The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The value increment of mass‐customized products: an empirical assessment
Abstract
The primary argument in favour of mass customization is the delivery of superior customer value. Using willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) measurements, Franke and Piller (2004), Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 401–415 have recently shown that customers designing their own watches with design toolkits are willing to pay premiums of more than 100% (ΔWTP). In the course of three studies, we found that this type of value increment is not a singular occurrence but might rather be a general phenomenon, as we again found average ΔWTPs of more than 100% among customers designing their own cell phone covers, T‐shirts and scarves. Building on this, we discuss the sources of benefits that are likely to explain this tremendous value increment. We argue that compared to conventional standard products, a mass‐customized product might render the following utilitarian and hedonic benefits: (1) First, the output might be beneficial as self‐designed products offer a much closer fit between individual needs and product characteristics. In addition to this mere functional benefit, extra value might also stem from (2) the perceived uniqueness of the self‐designed product. As the customer takes on the role of an active co‐designer, there may also be two general ‘do‐it‐yourself effects’: (3) First, the process of designing per se is likely to allow the customer to meet hedonic or experiential needs (process benefit). (4) Customers may also be likely to value the output of self‐design more highly if they take pride in having created something on their own (instead of traditionally buying something created by somebody else). This is referred to as the ‘pride of authorship’ effect. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Possessions and the Extended Self
Belk, R. W. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209154 · Cited by 9,064
An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion
Weiner, B. (1985) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.548 · Cited by 7,846
COUNTERSPECULATION, AUCTIONS, AND COMPETITIVE SEALED TENDERS
Vickrey, W. (1961) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.x · Cited by 7,722
Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/321947 · Cited by 1,791 · cited 1×
“that they are one of a kind (for an overview, see Tian, Bearden & Hunter, 2001 ).”
Background
Cited by
The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love
Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002 · Cited by 1,049
The “I Designed It Myself” Effect in Mass Customization
Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1077 · Cited by 760
Self-citationThe mass customization decade: An updated review of the literature
Fogliatto, F. S., da Silveira, G. J. C., & Borenstein, D. (2012) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.002 · Cited by 710
Metadata
- Authors
- Schreier, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Behaviour
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 317-327
- ISSN
- 1472-0817 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-1838
- OpenAlex
- W2075385863
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 17.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.