The Effect of Social Media Platforms Toward Value Co-Creation in Generation Z
Muhammad Latif Mediyan1*, Mustika Sufiati Purwanegara1*
1 School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected], [email protected]
Accepted: 15 September 2022 | Published: 1 October 2022 DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijbtm.2022.4.3.32
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Co-creation is a collaboration between a company and a customer in the context of social media, which means that the fellow social media users (content creator - company - user) are directly or indirectly in the manufacture of joint products. Companies try to adopt a customer-centered approach that can collaborate to create products together. The use of social media can be a liaison between customers and the company. The characteristics of Generation Z, which are tech savvy and innovative, can help companies co-create on social media.
However, social media comes in a lot of varieties. Therefore, this research aims to examine social media and what differs in terms of social media usage on value co-creation. Collecting data through interviews with 10 participants and online questionnaires with 416 respondents from Generation Z in Indonesia. Data analysis using PLS-SEM and Kruskal Wallis Test. This study shows that co-production and value in use can affect value co-creation. Then there comes things that differ each type of social media in terms of its usage, regarding interaction, personalization, experience, equity, relationships and knowledge. Generation Z mostly uses TikTok as a platform for co-creation and content created about education. Overall, it is a pleasant experience. This research can be applied to companies or business who plan to use co-creation on social media.
Keywords: Value Co-Creation, Social Media, Generation Z, Co-Creation, Customer Centric ___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
According to Dvorak (2013), today’s fast-paced era pushes nearly all companies to be able to adapt and handle dynamical changes which happen in rapidly moving environments around them. The process of fresh products creation always make people fascinated enough to be willing on investigating them. Moreover, when companies or business develop new products, they will need to involve a variety of cross-divisions and departments during the process.
Dvorak (2013) also added that consumer co-creation is able to offer better satisfaction for the company’s customers’ requirements, which gave companies a competitive edge. Co-creation is a collaborative act on developing new product, where consumers are able to become an active participant and that they are able to choose different elements of a new product offer. (O’Hern, M. S., & Rindfleisch, 2010). Ranjan & Read (2016) also added that in the activity of co- creation, consumers are active contributors of value co-creation. They are able to collaborate in both direct and indirect ways with the firms, even to the point of going across consumption and production phases to reach their goal of generating values.
Kim & Choi (2019) admitted in their study that the use of social media for companies and their environment has rapidly become a trend, as it has been proven to be significant for business’
innovation and marketing. As a result of introducing social media platforms, outstanding interactions between customers and producers are possible to be offered. Also, adding the fact that nowadays, consumers of products want to participate in developing the products they use so those businesses are able to make products containing elevated value that reach consumers’
needs (Dvorak, 2013). Yoon (2018) also added that not only products or services are bought by consumers, but they also demand to contribute personal interactions to the businesses. This creates collaborative solutions which acknowledge intentional results.
According to Francis & Hoefel (2018), generation Z is considered tech-savvy, led by a yearn for individuality and socially conscious. Studies by Bassiouni and Hackley (2014) and Chaney, Touzani and Ben Slimane (2017) stated that the market consisting of majority generation Z has a demographic of people who have high mobility, well-educated and always connected to enormous amount of information. Keever and Rourke (2021) also added that the young generation Z is considered self-sufficient, has high ambitions and innovative. They have natural capability to do negotiations and tendency to do business. If Gen Z is compared to the generations between them, they understand the technology of social media, internet and other tech developments more.
Study by Yadav, Kamboj and Rahman (2016) stated that companies and their business consumers now generally use social media to have interactions. Social media may be used by business owners and companies to co-create and build firmer relationships between their brands and their customers, which also direct them closer. The usage variety of social media and digital platforms might bring advantages for companies who are searching to obtain a competitive edge. This will include the consumers of their brands in co-creation and customer relationship management.
Development of digital technology establishes variety among social media. Nowadays, social media varies in types, from platforms to share photo/video like TikTok, Youtube and Instagram or platforms to socially network like Facebook and Twitter. The platforms created by social media offer a virtual place for companies and their consumers to do collaboration on bringing fresh ideas. Moreover, as the technology develops, social media offers features that people can use using their own creativity, which provides opportunities for consumers and companies to co-create. As generation Z behaves differently with other generations before them, this also influences the differences on how they get motivated and form co-creation in social media.
Therefore, this research has the first objective, namely to analyze the effect of social media on value co-creation, and the second is to determine the difference between social media used to value co-creation.
2. Theoretical Framework
Value Co-Creation
According to Martins (2014), value creation is important in marketing, management literature and service. There are two considerations that are important in terms of value creation, one is value made for customers and another one is value made for companies. Customer value creation can be defined as activities formed individually or working together with social media users, includes friends, family and people outside of the community. This includes various kinds of activities which customers can bring to co-create the “value” of the service. Musso et al. (2018) stated that co-creation involves various kinds of behaviours, some examples are
researching information, exchanging information and giving feedback, changing habits, building relationships, and controlling emotions. Value co-creation as a third-order construct comprised of value co-production (VCP: knowledge, equity, interaction) and value-in-use (ViU: experience, personalization, relationship) in their synthesis of the VCC literature (Ranjan and Read, 2016).
Social Media as a Platform
Kim and Choi (2019) stated that co-production and product customisation include a symbiotic relationship between businesses and customers in order to create value. Hamidi, Gharneh and Khajeheian (2020) stated in their study that platforms that can help with co-creating value include interactive and two-sided platforms, for instance. Some examples of platforms with single sides that provide interactions, exclusiveness and tools like app stores are digital websites and resources to share information. The platforms mentioned offer one-way or two- way agent contact.
According to Moghadamzadeh et al. (2020), extensive knowledge can be provided by social media about various kinds of subjects, services and materials. This opens doors for value co- creation activities. Kim and Choi (2019) added that the creation and dissemination of values, definitions and consumer experiences can be given by the users of digital spaces. Moreover, social media can be used by new brands to interact with their buyers, gather informations and make innovations.
Generation Z
People who were born in 1997 to 2012 or people who range 10-25 in age are considered Gen Z (Beresford Research, 2022). Rohm et al. (2013) stated that brands seek generation Z to be their majority of market in social media, as Gen Z is considered to understand more about internet and excessively take up medias. Business Insider (2019) added that regarding the fact, research suggests brands to involve positive potential using collaboration with them, rather just targeting on generation Z and not including them to contribute. Gen Z is seen to have lots of creativity and they also think creativity can be used in reality (Business Instagram, 2021).
Assuming a brand has sorted out a strategy to create some value with its consumers, it ought to use it as an upper hand and offer that experience through social media platforms among others.
Co-Production
According to Ranjan and Read (2016), co-production involves immediate or roundabout
"cooperating with consumers" or involving service/product design. How consumer engage in brands can be shown in a facilitator position at the fringe of a business' tasks or a demonstration of information application and data imparting to the company. Ertimur and Venkatesh (2010) also added that co-production are additionally also characterized with how customer interact through mutual trade, mental and physical activities and admission of mutual information.
(Vallaster and von Wallpach, 2013; Achrol and Kotler, 2012; Ballantyne and Varey, 2008)
Knowledge (Idea, Creativity, Sharing)
Ranjan and Read (2016) stated that exchanging customers’ information, thoughts, and creations in articulating and introducing current and future prerequisites is the core operant resource.
Maglio and Spohrer (2008) added that values are co-created by exchanging knowledge from the company’s and the customer's libraries of aggregated past learning, thoughts, innovations, and genuine conditions and jobs, which further increase capability. Due to compromise, shared 12 creativity, and better show and assessment of prerequisites, sharing information delivers
more huge outcomes than working separately (Enz and Lambert, 2012; Ranjan and Read, 2016;
Grover and Kohli, 2012). According to Cepeda-Remains et al. (2022), social media is recognized to provide faster data stream and more noteworthy information exchange among its external or internal stakeholders in the present hyper competitions, assisting brands to collect significant plans to turn more creative. Fisher and Smith (2011) stated in their study that the coordinated points of view that emerge from information sharing enact capacities at different times and help in settling intense subject matters and co-creating value.
Equity (Access, Transparency, Alignment, Power Sharing
Ranjan and Read (2016) stated that the center of equity is when a company is prepared to exchange proprietorship for their consumers strengthening and the buyer's demand to add to their situation in co-creation. Previous studies by Storbacka and Nenonen (2011), Fisher and Smith (2011) and Ranjan and Read (2016) also stated that the company's consumer-centricity, how they are ready to exchange proprietorship, and contributions of a helpful climate show equity. Ranjan and Read (2016) further added that equity goes against concentrated tendencies by activating amorphous flows and unpredictable linkages that permit cooperative activity and coinciding of interest and goals, carrying in value actualization and larger resource incorporation.
Interaction (Dialog)
Kim and Cho (2019) stated that companies should acknowledge they do not have unlimited authority over information development and dissemination anymore. All things considered, they might give a palce where users can undoubtedly interact and exchange their interests.
Ranjan and Read (2016) further added that interaction is the essential collaboration between co-production parties. It is an opportunity to recognize, examine, and satisfy needs while surveying and adjusting resource responsibilities. Previous studies have stated that 13 consumers dynamic support in cooperative manifacuring is powered by their proactive and coordinated engagement and helpful partakings (Chen, Tsou and Ching, 2011; Edvardsson et al., 2013; Ordanini et al., 2011). Hidayanti, Herman and Farida (2018) stated that social media interaction is straightforward and open to access by people in general, possibly influencing consumers experiences and at last captivating consumers during the time spent commonly beneficial co-created value. Interaction appears as engagement, conversation, and communication, and it takes into consideration complicated communication by expanding the possibility of outcomes in creating solutions (Ranjan and Read, 2016). The exchange of criticism, compliment, analysis, and thoughts with respect to a service or product during interaction enhances entity of participation and increase the seeing, responding, and connecting of spatial and temporal gaps in transactopns (Akaka and Chandler, 2011; Chan et al., 2010).
Ranjan and Read (2016) stated that subsequently, new and particular combination and solution are made attainable. Eventually, interactopn is significant all by itself since it is discurivse and starts social activities (Vallaster and von Wallpach, 2013; Brown, Broderick and Lee, 2007).
Value in Use
Previous studies by Grönroos (2006), Moeller (2008) and Vargo and Lusch (2014) stated that while value can be gotten from communication with the firm and its contributions, it can likewise be gotten from a utilization cycle generally free of the organization's mediation or trade. Value in use moves past co-production, trade, and ownership of product or service, expecting consumers to figure out how to utilize, fix, and keep an service or product. Value in use is gotten from the consumer’s utilization of context and processes, including time, area, time, spot, and methods, or capriciousness, remarkable experience, stories, insight, and relational effect, according to a study by Ranjan and Read (2016).
Experience (value experience, co-experience, use value, empathy, benefit)
Ballantyne and Varey (2008) stated in their paper that an experience is an important, empathetic, emotional and memorable interactions. Consumers partaking in the value co- creation process make a psychological state that outcomes from co-creation actions and consumer integration, also referred as the co-creation experience (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014;
Kohler et al., 2011; Ranjan and Read, 2016). Ranjan and Read (2016) also stated that the consumers’ connection to these relics across their physical, mental, and affective dimensions, bringing in use-value, is an artifact of products and services given by the brand. The result is stated by Edvardsson, Enquist and Johnston (2010) in which eventually, value is co-created by customers using usage and although when service or product is being tested. Consumers’
mental and emotional cycles become more perplexing because of their significant commitment and social exercises, hedonism, suddenness, and incorporated positions (Ranjan and Read, 2016).
Personalization (unique, consumer orientation)
According to studies Bove and Lukas (2012) and Lemke, Clark and Wilson (2011), personalization points to the exceptional idea of actual or perceived usage process, with value based on individual attributes. Since the personalized proposition broadens the limits of acknowledged customer value and empowers major reconfiguration of future creation of usage and exchange value even past the purview of firms and customers, personalization opens potential open doors to reshape and reinforce culturally (Ranjan and Read, 2016; Cova et al., 2011). Customers submersion, expert capacities, exceptional experience, and a steady environment for the consumer’s distinguish 15 use techniques are instances of customized insight (Ranjan and Read, 2016; Macdonald et al., 2011).
Relationship (involvement, network, engagement)
According to Ranjan and Read (2016), the relationship between the consumers and the item in a functioning interaction and commitment climate is a cooperative, proportional, and iterative cycle. Consumers are enabled to construct ideas and make value through connections and participation. As indicated by Madhavaram and Hunt, 2007, consumers social abilities offer some benefit since they help the capacity to detect and answer and self-built up value cycles of dynamic trade instead of a direct chain of contact. The interdependence of criteria makes helpful connections between partnerships all through use, bringing in related sets of important activities (Akaka and Chandler, 2011). Ranjan and Read (2016) further added that collaborating, outside point of view, involving, utilizing mutual materials, and correspondence are instances of relationship manifestations.
3. Methodology
Figure 1: Research Framework
This paper starts with determining issue that is mentioned in Chapter 1. Reviewing and evaluating papers related to co-creation will then be done. This study used the combination of qualitative and quantitative approach to gather data. Qualitative method was done using interviews and quantitative method was done using surveys. The data gathered from those two methods will be analyzed and reviewed to find results and suggestions for further developments.
Population and Sample
The population of this research has consisted of three specific criteria with the followings:
1) The respondent criteria will be in Indonesia, especially Jabodetabek + Bandung 2) Respondent with age 10-25 years old
3) Who have done co-creation on social media
Data Analysis
In this research, the qualitative approach is exploratory research with 10 participants who have done co-creation in social media to gain insight into the variables. For the quantitative approach Online questionnaire survey with a 10-point-likert-scale with 416 respondents, using PLS- SEM with SMART PLS and Kruskal Wallis with SPSS.
4. Result and Discussion
Following previous discussion, this paper will show the gathering and analysis of data which were collected with qualitative approach. The method for qualitative approach was through a semi-structured interview. This section of paper will be discussing about the results of interview performed from Wednesday, May 18 2022 up to Saturday, May 28 2022. All of the interviews took place online through Zoom meeting. There were total of 10 respondents who matched the requirements. All of the respondents have done co-creation in social media and respondents gave answers all according to what the researcher need. The data collected using this method is enough to obtain saturation for researcher, which the responses continued to do discussions regarding the same problem. Thus, data from all of the ten respondents are considered enough to review the type of social media platform respondents use to co-create and their behavior of co-creation.
Quantitative approach was also done in this research. The approach was completed using surveys. Questionnaires were provided for respondents and the total respondents who filled the survey reached 416 people.
Figure 2: Respondents Behavioural
Causel displaying which was used for the conceptual framework in this research is partial least squares. The SmartPLS device was utilized in this paper to track down all factors and decide their connections. In the reflective measurement model, personalization, knowledge, interaction, equity, experience, and relationship are the variables. Co-production, value in use, and value co-creation are extra variables in the formative measurement model. We regarded value co-creation as third order because of error at the latent construct level, while value co- creation and value in use were treated as second order. Indicator reliability, convergent validity, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity are fundamental stages in the study and all passed by all accounts with Goodness of Fit 0.734. Table 1 provided the estimation of PLS-SEM, for example, the path coeffiecient, cross validated redundancy, coefficient of determination, p-values, and hypothesis testing result.
Table 1: Hypothesis Testing Result Hypothesis Structural Path
Original Sample
(O)
T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)
Coefficient of Determination
(R2)
Cross- Validated Redundancy
(Q2)
Path Coefficients
P-
Values Result H7 Knowledge ->
Co-Production 0.645 30.949
0.922 0.558
0.645 0 Accepted H8 Equity -> Co-
Production 0.176 20.354 0.176 0 Accepted
H9 Interaction ->
Co-Production 0.240 12.731 0.240 0 Accepted
H10 Experience ->
Value in Use 0.157 9.846
0.973 0.545
0.157 0 Accepted H11
Personalization -> Value in
Use
0.452 20.459 0.492 0 Accepted
H12 Relationship -
> Value in Use 0.483 18.697 0.483 0 Accepted
H13
Co-Production -> Value Co-
Creation
0.784 47.168
0.994 0.540
0.784 0 Accepted
H14
Value in Use -
> Value Co- Creation
0.238 15.186 0.238 0 Accepted
According to Table 4.1, the value of R2 value for its Co-Production showed the number of 0.992. This means that the 3 variables of Co-Production (Knowledge, equity, and interaction) has 99.2% of the variance in Co-Production. For Value in Use, value of R2 is 0.973 which means that 3 variables (personalization, experience, relationship) show 97.3% of of the variance in value in use. Last but not least, in regards of value co-creation, value of R2 is 0,994 which means that 2 variables (value in use and co-production) show that 99.4% of variance is in value co-creation. Blindfolded SmartPLS throughout the research was the method used to gather information and data of Q2. Scores for Q2 were determined to be 0.545, 0.558 and 0.540 for respectively value in use, co-production and value co-creation. The data was shown in Table 4.14. The build's significant prediction is upheld by the positive Q2 values.
In addition to analyzing using PLS-SEM, this research also uses the Kruskall Wallis test due to the data collected being abnormal data and the post hoc test to test whether there are varieties in the usage of social media on interaction, knowledge, experience, personalization, equity and relationships. Table 2 shows that there are 12 categories of social media analyzed.
Table 2: Social Media Used for Co-Creation
No. Social Media Amount of Respondent
1 TikTok 107
2 Instagram 97
3 YouTube 77
4 TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube 46
5 TikTok and Instagram 34
6 Instagram and YouTube 18
7 TikTok and YouTube 16
8 Twitter 10
9 TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter 4 10 Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter 3 11 TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter 2
12 Instagram and Twitter 2
Table 3 is the Kruskal Wallis test result and shows that there are aspects which distinguish usage of social media in terms of experience, relationships, equity, personalization, knowledge and interaction. The next thing is to do a post hoc to show what social media is different.
Table 3: Hypothesis Testing Result 2
Hypothesis Structural Path Kruskal Wallis H df Asymp. Sig Result
H1 Platform -> Knowledge 54.519 11 0 Accepted
H2 Platform -> Equity 37.979 11 0 Accepted
H3 Platform -> Interaction 32.81 11 0.001 Accepted H4 Platform -> Experience 23.52 11 0.015 Accepted H5 Platform -> Personalization 47.715 11 0 Accepted H6 Platform ->Relationship 84.384 11 0 Accepted
Table 4 is the post hoc result and shows the number of different social media related to the analyzed variables.
Table 4: Post Hoc Test Result
No, Post Hoc Social Media out of 66 Categories 1 Platform -> Knowledge 12
2 Platform -> Equity 8
3 Platform -> Interaction 1 4 Platform -> Experience 1 5 Platform -> Personalization 5 6 Platform ->Relationship 16
Discussion
Based on the data analysis and findings, this research found that the first hypothesis result showed information about social media usage for co-creation can be understood differently.
This is because social media platforms have different guidelines applied to each platform.
Contents in social media may have requirements because there are rules which cannot be violated to protect the co-creator. Social media is a wide platform with lots of different users.
Their distinguish environment may have an affect on co-creation. The information provided by social media depends on their platform and media. For example, Tiktok gives their users information using short videos while Youtube relies on long videos. The second hypothesis result is that each social media which is used for co-creation, is different in terms of equity.
Algorithm that is applied in each platform can be the reason. When the correct and accurate words is used in social media posts, users can easily find information about the related words.
Moreover, social media offers users variety of features. According to the interview in this research, some respondents said that they are users of Youtube because the platform gives opportunities for its users to earn money, or usually called monetization. They also stated that they use Tiktok because it offers features that other social media do not have, such as Duet and Stitch. Instagram also offers Instagram Story where you can post pictures that only last for 24 hours and has lots of decorations. The third hypothesis result is that co-creation in social media can differ in terms of interaction. Again, features play an important role in this. One type of social media usually doesn’t provide all the needs the co-creator want. When the co-creator prefers to just use one social media, there is a possibility that the co-creator is satisfied with the social media. According to this research, one respondent said that he became a TikTok user for its features on taking and editing videos simultaneously. This allows him to just use one application to produce short videos. Moreover, TikTok has a feature of live videos with comments from watchers as its basis. Social media beside TikTok is only able to reply or like comments. A respondent also said that he is a user of Youtube because he is required to produce longer videos. How a co-creator and their social media choice depends on the co-creator’s needs on social media.
The fourth hypothesis result is that co-creation in social media offers its users variety of experiences. Almost half of respondents stated that they had fun. The different experiences may happen because the variety of its users. Respondents stated that they are users of Youtube, Instagram and Tiktok which support their roles. For example, respondents use Instagram to do promotions using video and photos. Tiktok is used to create and publish teasers about their promotion, as for Youtube is used to publish long videos. This shows that each social media has its own benefits and compliment each other to offer the fullest experience. However, it may not be the case for respondents who only use one type of social media. Different experiences felt by respondents may be due to their original aim to co-create. Some people has a serious goal to achieve, while others just use them for entertainment. This affects their experiences in both good and bad way, since it makes people expect differently on social media.
The fifth hypothesis result is that social media can offer different personalization. This may be due to users who use social media to co-create have variety of aims, motivation and needs.
Each social media differs in benefits and functions that depend on what the co-creator want to achieve. If the social media features are compatible with the co-creator’s intentions, it will influence how they co-create in social media. Moreoever, engagement and demands of creator and audience can be adapted by the contents made. According to the interview in this research, respondents usually produce content they personally like or align with their individual. For example, if the creator likes Korean pop culture, they tend to make contents about Korean pop culture. Their social media followers’ interests may also affect what contents will be published in the social media account. The sixth hypothesis result is that different relationships in using social media is found in this research, which may be due to the intention. According to the interview, there are respondents who feel connected with social media and their followers in
terms of content creation, and there are who do not. This proves that relationship between creator and their audience can be affected by the environment built around them. Moreover, there may be variety of community in each social media.
The seventh hypothesis result shows that there is a positive correlation that co-production is affected by knowledge. People who offer ideas to make better production is able to achieve knowledge. How an ecosystem in social media is created affects the willingness to do co- creation. The more suitable, then the willing creator want to do co-creation on social media.
According to the interview, one of the respondents said that they devour interesting and latest information. Moreover, some respondents want to devote their times to offer ideas in order to help them have better products. The eighth hypothesis result is that equity affect co-production equity regarding the equality of roles and accessibility in seeking for the accurate information from the social media users in a positive way. Components of social media compliment each other. Majority of respondents agree that easily finding information that is important for co- creation indicate equity. According to the interview, one of the respondents answered that each user of social media owns their own algorithm where it contains things they like. This makes their home page align with their interests. By doing this, social media offer ease of co-creating in their platform. The ninth hypothesis result is that co-production is affected by interactions.
Interaction include relationship built among co-creators and non-co-creators with the users of social media. Majority of respondents support the hypothesis by agreeing that they are able to show their needs on social media. For example, if they need feature A, they are most likely to use social media that has that specific feature. In order to achieve the best result, they must be proactive in doing interactions. The most common type of co-creation content is educational ones, in which respondents stated that academic science that they were able to understand was education. Moreover, majority of social media offers users to ability to leave comments. This provides co-creators opportunities to have relationship with their followers and have a talk with them.
The tenth hypothesis result us that value in use is affected by experience. Majority of the respondents said that co-creation on social media was an exciting experience. However, there were differences of experience that depended on their activities. Social media that has variety of features ease the co-creators to conduct new stuffs. The eleventh hypothesis result shows that value in use is affected by personalization. Personalization is considered the basis of co- creation because it involves elements inherent in what a person demands and needs to get satisfied with the outcomes. Algorithm that adapts users’ interest is one of the ways to support personalization. Respondents in this research find it pleasuring when they did co-creation on social media, even more than the functional beenfits. Moreover, a respondent said that when they did co-creation, he matched his personality with the audience or to himself. He would do co-creation based on what he and his followers wanted. An example is that if the respondent is a student and so do his audiences, he would produce contents related to students.
The twelfth hypothesis result is that value in use is affected by relationship. Educational contents which made the majority of content types built a healthy and positive ecosystem for its audience. Not all social media create positive environment, because there are a lot of co- creators that share negativity. Moreover, with appropriate interactions, the relationships made in the platform will show more closeness. According to the interview, respondents said that there were attachments between them with social media because the contents published offered a place for them to discuss over the topic. The thirteenth hypothesis result is that value co- creation is affected by co-production. Co-production is described as customer cooperation with elements of interaction, equity and knowledge. This research showed total of 3 unreliable
indicators of co-production. This was due to a lower outer loading of 0.7. For example., E1 stated that "I easily get the information I want on social media," and E4 stated that "I and the social media share the same role in determining the final result of the production process that is done together.” I3 also stated that "Social media facilitates sufficient interaction between users in the production process that is done together." This indicated that those three have no relations with co-production. The fourteenth hypothesis result is that value co-creation is affected by value in use. Value in Use describes customer on value judgment with personalization, experience, and relationship elements. For this hypothesis, four indicators considered not reliable showed up. First one is P2, which stated, "Social media is trying to provide the needs of each of its users," R1 stated, "So that I can fully enjoy the joint production process (or product), the facilities on social media need to be improved," X2 stated "My experience in the production process that is done together may be different from others. It depends on each activity", last but not least X3 stated " I possible to improve the production process that is done together by experimenting and trying new things". This proved those four are unrelated to value in use.
5. Conclusion and Limitations
Conclusion
This research has the first objective, namely to determine influence of social media on value co-creation, and the second is to seek the what differs social media usage to value co-creation.
Based on the data collected by the researcher, the researcher answers the two research question that provides new insight.
RQ 1: How does social media effect value co-creation?
This paper suggests that variables mentioned (value in use and co-production) affect how co- creation is influenced by social media. It is a fact that social media offers various kinds of features, which gives users opportunity to help co-creation. This is proven by how easy it is to seek information, excellent features, a matching ecosystem, the ability to freely produce contents, exciting experience, and building relationship between audience and the social media itself. Co-creation on social media starts from discussing and finding ideas of content production. Co-creation usually produce educational or informative contents.
RQ 2: What is the difference in the use of social media to value co-creation?
According to this study, usage of social media differ on value co-creation, through variables mentioned (equity, experience, knowledge, interaction, relationship and personalization).
There are two primary types of social media usage on co-creation. The first one is dedication, when only one social media is used. The second one is combination, when multiple social media is used. There are also smaller types, which counts up to the total of 12 types. Based on this research, the most used to the least used social media is respectively TikTok, Instagram and Tiktok. Although social media offers variety of features, users choose social media based on their needs and match. Moreover, social media provide unique features in each platform.
Youtube, for instance, offer monetization which people can use to gain money. Tiktok offer stitch and duet features which enhance interactions with followers. Instagram offers a feature of Business account. This type of account provides easiness to promote your brand or business.
Because of this, value co-creation may be different. This also makes each social media provides different types of published contents. Instagram and Tiktok promote more educational contents, as for Tiktok provides funny and comedic contents.
Limitations
The focus of this paper is how platform influence value co-creation on social media. The samples for this study include women and men of Gen Z, whom ages ranged from 10-25 years old. Samples are located in Indonesia and are active users of social media, who also have done co-creation in social media. This study can be further used for firms who plan to use co-creation using social media, especially in Indonesia. The research will be done from September 2021 until July 2022 if there are no constraints.
References
Achrol, R. S. and Kotler, P. (2012) ‘Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), pp. 35–52. doi: 10.1007/s11747-011- 0255-4.
Akaka, M. A. and Chandler, J. D. (2011) ‘Roles as resources: A social roles perspective of change in value networks’, Marketing Theory, 11(3), pp. 243–260. doi: 10.1177/1470593111408172.
Ballantyne, D. and Varey, R. J. (2008) ‘The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp. 11–14. doi: 10.1007/s11747-007- 0075-8.
Bassiouni, D. and Hackley, C. (2014) ‘“Generation Z” children’s adaptation to digital consumer culture:
A critical literature review’, Journal of Customer Behaviour, 13. doi:
10.1362/147539214X14024779483591.
Brown, J. O., Broderick, A. J. and Lee, N. (2007) ‘Online Communities : Conceptualizing the Online Social Network’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), pp. 2–20. doi: 10.1002/dir.
Business Insider (2019). GenZ is primed for creative collaboration with brands. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-primed-for-creative-brand-collaboration-2019-6 Business Instagram (2021). Born on Instagram: How to Collaborate With Brands and Build a
Community.Retrieved from https://business.instagram.com/blog/born-on-instagram-brand- collaborations-creative-community
Cepeda-Carrion, I. et al. (2022) ‘The Mediating Role of Knowledge Creation Processes in the Relationship Between Social Media and Open Innovation’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy. Springer US, (0123456789). doi: 10.1007/s13132-022-00949-4.
Chan, K. W. et al. (2010) ‘Week8-1_Chan et al 2010’, 74(May), pp. 48–64.
Chaney, D., Touzani, M. and Ben Slimane, K. (2017) ‘Marketing to the (new) generations: summary and perspectives’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25, pp. 179–189. doi:
10.1080/0965254X.2017.1291173.
Chen, J. S., Tsou, H. T. and Ching, R. K. H. (2011) ‘Co-production and its effects on service innovation’, Industrial Marketing Management. Elsevier Inc., 40(8), pp. 1331–1346. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.03.001.
Cova, B. et al. (2011) ‘Marketing Theory’. doi: 10.1177/1470593111408171.
Dvorak, T. (2013) ‘Co-Innovation: customer motives for participation in co-creation processes via social media platforms’. Available at: http://essay.utwente.nl/64225/.
Edvardsson, B. et al. (2013) ‘Why is service‐dominant logic based service system better?’, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 5(2), pp. 171–190. doi: 10.1108/IJQSS-07-2012-0007.
Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B. and Johnston, R. (2010) ‘Design dimensions of experience rooms for service test drives: Case studies in several service contexts’, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 20(4), pp. 312–327. doi: 10.1108/09604521011057469.
Enz, M. G. and Lambert, D. M. (2012) ‘Using cross-functional, cross-firm teams to co-create value:
The role of financial measures’, Industrial Marketing Management. Elsevier Inc., 41(3), pp.
495–507. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.041.
Ertimur, B. and Venkatesh, A. (2010) ‘Opportunism in co-production: Implications for value co- creation’, Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(4), pp. 256–263. doi:
10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.07.004.
Fisher, D. and Smith, S. (2011) ‘Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has
control’, Marketing Theory, 11(3), pp. 325–350. doi: 10.1177/1470593111408179.
Francis, T. and Hoefel, F. (2018) ‘“True Gen”: Generation Z and its implications for companies’, McKinsey & Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer- packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies.
Grönroos, C. (2006) ‘Adopting a service logic for marketing’, Marketing Theory, 6(3), pp. 317–333.
doi: 10.1177/1470593106066794.
Grover and Kohli (2012) ‘Cocreating IT Value: New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments’, MIS Quarterly, 36(1), p. 225. doi: 10.2307/41410415.
Hamidi, F., Gharneh, N. S. and Khajeheian, D. (2020) ‘A conceptual framework for value co-creation in servicenterprises (Case of tourism agencies)’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(1), pp. 1–21.
doi: 10.3390/su12010213.
Hidayanti, I., Herman, L. E. and Farida, N. (2018) ‘Engaging Customers through Social Media to Improve Industrial Product Development: The Role of Customer Co-Creation Value’, Journal of Relationship Marketing. Taylor & Francis, 17(1), pp. 17–28. doi:
10.1080/15332667.2018.1440137.
Karpen Ingo, K., Bove, L. L. and Lukas, B. A. (2012) ‘Linking Service-Dominant Logic and Strategic Business Practice A Conceptual Model of a Service-Dominant Orientation’, (June 2014). doi:
10.1177/1094670511425697.
Keever, M. M. and Rourke, V. O. (2021) ‘Generation Z an exploration of their unique values driving brand affinity ’ Generation Z : an exploration of their unique values driving brand affinity .’
Authors Maria McKeever Letterkenny Institute of Technology , Dr . Sarah Diffley Letterkenny Institut’, (August).
Kim, J. and Choi, H. (2019) ‘Value co-creation through social media: A case study of a start-up company’, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(1), pp. 1–19. doi:
10.3846/jbem.2019.6262.
Kohler, T. et al. (2011) ‘CO-creation in virtual worlds: The design of the user experience’, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 35(3), pp. 773–788. doi: 10.2307/23042808.
Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2011) ‘Customer experience quality : an exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique’, pp. 846–869. doi: 10.1007/s11747- 010-0219-0.
Macdonald, E. K. et al. (2011) ‘Industrial Marketing Management Assessing value-in-use : A conceptual framework and exploratory study’, Industrial Marketing Management. Elsevier Inc., 40(5), pp. 671–682. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.05.006.
Madhavaram, S. and Hunt, S. (2007) ‘The Service-Dominant Logic and a Hierarchy of Operant Resources: Developing Masterful Operant Resources and Implications for Marketing Strategy’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, pp. 67–82. doi: 10.1007/s11747- 007-0063-z.
Maglio, P. P. and Spohrer, J. (2008) ‘Fundamentals of service science’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp. 18–20. doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9.
Martins, C. S. C. (2014) ‘Value co-creation through online communities in the context of new social
media sites’, PQDT - Global, p. 180. Available at:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1907050318?accountid=26642%0Ahttp://link.periodic os.capes.gov.br/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+%26+theses&sid
=ProQ:ProQuest+Dissertations+%26+Theses+Globa.
Moeller, S. (2008) ‘Customer integration - A key to an implementation perspective of service provision’, Journal of Service Research, 11(2), pp. 197–210. doi:
10.1177/1094670508324677.
Moghadamzadeh, A. et al. (2020) ‘Investigating the role of customer co-creation behavior on social media platforms in rendering innovative services’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17). doi:
10.3390/SU12176926.
Musso, M. et al. (2018) ‘How Social Media Platform can Support Value Cocreation Activities in Healthcare’, Excellence in Services. EISIC-Excellence in Services International Conference, (August 2018), pp. 535–555. Available at: https://getreferralmd.com/2017/01/30-facts-.
Nysveen, H. and Pedersen, P. E. (2014) ‘Influences of co-creation on brand experience: The role of
brand engagement’, International Journal of Market Research, 56(6), pp. 807–832. doi:
10.2501/IJMR-2014-016.
O’Hern, M. S., & Rindfleisch, A. (2001). Customer co-creation: A typology and research agenda (pp.
84–106)
Ordanini, A. et al. (2011) ‘Crowd-funding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms’, Journal of Service Management, 22(4), pp. 443–470. doi:
10.1108/09564231111155079.
Ranjan, K. R. and Read, S. (2016) ‘Value co-creation: concept and measurement’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), pp.
290–315. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0397-2.
Research, B. (2022) ‘Age Range by Generation’, Beresford Research. Available at:
https://www.beresfordresearch.com/age-range-by-generation/.
Storbacka, K. and Nenonen, S. (2011) ‘Scripting markets: From value propositions to market propositions’, Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), pp. 255–266. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.038.
Vallaster, C. and von Wallpach, S. (2013) ‘An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics of multi-stakeholder brand meaning co-creation’, Journal of Business Research, 66(9), pp.
1505–1515. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.012.
Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2014) ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’, The Service- Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, (November), pp. 3–28.
Yadav, M., Kamboj, S. and Rahman, Z. (2016) ‘Customer co-creation through social media: The case of “Crash the Pepsi IPL 2015’’”’, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 17(4), pp. 258–258. doi: 10.1057/s41263-016-0008-7.
Yoon, S.-J. (2018) ‘Validating the Role of Social Capital on Engaging in Value Co-Creation Behavior for South Korean Firms’, GJETeMCP) An Online International Research Journal, 4, p. 1.
Available at: www.globalbizresearch.org.
