The Role of Actor Engagementin Experience Value Co-creation徐欣玥＜Abstract＞
This research investigates the role played by engagement in the experience value co-creation process. The
importance of value co-creation first rose to prominence among researchers and practitioners in 2004, with the
publication by Vargo and Lusch of an article entitled “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”. This article
shifted the focus of marketing thinking from goods to service, with this new transcending view being called
Service-dominant logic (S-D logic). Despite the wide study of S-D logic over the past 10 years, empirical studies in thisfield have been neither systematic nor comprehensive.
Regarding the limited empirical research on S-D logic, Vargo and Lusch (2017) noted that this is primarily because
researchers in the area have always confused the aggregation and abstraction levels. Thus, in order to move forward, itwould be useful for researchers to zoom in and out across levels of abstraction, so that the next frontier of this area
becomes the microfoundation of S-D logic, that is the construct engagement.
Therefore, this study has two main research aims: (1) to develop a framework that conceptualizes actor engagement
as a microfoundation of experience value co-creation, and (2) to use this framework to identify the actor engagementthat takes place in a C2C e-commerce platform.
＜Keywords＞
Service-dominant logic, Experience value co-creation, Actor engagement, Micro-foundation, Service ecosystem

1. Introduction
1. 1. BackgroundThe behaviors and cognitions of human beings are always guided by a specific institutional logic(Thornton and Ocasio 2008). In the marketing world, this kind of institutional logic is referred to as
goods-dominant logic (G-D logic). From the G-D logic perspective, goods are operand resources and end
products, manufacturers are responsible for altering their form, place, time and possession, the customer isthe recipient of goods, and value is mainly determined by the manufacturers (Vargo and Lusch 2004). This
type of logic is also sometimes termed “old enterprise logic” or “manufacturing logic”, or productorientation or marketing myopia (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, p. 25). However, as has often been the casethroughout history, although institutional logic can provide us with a guideline, it can also restrict our21

understanding and the advancement of scientific knowledge (Vargo and Lusch 2014). G-D logic, as
mentioned before, is one such problematic logic that has persisted for 200 years.
Overturning this situation, Lusch and Vargo (2004) published the groundbreaking article “Evolving toa New Dominant Logic for Marketing”. This article shifted the focus of marketing thought from goods toservice, with the new transcending view being termed Service-dominant logic (S-D logic), defined as “alens, a mindset, an act for a unified understanding of the purpose and nature of organizations, markets, andsociety” (Bolton et al. 2009; Vargo and Lusch 2008).
This paradigm shift came to present a threat to the traditional models of value creation through its
extension of increased power to consumers, thus enabling them to take an increasingly active role in thevalue creation process. In contrast, however, traditional value creation theory treats marketing as avalue-adding activity (Porter 1985) and producer; that is, the firm is the true creator of value. However,based on S-D logic, the outcome is not that important; instead, what is important is the value-creatingprocess itself whereby different actors (e.g. suppliers, business partners, allies and customers) work
together to co-create value. For example, it is not possible for the value of a car to be created solely by a
car manufacturer; indeed, if the consumer does not know how to drive a car and has no car-related
knowledge or skill, then a car has no meaning for the consumer aside from being a lump of metal. Hence,
based on S-D logic, the value is co-created through the integration of multiple resources provided by boththe manufacturer and consumer, with this notion forming the basis of value co-creation. Value co-creation
is a joint, concurrent, peer-like process of producing a new value, both materially and symbolically(Galvagno and Dalli 2014). Moreover, in 2016, Vargo and Lusch proposed a new definition of S-D logic,
emphasizing that the process is “one of resource-integrating, reciprocal-service providing actors
cocreating value through holistic, meaning-laden experiences in nested and overlapping service
ecosystems” (Vargo and Lusch 2016, p. 7).
Despite a number of researchers having indirectly included the meaning of “co-creation” in their
publications over a long period of time, “cocreation” was initially used as a term only in 2000, when it was
introduced by Prahalad and Ramaswamy. They proposed a transformation of the role played by thecustomer, from being “a passive audience” to “an active player” (Prahald and Ramaswamy 2000).

1. 2. Theoretical foundations
With the development of value co-creation study, researchers proposed that the value creation process
can be viewed not only as taking place during the manufacturing process but also within the consumption
process. Thus, the research on value co-creation can be divided into “co-production and co-creation ofvalue”, which make up the two principal components of value co-creation.
The first type of value co-creation is called co-production and is a process where the customer
participates in the manufacturing process of the core offering; examples include co-design and shared22

inventiveness. The value co-created in this process is mainly cognitive perceived value, which typicallyserves as a benefit to three actors. Firstly, for the manufacturer, this co-created value may take the form of
increasing profits (Chan et al. 2010), a strong brand image and word-of-mouth communication (Payne et al.
2008), the quick response of suppliers (Wilhelm and Kohlbacher 2011) and the core competence of thecompany (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). Next, for the employees of the company, the co-created value
can be seen as increased efficiency in the workplace and some degree of economic return (Chan et al.
2010). Finally, for consumers, this value relates mainly to the satisfaction of their needs, which can be
regarded as perceived value (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004).
The second component is called co-creation of value and occurs throughout the entire customer
journey; in other words, it is derived through value-in-use or value-in-context (Lusch and Vargo 2006).
Co-creation of value is defined as the collaborative creation of value through the interaction ofdifferent actors; fundamentally, customers and the firm (Grönroos 2012; Ramaswamy 2011; Wu and Fang
2010). It reflects the fact that value is derived from personalized experiences instead of being embedded in
the offering. It thus differs from the co-production process in that, with this kind of value co-creation, what
is co-created is mainly experience value (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004; Schau 2009). Furthermore,
Mukherjee and Venkatesh (2008) point out that the core of the experience value is fantasy and fun. To thisend, the co-creation of value can also be termed experience value co-creation. One classic example that
illustrates this theory is the concept underpinning the LEGO group. This is reflected in the content of theirwebsite’s home page, which states: “Creative and engaging play has been at the heart of the LEGO groupsince 1932, and our brand values are multiple which are imagination, creativity, fun, learning, caring andquality.” Thus, through these words, we can see that LEGO think of themselves not only as a manufacturerof plastic building bricks but also as a company that works to co-create an excellent experience with theirconsumers.
Moreover, when it comes to the empirical study of these two areas, it is interesting to note that the
number of empirical studies on co-production greatly exceeds that for experience value co-creation. The
most likely reason for this is the inadequacy of S-D logic. This is because co-production is still prone tofollow the meaning of G-D logic, whereas based on S-D logic, value can only be created by the customer
through value-in-use, and firms need to find a way of accessing customers in order to obtain that value(Gronroos 2006; Lusch and Vargo 2006; Saarijärvi et al. 2013).

1. 3. Research aims
The aims of this study are as follows: (1) to develop a framework that conceptualizes actor
engagement as a microfoundation of experience value co-creation, and (2) to use this framework to
identify the actor engagement taking place on a C2C e-commerce platform.

23

2. Literature review

2. 1. Research gap in value co-creation
While most of the focus of existing literature has been on the interaction between the company, or its
employees, with the customer (Tsiros and Parasuraman 2006), marketers and researchers should also beaware that interactions among customers can have profound effects on the customer experience (Baron,
Harris, and Davies 1996; Martin 1996; Martin and Pranter 1989). Even though marketers have realized theimportance of building strong bonds between customers (e.g., the influence of a purchase pal, Woodside
and Sims 1976), researchers and marketers ignored the call for creating relationships between customers
and have focused primarily on creating relationships with customers. Customers can affect one anothereither directly or indirectly (Baker 1987; Bitner 1992). For example, crowding or standing too close toothers can create anxiety (Bateson and Hui 1986; Fisher and Byrne 1975; Hall 1966).
On the other hand, customers can also affect other customers directly by the different roles that eachcustomer may assume. For example, some customers are disruptive (e.g., talking loudly during a movie)
while some may assist fellow customers by playing the role of an advisor, with the other customers
assuming the role of advisers. McGrath and Otnes (1995) developed a typology of roles that strangers canplay in a retail environment. They identified specific roles such as the help seeker, helper, competitor, andcomplainer, among others. The positive and negative effects of customer-to-customer interactions havebeen empirically documented for the tourism industry (Wu 2007).
Thus, based on the view of Brodie et al. (2011), Storbacka et al. (2016, p3009) extend consumer
engagement to actor engagement. They define actor engagement as “both the disposition of actors toengage, and the activity of engaging in an interactive process of resource integration within theinstitutional context provided by a service ecosystem”.
Therefore, this study will put the focus on actor engagement and examine the role of actor
engagement in experience value co-creation.

2. 2. Service ecosystem
A service ecosystem is defined as a ‘relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system ofresource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual value creation
through service exchange” (Vargo and Lusch 2016, p. 11). According to the service ecosystems
perspective, value creation emerges through the act of exchange at three different levels: a micro level
where two actors exchange in the context of a dyad; a meso level where three actors, not all connectedwith each other, exchange in the context of a triad; and a macro level, where numerous actors all exchange
directly or indirectly with each other in the context of a complex network (Chandler and Vargo 2011;24

Vargo and Akaka 2012). These three levels should not be understood separately, but rather simultaneously
through the concept of a “meta layer” that provides insight into how these three levels of interaction relate
and evolve (Chandler and Vargo 2011). Alternatively, a service ecosystem perspective conceptualizes whatvalue is and how it is co-created by joint efforts among firms, customers, and other actors (e.g., suppliers,
government agencies, nonprofit organizations) (Vargo and Lusch 2008).
Service ecosystem view draws attention to multiple levels of interaction as drivers of value creation(Akaka, Vargo and Lusch 2013). Moreover, a service-ecosystem perspective draws on a dynamic systems
approach to study the interaction and exchange of service among various actors. It emphasizes the role ofinstitutions in governing interactions of several actors that participate in value creation (Williamson 2000).
Importantly, S-D logic promotes an extended contextual perspective, which includes social andcultural contexts within which value is created (Akaka, Vargo and Schau 2015). The discussion on service
ecosystem mainly focuses on how phenomenological value emerges through interaction and application of
resources within systems of service-for-service exchange.

3. Conceptual framework and hypothesis development
3. 1 Conceptual framework
Based on the prior literature, the conceptual framework for the experience and engagement construct
is established. The framework specifies the relationships between these two constructs, with the platform
also having an impact as an environmental element. The following section justifies the relationships byreference to the literature review.
Experience is important in business practice because to some degree every economic offering is
experienced (Van Doorn 2006). Moreover, Desmet and Hekkert (2007) also stated that “all actions andprocesses that are involved, such as physical actions and perceptual and cognitive processes (e.g.
perceiving, exploring, using, remembering, comparing, and understanding), will contribute to theexperience”.
Furthermore, engagement is a multidimensional and hierarchical concept, which means “apsychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experience with a focal
agent/object (e.g., a brand) in focal service relationships. It exists as a dynamic, iterative process within
service relationships that co-create value. It is a multidimensional concept subject to a context

and/orstakeholder-specific expression of relevant cognitive, emotional and/or behavioral dimensions” (Brodie etal. 2011, p. 260). In this paper, we adopt the view of consumer engagement as a psychological construct
and treat it as a cognitive process which has an impact on consumer behavioral outcomes and thus impacts
the experience of consumers.
Multiple studies have already proved the existence of a relationship between engagement and25behavioral outcomes (Algesheimer et al. 2005; Cheung et al. 2014; Lehmann et al. 2013). First, in anexperiment on retail shopping, Gonclaves (2009) found that increased engagement leads to increased
willingness to pay in a shopping situation. In their study of consumer use of Facebook brand pages, De
Vries and Carlson (2014) found engagement impacts brand loyalty, that is, the intention to say positive
things about the brand.
Moreover, Desmet and Hekkert (2007) confirm that contrary to popular belief, “emotion is the resultof a cognitive process, though often automatic and unconscious”. Thus, we propose that the engagement
between multiple actors can provide experience value to each actor. In other words, depending on the levelof engagement that an actor exhibits, the value that he or she derives from his or her experiences isdifferent. In the conceptual framework, the experience value is hypothesized to result from theengagement that emerges from the interaction between actors.

3. 2. Platform as an environment variable
In addition, the experience is always influenced by the context; that is, the environment in which theinteraction takes place. Frow et al. (2015) pointed out that effective co-creation is dependent on theexistence of a platform on which actors are able to engage. Digital applications, such as websites, mobile
applications, and social media, are the preferred engagement platforms. In this study, we treated the C2C
e-commerce platform as the engagement platform where the engagement takes place. Wang and Liao
(2008) conducted an empirical study by questionnaire with 119 users of G2C (government-to-citizen)eGovernment systems in Taiwan, seeking to measure the success of such systems from the citizen’s
perspective. The empirical results show that the digital system plays a significant role as an environment
actor. The prior literature also shows that the quality of website design has an indirect influence on
behavioral intention through mediating variables such as attitude (Dedeke 2016; Pallud and Straub 2014).
Therefore, this study proposes that the quality of engagement platforms may also influence actors’
engagement.

3. 3 Analysis subject: C2C e-commerce platform
A C2C e-commerce platform is an Internet-based consumer-to-consumer marketplace that allows
ordinary consumers to trade new and second-hand goods. As such, a C2C e-commerce platform is akin toother C2C marketplaces such as village markets and garage sales (Belk et al. 1988; Lastovicka andFernandez 2005; Sherry 1990). Buyers and sellers are typically ordinary consumers, rather thanprofessional sellers running (Tang and Forster 2007). Recently, however, C2C e-commerce platform has
also come to accommodate business-to-consumer (B2C) selling alongside C2C selling (Chu 2013). Thesewebsites utilize the ubiquity and convenience of the Internet to bring together millions of buyers and26

sellers, and millions of goods for sale, in one virtual place (Tang & Forster, 2007). In so doing, they
achieve economies of scale and enormous geographical coverage not possible in traditional C2C markets(Chu, 2013). For example, the Mercari covers all of Japan even America.
Figure 3.1 Conceptual model

Actor
experienceengagement

Actor

value

Actor
interaction

value to eachactors

Sources : Desmet and Hekkert (2007); Brodie et al. (2011)

3. 4. Development of hypothesis
Based on the characteristics of Mercari which has two important actors: buyers and sellers. This study
developed two hypothesis models, one is standing on the buyers’ side and one is standing on the sellers’side. Moreover, based on the conceptual framework this study proposed before that consumer who ishighly engaged with the seller or the platform (C2C e-commerce platform) are likely to interact with themmore frequently, thus affect their final experience value. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1a: Actors’ engagement affects their experience value.

27

Figure 3.2 Hypothesis model standing on the buyers' side

Table 3.1 Hypothesis standing on the buyers' side
H1

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between buyers and platform.

H2

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between sellers and buyers.

H3

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on engagement between sellers
and platform.

H4

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on the experience value ofbuyers.

H5Engagement between users and the platform has a positive effect on the experience value ofbuyers.

Figure 3.3 Hypothesis model standing on the sellers' side28

Table 3.2 Hypothesis standing on the sellers' side
H1

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between sellers and platform.

H2

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between sellers and buyers.

H3

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on engagement between
sellers and platform.

H4

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on the experience valueof sellers.

H5

Engagement between users and the platform has a positive effect on the experiencevalue of sellers.

4. Empirical research on C2C e-commerce platform
4. 1. Online data collection
In order to test our hypotheses, an online survey was designed and the participants were asked to fillout the survey based on their own usage experience of the C2C e-commerce platform. The survey wasposted from July 1 to July 5, 2018. After one week of the survey period, a total of 400 respondents filled
out the survey. Of these 400 respondents, 200 are the sellers and another 200 are buyers. Moreover, aprofile of this sample is as follows. Table 5.1 indicates that the sample represents both genders, a wide
variety of ages, ethnicities, regions of Japan, household incomes and years of experience using C2C
e-commerce platforms.
Figure 4.1 Gender of sample

29Figure 4.2 Age of sample

Table 4.1 Region of sample
Region of Japan

Percentage

Number

Tokyo

24.5%

98

Kanagawa

7.8%

31

Osaka

7.5%

30

Chiba

5.8%

23

Aichi

5.8%

23

Saitama

5.3%

21

Hokkaido

5%

20

Hyogo

4.8%

19

Fukuoka

4%

16

Kyoto

3.3%

13

Nara

1.8%

7

The participants first answered questions related to their experience of the previous usage on C2C
e-commerce platform and frequency of buying and selling. And we divided the participants into “buyers”
and “sellers” through their answers. For buyers, they were asked to evaluate the quality of C2C
e-commerce platform which they used most first, then the engagement between them and the sellers andthe engagement between them and the C2C e-commerce platform. Finally, the buyers were asked toevaluate their experience regarding the C2C interactions. For sellers, they were also asked to evaluate the30

quality of C2C e-commerce platform which they used most first, then the engagement between them andtheir customers and the engagement between them and the C2C e-commerce platform. Finally, the sellers
were asked to evaluate their experience regarding the C2C interactions as well.
All the variables were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, the lowest perception being scored with 1,
and the items included in the survey were adapted from prior research.
Figure 4.3 Usage of platform

4. 2. Hypothesis model standing on the buyers’ side
We tested the structural relationships existing between the concepts using SEM. First, in order toguarantee measurement reliability and validity, the covariance and correlation of all the multi-item
constructs in our framework were provided (see Table 5. 2 and 5. 3). The results indicate that the data fit
our conceptual model acceptably:= 46.19;/df= 0.94; GFI=0.94; AGFI=0.89; RMR=0.05;

RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.86; AIC=133.46.
First, we find that the quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between buyers andplatform (H1; β1=.38; p<0.01) and engagement between sellers and buyers (H2; β2=.51; p<0.01), so H1and H2 are verified. Regarding the engagement factor, results demonstrate that engagement between
sellers and buyers directly influence the engagement between buyers and platform (H3; β3=.39; p<0.01).
H3 is verified. About the relationship between engagement factor and experience factor, which is decided
by the types of engagement. Respectively, the engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effecton the experience value of the buyers (H5; β5=.27; p<0.01), the engagement between buyers and platform
has no effect on the experience value of buyers (H4; β4=.077; p>0.1).
In sum, the results obtained demonstrate that the actor engagement styles play a significant role inengagement platforms.

31

Table 4. 2 Correlation of buyers’ model
EV3

EV2

EV1

CE11

CE12

CE13

CE21

CE22

CE23

P1

P2

EV3

1.000

EV2

.728

1.000

EV1

.496

.539

1.000

CE11

.403

.471

.255

1.000

CE12

.446

.411

.278

.578

1.000

CE12

.472

.421

.222

.556

.671

1.000

CE21

.620

.630

.512

.367

.329

.357

1.000

CE22

.448

.536

.525

.312

.298

.217

.562

1.000

CE23

.576

.608

.605

.497

.411

.456

.639

.579

1.000

P1

.352

.267

.424

.253

.272

.203

.349

.183

.430

1.000

P2

.352

.271

.335

.200

.231

.220

.254

.184

.358

.618

1.000

PE

.298

.226

.256

.218

.242

.177

.246

.087

.318

.388

.633

32

P3

1.000

Figure 4.4 Structural model of buyers

Table 4.3 Structural model of buyers
No.

Hypothesis

Estimate

H1

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between buyers

0.38***and platform.

H2

supported

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between sellers
and buyers.

H3

supported

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on
engagement between buyers and platform.

H4

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on theexperience value of buyers.

H5

0.51***

0.39***
supported
0.27***
supported

Engagement between buyers and platform has a positive effect on theexperience value of sellers.

0.77
Rejected

Significance level α<0.01 ***; α<0.05**

33

4. 3. Hypothesis model standing on sellers’ side
We tested the structural relationships existing between the concepts using SEM. The results indicatethat the data fit our conceptual model acceptably:= 97.939;/df= 1.99; GFI=0.920; AGFI=0.87;

RMR=0.07; RMSEA=0.07; CFI=0.92; AIC=155.94.
First, we find that the quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between sellers andplatform (H1; β1=.493; p<0.01) and engagement between sellers and buyers (H2; β2=.770; p<0.01), so H1and H2 are verified. Regarding the engagement factor, results demonstrate that engagement between
sellers and buyers directly influence the engagement between sellers and platform (H3; β3=.331; p<0.01).
H3 is verified. About the relationship between engagement factor and experience factor, we can find that,in sellers’ model, no matter what actor engagement style, the engagement factor has a significant positiveeffect on the experience factor. Respectively, the engagement between sellers and buyers has a positiveeffect on the experience value of the sellers (H5; β5=.424; p<0.01), the engagement between sellers andplatform has no effect on the experience value of the sellers (H4; β4=.126; p<0.01).

Table 4.4 Correlation of sellers’ model
EV3

EV2

EV1

CE11

CE12

CE13

CE21

EV3

1.000

EV2

.702

1.000

EV1

.423

.426

1.000

CE11

.427

.427

.403

1.000

CE12

.379

.448

.340

.601

1.000

CE12

.477

.525

.359

.615

.674

1.000

CE21

.632

.585

.548

.342

.316

.412

1.000

CE22

.541

.471

.522

.315

.239

.395

.682

34

CE22

1.000

CE23

P1

P2

P3

CE23

.568

.565

.558

.373

.364

.430

.690

.685

1.000

P1

.385

.288

.408

.311

.221

.272

.381

.334

.447

1.000

P2

.367

.285

.352

.332

.198

.211

.332

.312

.361

.625

1.000

P3

.416

.341

.362

.400

.248

.325

.348

.329

.334

.569

.664

Figure 4.5 Structural model of sellers

Table 4.5 Structural model of sellers
No.

Hypothesis

H1

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between
sellers and platform.

H2

0.32***
supported

Quality of platform has a positive effect on engagement between
sellers and buyers.

H3

Estimate

0.39***
supported

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on
engagement between sellers and platform.

35

0.56***

1.000

supported
H4

Engagement between sellers and buyers has a positive effect on theexperience value of sellers.

H5

0.88***
supported

Engagement between buyers and platform has a positive effect on theexperience value of sellers.

0.06***
supported

Significance level α<0.01 ***; α<0.05**

4. 4. Conclusions
The present research studies the relationship between engagement and experience in engagement
platforms as an important stage in the co-creation of value process. Our results have shown that the qualityof the engagement platform has a positive effect on actor engagement. Then we can find that active
engagement with part of the actors can increase the experience value. However, engagement with somespecific actors may not has influence at all.
Firstly, it has been demonstrated that improving the engagement platforms which as an importantenvironment actor, is an important way of promoting engagement between actors. About the quality of theplatform, there are mainly three dimensions, respectively information quality, system quality and service
quality of platforms (Wang and Liao 2008). If the firm can ensure these qualities, such as when thecustomer has a problem, the platform shows a sincere interest in solving it (i. e. service quality) or theplatform provides the precise information that customer need (i. e. information quality), then customers
will see themselves as important actors in their relationship with the firm and develops meaningfulexperiences.
Secondly, our study shows the importance of the engagement in actor co-creation processes andverified the importance of actor engagement which is mainly the interactions between actors in fosteringco-creation experiences, not only as a means of obtaining intangible resources but also can enhancecustomer cooperation. Exchanging ideas, communications, getting support from other customers cancreate a fabulous experience for each actor. Consequently, engagement and experience becomes anessential context for involving customers in co-creation processes, and this involvement will positively
influence future customer behavior.

36

5. Implications and limitations
5. 1. Discussions: The influence of engagement styles
The study finds the engagement style of an actor to be an important factor that will influence how
actors perceive the experience value outcomes. Prior and Marcos-Cuevas (2016) conducted a case study inthe aerospace industry, proposing nine possible styles of actor engagement that influence the actor’s
experience. For the purpose of this study, the researcher selected two of those nine styles, namely the actor
who has an explicit goal and active behavior, and the actor who has an explicit goal and passive behavior.
Table 5.1 Actor engagement styles

Source: Prior and Marcos-Cuevas (2016)
In this study, compared to the actor platform (C2C e-commerce applications), the sellers haverelatively active behaviors, while the buyers, as actors, also display active behaviors. For example, thebuyers and sellers often engage in lengthy conversations as part of their negotiations over the price anddetails of the items. However, the two parties differ in terms of their respective goals. While sellers havethe more explicit goal of selling their items, the majority of buyers freely scan the home page and should
their negotiation with the seller fail, they then have the option to end the transaction. Therefore, in thisresearch, we treat the sellers as the actors with explicit goals and active behaviors, the buyers are theactors with implicit goals and active behaviors.
This helps to explain the outcome of the study in that, for the buyers’ model, the engagement between
the buyers and the platform does not affect their experience, but from the sellers’ point of view, their
engagement with the platform does affect their experience because they have explicit goals.

5. 2. Implications for research and managerial practiceThis research has aimed to develop a more manageable framework for understanding experience value
co-creation within service ecosystems and has verified the importance of construct engagement in the37marketing field. In addition to the identified research issues, the paper makes four specific contributions to
S-D logic and especially to the literature on engagement.
Firstly, Chapter 2 identified several gaps in the literature on S-D logic; thus, for experience value
co-creation and engagement, value co-creation is abstract and difficult to observe empirically. Hence, byintroducing the construct engagement, this research facilitates the microfoundation movement in the studyof S-D logic. Secondly, most existing studies on engagement have tended to focus on the engagement
between the firm and customers while ignoring the engagement between multiple actors. Therefore, thisresearch uses the construct actor engagement and expands the conceptual research on customer
engagement to create a more comprehensive understanding of the interaction between multiple actors in a
service ecosystem. Next, by reviewing the empirical studies conducted in the engagement field, we findthere to have been sufficient research investigating only antecedents or consequences, while only limited
research has sought to consider engagement as both an antecedent variable and consequence variable
simultaneously. This study investigated engagement in the role of both antecedent variable andconsequence variable, thereby enriching the study of engagement.
Finally, this research verified that the actor engagement styles, which are resource integration patterns,
can influence the relationship between actor engagement and the final experience value of these customers.
This, therefore, provides a fundamental structure for a focal firm wanting to better understand and manage
effective value co-creation. The effectiveness of engagement styles is likely to vary between the different
actors’ own behaviors, thus indicating the need for a deeper understanding of each actor and theircharacteristics.

5. 3. LimitationsFirstly, although the experience variable has many independent dimensions (cognitive, emotional...),
this study considered and measured it as a complete concept and thus ignored the differences between theseparate dimensions. A further limitation of the study was the order of the construct experience andengagement. Prior literature about engagement has pointed out that it is actually a cyclical process wherein,
if engagement levels rise, the consumer will seek further experiences through the on-going use of themarket offering, and this on-going use will continually influence the engagement. Finally, this study has
only analyzed the engagement between three specific actors of the flea market app (i.e. seller, buyer, andplatform). However, this leaves many other actors that are still to be further explored.

6. 謝辞
本論文を結ぶにあたり，本研究を遂行する上でご指導ご鞭撻とご援助をいただいた方々に感謝の意を表します。
まず，論文執筆に際し，研究の方向づけから細かいところまで終始適切な助言を賜り，また丁38

寧に指導して下さった指導教授である慶應義塾大学商学部高橋郁夫教授には，厚く御礼申し上げます。高橋郁夫教授は，研究環境から学会発表の支援まで，さまざまな面で見守っていてくださいました。また，研究成果のとりまとめにあたって多くのご教示を賜りました慶應義塾大学商学部濱岡豊教授には，データの分析など細部にわたるご指導を頂き，深甚の謝意を表します。
そして，本研究は日本でのフリマアプリユーザーを対象としたアンケート調査に基づくものであり，調査に回答していただいた多くの方々に感謝します。本研究を遂行するにあたり，慶應義塾大学学事振興資金（研究補助金）により助成をいただきました。また，本報告会のコーディネーターをお務め頂いた日高千景先生にも，深く感謝申し上げます。
また，研究を進めるにあたり，ご支援・ご協力を頂きながら，ここにお名前を記すことができなかった多くの方々に心より感謝申し上げます。
References[1] Akaka, M. A., S. L. Vargo and H J Schau (2015), “The Context of Experience,” Journal of Service Management, Vol. 26,
No. 2, pp. 206-223.
[2] Baldus, B. J., C. Voorhees and R. Calatone (2015), “Online Brand Community Engagement: Scale Development andValidation,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 978-985.
[3] Bolton, R. and S. Saxena-Iyer (2009), “Interactive Services: A Framework, Synthesis and Research Directions,” Journal ofInteractive Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 91-104.
[4] Bowden, J. (2009a), “Customer engagement: A framework for Assessing Customer-brand Relationships: The Case of theRestaurant Industry,” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 584-596.
[5] Bowden, J. (2009b), “The Process of Customer Engagement: A Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 63-74.
[6]Bowden, J. L. H., M. Gabbott and K. Naumann (2015), “Service Relationships and the Customer
Disengagement-engagement Conundrum,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 31, No. 7-8, pp. 774-806.
[7] Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, and Ilic (2011), “Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, andImplications for Research,” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 252-271.
[8] Brodie, R. J., A. Ilic, B. Juric and L. D. Hollebeek (2013), “Consumer Engagement in a Virtual Brand Community: An
Exploratory Analysis,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 105-114.
[9] Brodie, R. J., A. Ilic, B. Juric and L. D. Hollebeek (2015), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and Challenges,
Routledge Press.
[10] Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value Co-creation in Service Logic: A Critical Analysis,” Marketing Theory, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
279-301.
[11] Grönroos, C. (2012), “Conceptualising Value Co-creation: A Journey to the 1970s and Back to the Future,” Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 28, No. 13-14, pp. 1520-1534.
[12] Grönroos, C. and P. Voima (2013), “Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-creation,” Journal of
the Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 133-150.
[13] Jaakkola, E. and M. Alexander (2014), “The Role of Customer Engagement Behavior in Value Co-creation: A Service
System Perspective,” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 247-261.
[14] Harrigan, P., U. Evers, M. Miles, and T. Daly (2017), “Customer Engagement with Tourism Social Media Brands,”
Tourism Management, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 597-609.
[15] Hollebeek, M. B. (2011a), “Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring the Loyalty Nexus,” Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 27, No. 7-8, pp. 785-807.
[16] Hollebeek, M. B. (2011b), “Exploring Customer Brand Engagement: Definition and Themes,” Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 555-573.
[17] Hoyer, W. D., R. Chandy, M. Dorotic, and M. Krafft (2010), “Consumer Co-creation in New Product Development,”
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 283-296.
[18] Kemp, E. (2015), “Engaging Consumers in Esthetic Offerings: Conceptualizing and Developing a Measure for Arts

39

Engagement,” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 137-148.
[19] Lusch, R. F. and S. L. Vargo (2006), “Service-Dominant Logic: Reactions, Reflections and Refinements,” Marketing
Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 281-288.
[20] Lusch, R. F. and S. L. Vargo (2014), Service-dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities, Cambridge University
Press.
[21] Meyer, C. and A. Schwager (2007), “Understanding Customer Experience,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp.
117-126.
[22] Minkiewicz, J., J. Evans, and K. Bridson (2014), “How Do Consumers Co-create Their Experiences? An Exploration in
the Heritage Sector,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 30, No. 1-2, pp. 30-59.
[23] Novak, T. P., D. L. Hoffman, and Y. F. Yung (2000), “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A
Structural Modeling Approach,” Marketing Science, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 22-42.
[24] O'Brien, H. L. and E. G. Toms (2010), “The Development and Evaluation of a Survey to Measure User Engagement,”
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 50-69.
[25] Porter, M. E. and V. E. Millar (1985), “How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 149-160.
[26] Prahalad, C. K. and V. Ramaswamy (2000), “Co-opting Customer Competence,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 1,
pp. 79-90.
[27] Prahalad, C. K. and V. Ramaswamy (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers,
Harvard Business Press.
[28] Prior, D. D. and J. Marcos-Cuevas (2016), “Value Co-destruction in Interfirm Relationships: The Impact of Actor
Engagement Styles,” Marketing Theory, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 533-552.
[29] Ramaswamy, V. (2009), “Leading the Transformation to Co-creation of Value,” Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.
32-37.
[30] Ramaswamy V. and F. Gouillart (2010a), The Power of Co-creation, Free Press.
[31] Ramaswamy, V. and F. J. Gouillart (2010b), The Power of Co-creation: Build It with Them to Boost Growth, Productivity,and Profits, Free Press.
[32] Saarijärvi, H., P. K. Kannan, and H. Kuusela (2013), “Value Co-creation: Theoretical Approaches and Practical
Implications,” European Business Review, Vol. 25, No.1, pp. 6-19.
[33] Scott, J. and M. Craig-Lees (2010), “Audience Engagement and Its Effects on Product Placement Recognition,” Journal of
Promotion Management, Vol. 16, No. 1-2, pp. 39-58.
[34] Seraj, M. (2012), “We Create, We Connect, We Respect, Therefore We Are: Intellectual, Social, and Cultural Value in
Online Communities,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 209-222.
[35] Shaw, C. and J. Ivens (2002), Building Great Customer Experiences (Beyond Philosophy), Palgrave Macmillan.
[36] Storbacka, K., R. J. Brodie, T. Böhmann, P. P. Maglio, and S. Nenonen (2016), “Actor Engagement as a Microfoundation
for Value Co-creation,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 8, pp. 3008-3017.
[37] Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to A New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68,
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
[38] Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2008), “Service-dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution,” Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 1-10.
[39] Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2011), “It’s All B2B…and Beyond: Toward a Systems Perspective of the Market,” Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 181-187.
[40] Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2014), Service-dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities, Cambridge University
Press.
[41] Vargo S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2016), “Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-dominant
Logic,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 5-23.
[42] Vargo S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2017), “Service-dominant logic 2025,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.
34, No. 1. pp. 46-67.
[43] Verleye, K. (2015), “The Co-creation Experience from the Customer Perspective: Its Measurement and Determinants,”
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 321-342.
[44] Vivek, S. D., S. E. Beatty, and R. M. Morgan (2012), “Customer Engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships beyond
Purchase,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 122-146.
[45] Vivek, S. D., S. E. Beatty, V. Dalela, and R. M. Morgan (2014), “A Generalized Multidimensional Scale for Measuring

40

Customer Engagement,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 401-420.
[46] Vries, N. J. D. and J. Carlson (2014), Examining the Drivers and Brand Performance Implications of Customer
Engagement with Brands in the Social Media Environment,” Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.
495-515.
[47] Wu, S. C. and W. C. Fang (2010), “The Effect of Consumer-to-consumer Interactions on Idea Generation in Virtual Brand
Community Relationships,” Technovation, Vol. 30, No. 11-12, pp. 570-581.
[48] Yang, H. L. and C. L. Lin (2014), “Why Do People Stick to Facebook Web Site? A Value Theory-based View,”
Information Technology & People, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 21-37.

Appendix: Measurement scales
Variables

Quality of platform
Wang and Liao (2008)

Items
Information

A1: The platform provides the precise information you need.

quality (A)A2: The platform provides sufficient information.
A3: The platform provides up-to-date information.
Systemquality (B)B1: The platform is user-friendly.
B2: The platform is easy to use.
B3: The platform has an excellent function.

Service

C1: Platform shows a sincere interest in solving your problems

quality (C)C2: You feel safe in your transactions with the platform.
C3: The platform gives you individual attention.

Engagement between
sellers and buyers
Vivek et al (2014)Engagement between
users and platform

CE21: I pay a lot of attention to anything about specific buyers/sellers.
CE22: I spend a lot of my discretionary time to communicate with specific buyers/sellers.
CE23: My days would not be the same without these specific buyers/sellers
CE11: I am proud of using this flea market app.
CE12: Time flies when I am using this flea market app.

41

Cheung et al (2011)

CE13: I try my hardest to perform well on this flea market app.

Experience value

EV1: It was a nice experience.

Verleye K. (2015)

EV2: I am able to connect with other people.
EV3: I got a compensation according to the effort I made.

42