Dimitriades, 2006; Eggert & Ulaga, 2002; Liu & Jang, 2009; Ryu et al., 2012). These relationships are detailed below. Based on the evidence above, customer satisfaction and perceived value mediate the attribute-perceived performance and brand loyalty relationship. Satisfaction is commonly measured based on overall performance rather than individual attributes (Yang & Peterson, 2004). Brand loyalty is a complex construct that can be measured by considering different sequential aspects, such as cognitive predisposition, emotional affectivity, behavioural intentions (the most common) and behavioural execution (Oliver, 1999). Meanwhile, perceived value is commonly measured in terms of functional value, where the customer assesses how much they received relative to how much they paid (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

Customer Value Co-creation, Experiential Marketing and Satisfaction

Under the SDL perspective, marketing is seen as a continuous series of social and economic processes where knowledge and capability are the fundamental sources of value (Vargo et al., 2023). Consequently, the ability to deliver value is the source of competitive advantage. Goods serve as mechanisms for providing service (value), and the customer is a co-producer of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). In this perspective, customers engage in a social exchange process of value co-creation, actively creating meaning for what is being exchanged (Edvardsson et al., 2011) and generating value in a particular context (Vargo, 2008). Companies can co-create with customers through rich, interactive, personalized experiences (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Hence, customers join the value co-creation process through their experience with product–services, providing feedback based on these experiences to enrich the development of new product–services. Customer experience can be elicited by the interaction between a consumer and any touchpoint of a company, such as a product, service, brand or others (Chan, 2018). Thus, customer value co-creation is a process in which customer consumption and value creation merge with the provider’s service production through direct interaction (Saxena & Amritesh, 2022, p. 31). This process requires numerous customer activities to emerge, including cognitive activities (attitudes and expectations), cooperation, information search, changes in habits, co-design, co-delivery, co-learning and relationship building (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012; Tommasetti et al., 2017).

Experiential marketing focuses on creating a holistic experience for the customer, integrating individual experiences to create a comprehensive cognition (Schmitt, 1999). These experiences should be implemented through a holistic strategy utilizing tactics such as specific content, brand identity, placement and usage of digital channels. Customer participation in co-creation activities and value construction can enhance customer experience and increase customer satisfaction (Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013). Therefore, customer experience and interaction between parties are a key dimension of value co-creation, and significantly predict the resulting satisfaction of all involved parties (Merz et al., 2009; Ranjan & Read, 2016). Here, interaction serves as the primary interface between parties engaged in coproduction, functioning as a synchronous activity between these parties. In contrast, experience is an empathetic, emotionally positive and memorable encounter (Ranjan & Read, 2016). Evidence suggests that customer interaction in electronic media regarding a specific brand, as a form of value co-creation, precedes purchase intentions toward that brand (Kunja & Acharyulu, 2020). Specifically, when customers perceive more favourable interactions with the firm and other parties, which make them better informed, they are more inclined to have a positive attitude toward the brand. However, the relationship between customer satisfaction and intentions is nonlinear; hence, several value conditions must also be met (Baumann et al., 2012). Therefore, to improve the understanding of value, empirical studies are needed to examine how service systems function in different settings and how value is perceived by customers in these contexts (Edvardsson et al., 2011). Thus, several priority research topics have been identified in services due to their importance. These topics include integrating the roles of customers in value creation, managing customer experience across complex offerings, understanding value creation in multi-actor contexts and assessing more autonomous customer experiences (Ostrom et al., 2015). In this context, the effectiveness of some experiential product–service attributes depends on customer–customer interactions. Customer-to-customer co-creation of value can be a powerful experiential event that creates social value by strengthening community and a sense of belonging (Nguyen & Menezes, 2024). Moreover, co-created social value can result in customer loyalty (Dai et al., 2019). According to this reasoning, customers co-create value through their own experiences, and sometimes interact with other customers. Therefore, by shaping their experiences, customers can enhance their engagement, increasing their perception of value and improving the value co-creation process. Likewise, customer value co-creation can lead to customer-perceived value through customization. In this context, customization refers to the extent to which services can be tailored to provide a more fitting experience for the customer (Tran & Vu, 2021).

Hence, the proposition driving this study can be stated as follows: Product–services experiential attributes predominantly influence the relationship between customer satisfaction, customer perceived value, and intentional brand loyalty regarding customer technology product–services, regardless of their level of tangibility.

Methodological Approach

Utilizing a multiple mixed-methods study approach, four customer technology product–service categories were selected: video game consoles, smartphones, video games and TV streaming services. These categories represent a spectrum from more tangible to more intangible product–services. The tangibility level of a service component has relevant implications for customer preferences (Santos, 2002). To be eligible for participation, customers were required to be active and frequent users of the corresponding product–service (e.g., play and own video game consoles and video games daily, own and use a smartphone daily or frequently watch TV through streaming services each week). This allowed the product–services to be assessed by actual customers of the category (native Spanish speakers living in Mexico City). Thus, four studies were conducted for each of these product–service categories. In each study, the same methodological procedure was followed. In the first phase, in-depth semi-structured interviews (approximately 25 min each) were conducted with customers from each category as part of a qualitative-exploratory phase. In each case (for each category), 15–25 interviews were carried out depending on the point of saturation. Answers were documented through notes taken by the interviewers, and in some cases, audio recording apps. Content analysis was performed on these data. This phase aimed to identify relevant attributes influencing the participants’ purchase decisions by focusing on exploring customers’ experiences when using the product–service. Notably, the identified and tested product–service attributes align with several dimensions of value coproduction proposed by Ranjan and Read (2016): knowledge (sharing the customer’s ideas), equity (the firm’s disposition to empower customers), interaction (between participants in the co-creation process), experience (the customer’s emotional memory of his interaction with the product–service), personalization (adaptability/customization of the experience for customers) and relationship (the reciprocal interactivity of the process). Notably, as a general finding during the qualitative phases, the attributes of the technological product–services predominantly relate to two types: customer-to-customer interactions and hedonic attributes.

In the second phase, empirical-confirmatory inquiries are conducted to test the relationships between relevant attributes of purchase decisions and customer satisfaction, perceived value and intentional brand loyalty. Thus, structured face-to-face questionnaires were developed for each product–service category. Each questionnaire was pilot tested for empirical validation, with 2–3 pilot tests conducted involving 10–15 participants each. These structured interviews utilized non-random sampling due to the lack of sampling frames for final customers of these types of product–services. However, to avoid bias, the samples were balanced by brand, gender and age as much as possible. Hence, n = 276 customers of video game consoles, n = 200 smartphone customers, n = 194 video game customers and n = 266 customers of TV streaming services, participated in the empirical phases of the studies. The participants were native Spanish speakers living in Mexico City. Items were developed and pilot-tested to measure the perceived performance of each attribute in each product–service category, as shown in Table A1, where each product–service attribute is identified. Scales for measuring customer satisfaction (e.g., what I received from the brand is what I expected; this brand meets my expectations; I feel satisfied with this brand), perceived value (e.g., this brand offers me a lot for what I pay; what I get from this brand is worth its price; this brand gives me a greater benefit than the others) and intentional brand loyalty (e.g., next time I will choose this brand again; generally, I will recommend this brand; I consider this brand as my first option) were adapted from previous studies, demonstrating reliability and validity (Ryu et al., 2012; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Tuškej et al., 2013; Yang & Peterson, 2004). These items were paired with a seven-point attitudinal scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The relationship between the perceived performance of each product–service attribute with the dependent variables is tested through path models using structural equation modelling (SEM). In these statistical models, indirect effects are also analyzed. SEM path models are appropriate for this study’s purposes because they allow for testing measurements, direct effects and indirect effects within a single statistical model. These results are shown in Tables A2 through A5 (Annex A). After testing the relationships, the variables representing the perceived performance of the product–service attributes which obtained a statistically significant effect are evaluated. This assessment aims to determine the importance of service experiential attributes in creating value as compared to tangible functional attributes.

Results

SEM path models were created using the Amos software to test the effect of the perceived performance of each attribute on each product–service category (Tables A1 –A5, Annex A). These models achieved good baseline statistical fit values (above 0.9) and an adequate CMIN/DF (chi-square divided by degrees of freedom) comparative statistical fit value between 5.0 and 2.0 (Hooper et al., 2008). However, there is some compromise regarding another comparative fit indicator; the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) values are barely equal to or below 0.1, which is considered the highest value for an adequate statistical fit under the less rigorous rule of thumb in the literature (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). Nonetheless, in the measurement models, the measurement coefficients of the latent variables show values above 0.7, complying with the Fornell–Larcker criteria for convergent and discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

In the path models for the product–service categories analyzed here, all the product–service attributes that emerged in the qualitative phase had statistically significant relationships (as independent variables) with the dependent variables (direct and indirect effects on satisfaction, value and intentions). Tables A2 –A5 highlight the attributes with the highest association coefficients with these dependent variables for each product–service category, especially those with indirect effects on value and intentions. The attributes with the most substantial effects tend to be those related to the experience of the customer with the product–service rather than the more technical attributes. For video game consoles, ‘realistic graphics’ has the highest association coefficients. The most significant attributes of smartphones were ‘ease of use’ and ‘fluency in use’. Video games were characterized by being ‘engaging’ and having ‘adaptability to personal preferences’. Lastly, for TV streaming services, the attributes with the highest effects were ‘ample variety of titles’ and ‘quality content (of the titles)’. Conversely, more technical (functional) attributes such as exterior design, battery duration and absence of advertisements showed lower association coefficients. This trend is particularly notable for video games, possibly due to their hedonic nature; all the attributes, in one way or another, are closely related to the customer experience. The results are highly consistent across the four product–services under study, suggesting good external validity. The effects of the product–service attributes on satisfaction (direct), value (indirect) and intentions (indirect) were confirmed. However, there is an intriguing case with video games (Table A4), in which a specific relationship between perceived value and intentions was not found, even though the effects of most attributes are present.

Discussion

Customer participation (co-creation) in the consumption experience can enhance the perceived customization capability of a product–service, thereby improving customer perceived value (Tran & Vu, 2021). Thus, taking into consideration that many of the experiential product–service attributes found in this study refer to behaviours performed with other customers (e.g., when chatting, viewing movies, speaking and playing), this study confirms that customer-to-customer interactions represent a useful value co-creation strategy where customers invest resources such as time and knowledge (Smaliukiene et al., 2015).

These interpersonal experiential attributes, identified as precursors of perceived value, are mainly related to experience in terms of pleasure and fun. In video games, hedonic and interpersonal motivations have consistently emerged as drivers of positively engaging in the value co-creation process (Afi & Ouiddad, 2021). Therefore, aspects related to pleasure during interactions with others appear to be important in terms of generating value. Thus, joy can be considered a distinct mode of customer value experience during value co-creation (Sahhar & Loohuis, 2022).

Practical Implications

Identifying key attributes to foster customer satisfaction is paramount for properly allocating resources when developing marketing strategies (Busacca & Padula, 2005). This study offers a set of product–service attributes empirically tested across four customer technology categories, offering insights for marketing practitioners. However, practitioners must consider that the set of relevant product–service attributes and their importance vary not only by product–service category but also over time (Mittal et al., 2001).

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the best efforts to gather unbiased samples by controlling for demographics and ensuring filters (actual consumers), the non-random nature of the sampling procedures arises from a lack of sampling frames. However, this work finds consistent results across the four product–service categories, leading to the same conclusions and providing a basis for the findings’ external validity. In the future, studies should test the influence of moderating variables (e.g., customer expertise, familiarity with digital solutions and consumer ethnicity) on the effects of the experiential attributes.

As mentioned above, in the specific case of video games, unexpectedly, no relationship was observed between perceived value and customer intentions, which contradicts the literature. Currently, there is no clear explanation for this finding; therefore, it represents an interesting direction for future research. This result may be influenced by differences in the way brand loyalty is created in the video game industry.

A compelling avenue for future studies lies in value creation through integrating multiple products and platforms for delivering a service, as this is a recent trend in technology customer businesses. Engaging consistently with various channels can facilitate realizing a single omnichannel customer experience and a coherent coproduction of value within this framework. Additionally, considering that customers are likely to value different product–service attributes differently, it might be useful to analyze the heterogeneous effects of different attributes to understand the participation of the customer in the coproduction process.

Conclusion

This study offers evidence that experiential attributes can be considered antecedents of customer satisfaction, perceived value and purchase intentions. In conjunction with the interaction (customer–customer or customer–firm), this supports the idea that product–service experimental attributes are essential in customer value co-creation. Customers often engage in value co-creation through sharing their experiences, deriving pleasure from and interactions with others. Due to their intangibility, experiential attributes as predictors of satisfaction, value and intentions confirm that products can operate as delivery points for services. The product–service attributes identified in this study support the possibility of two interaction types in the value co-creation process, namely customer–customer and customer–firm interactions. Experiential attributes are important for value co-creation, regardless of the tangibility of the product–service category, reinforcing the idea that they can be considered key to co-creating value across a broad range of different product–services. Therefore, viewing customer experience as integral to the value co-creation process underscores the significance of experiential marketing in the SDL paradigm.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

This research follows Tecnológico de Monterrey’s Ethics Committee guidelines. Ethical guidelines of research with human beings have been considered and adhered to throughout the execution of this study. Proper consent was verified when human subjects were invited to participate. All participants are above the legal age of adulthood. Data are available upon request.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jorge Vera-Martínez

Annex A

References

Afi

F. E.

, & Ouiddad

(2021). Consumer engagement in value co-creation within virtual video game communities. Management & Marketing , 16(4), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2021-0022

Anderson

E. W.

, & Mittal

(2000). Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of Service Research , 3(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032001

Baumann

, Elliott

, & Burton

(2012). Modeling customer satisfaction and loyalty: Survey data versus data mining. Journal of Services Marketing , 26(3), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041211223951

Bhattacharya

, Srivastava

, & Verma

(2019). Customer experience in online shopping: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Global Marketing , 32(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2018.1441938

Browne

M. W.

, & Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research , 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

Busacca

, & Padula

(2005). Understanding the relationship between attribute performance and overall satisfaction: Theory, measurement and implications. Marketing Intelligence & Planning , 23(6), 543–561. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500510624110

Canguende-Valentim

C. F.

, & Vale

V. T.

(2023). The effect of value perceptions on luxury purchase intentions: An Angolan market perspective. Journal of Global Marketing , 36(2), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2022.2143462

Chan

E. K.

(2018). The moderating role of local vs. foreign shopping context in consumer experience. Journal of Global Marketing , 31(5), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2018.1433263

Dai

, Hu

T. E.

, & Zhang

Y. J.

(2019). Exploring co-created service value and interactions of social commerce in China: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Global Marketing , 32(5), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2019.1595250

10.

Dimitriades

Z. S.

(2006). Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service organizations. Management Research News , 29(12), 782–800. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170610717817

11.

Edvardsson

, Tronvoll

, & Gruber

(2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 39(2), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0200-y

12.

Eggert

, & Ulaga

(2002). Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 17(2/3), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620210419754

13.

Fornell

, & Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research , 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980

14.

Grönroos

, & Voima

(2012). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 41(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3

15.

Hartwig

, von Saldern

, & Jacob

(2021). The journey from goods-dominant logic to service-dominant logic: A case study with a global technology manufacturer. Industrial Marketing Management , 95(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.04.006

16.

Hooper

, Coughlan

, & Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods , 6(1), 53–60.

17.

Johar

J. S.

, & Joseph Sirgy

(1989). Positioning models in marketing: Toward a normative-integrated model. Journal of Business and Psychology , 3(1), 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01020715

18.

Kunja

S. R.

, & Acharyulu

(2020). Examining the effect of eWOM on the customer purchase intention through value co-creation (VCC) in social networking sites (SNSs). Management Research Review , 43(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-04-2017-0128

19.

Lemke

, Clark

, & Wilson

(2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 39(6), 846–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0219-0

20.

Liu

, & Jang

S. S.

(2009). The effects of dining atmospherics: An extended Mehrabian–Russell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 28(4), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.01.002

21.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

(2013). The effect of perceived benefits, trust, quality, brand awareness/associations and brand loyalty on internet banking brand equity. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies , (2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.7903/ijecs.1000

22.

Lusch

R. F.

, & Vargo

S. L.

(2018). An overview of service-dominant logic. In The SAGE handbook of service-dominant logic (pp. 3–21). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526470355.n1

23.

Matzler

, Bailom

, Hinterhuber

H. H.

, Renzl

, & Pichler

(2004). The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance–performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management , 33(4), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-8501(03)00055-5

24.

McColl-Kennedy

J. R.

, Vargo

S. L.

, Dagger

T. S.

, Sweeney

J. C.

, & van Kasteren

(2012). Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service Research , 15(4), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512442806

25.

Merz

M. A.

, He

, & Vargo

S. L.

(2009). The evolving brand logic: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 37, 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0143-3

26.

Mittal

, Katrichis

J. M.

, & Kumar

(2001). Attribute performance and customer satisfaction over time: Evidence from two field studies. Journal of Services Marketing , 15(5), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000005655

27.

Nguyen

N. B.

, & Menezes

(2024). Customer-to-customer value co-creation: A customer-dominant framework of value. Journal of Global Marketing , 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2024.2429094

28.

Oliver

R. L.

(1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing , 63, 33. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252099

29.

Ostrom

A. L.

, Parasuraman

, Bowen

D. E.

, Patrício

, & Voss

C. A.

(2015). Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context. Journal of Service Research , 18(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670515576315

30.

Prahalad

C. K.

, & Ramaswamy

(2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing , 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015

31.

Ranjan

K. R.

, & Read

(2016). Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 44(3), 290–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0397-2

32.

Ryu

, Lee

, & Gon Kim

(2012). The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 24(2), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211206141

33.

Sahhar

, & Loohuis

(2022). Characterizing the spaces of consumer value experience in value co-creation and value co-destruction. European Journal of Marketing , 56(13), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-04-2020-0313

34.

Santos

(2002). From intangibility to tangibility on service quality perceptions: A comparison study between consumers and service providers in four service industries. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal , 12(5), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520210442083

35.

Saxena

, & Amritesh ., (2022). Customer-centered antecedents of a value co-creation ecosystem: Integrating psychological, social, and cultural processes. In

Ziouvelou

& McGroarty

(Eds.), Emerging ecosystem-centric business models for sustainable value creation (pp. 22–52). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4843-1.ch002

36.

Schmitt

(1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management , 15(1–3), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496

37.

Smaliukiene

, Chi-Shiun

, & Sizovaite

(2015). Consumer value co-creation in online business: The case of global travel services. Journal of Business Economics and Management , 16(2), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2014.985251

38.

Sweeney

J. C.

, & Soutar

G. N.

(2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing , 77(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(01)00041-0

39.

Tommasetti

, Troisi

, & Vesci

(2017). Measuring customer value co-creation behavior: Developing a conceptual model based on service-dominant logic. Journal of Service Theory and Practice , 27(5), 930–950. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-10-2015-0215

40.

Tran

T. B. H.

, & Vu

A. D.

(2021). From customer value co-creation behaviour to customer perceived value. Journal of Marketing Management , 37(9–10), 993–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2021.1908398

41.

Tuškej

, Golob

, & Podnar

(2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research , 66(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.022

42.

Vargo

S. L.

(2008). Customer integration and value creation: Paradigmatic traps and perspectives. Journal of Service Research , 11(2), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508324260

43.

Vargo

S. L.

(2018). Service-dominant logic: Backward and forward. In The SAGE handbook of service-dominant logic (pp. 720–737). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526470355.n41

44.

Vargo

S. L.

, & Lusch

R. F.

(2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing , 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

45.

Vargo

S. L.

, & Lusch

R. F.

(2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3

46.

Vargo

S. L.

, Wieland

, & O’Brien

(2023). Service-dominant logic as a unifying theoretical framework for the re-institutionalization of the marketing discipline. Journal of Business Research , 164, 113965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113965

47.

Vega-Vazquez

, Revilla-Camacho

M. Á.

, & Cossío-Silva

F. J.

(2013). The value co-creation process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Management Decision , 51(10), 1945–1953. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-04-2013-0227

48.

Vera

, & Trujillo

(2013). Service quality dimensions and superior customer perceived value in retail banks: An empirical study on Mexican consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 20(6), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.06.005

49.

Vera-Martínez

(2021). Consumer technology brands and the source of their performance. Cogent Business & Management , 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1969632

50.

Vera-Martínez

, & Ornelas

(2019). Comparison-based perceived attribute performance as a better antecedent of satisfaction, value and loyalty. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 31(5), 1252–1268.

51.

Yang

, & Peterson

R. T.

(2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing , 21(10), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030