The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Customers Value Self‐Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment*
Open accessAbstract
This study analyzes which factors prompt customers to attribute value to products they design themselves using mass‐customization (MC) toolkits. The assumption that self‐design delivers superior customer value is fundamental to the concept of MC toolkits and can be found in almost any conceptual work in this field. However, spectacular failures reinforce the practical relevance of developing a deeper understanding of why and when MC toolkits generate value for customers—and when they do not. Research to date has assumed that the closer fit between the self‐designed product's characteristics and the preferences of the customer is the dominant source of value. In this research, it is asked whether the enjoyment and perceived effort of the self‐design process have an additional impact on the perceived value of self‐designed products. This question is interesting because one could argue that a rational actor would hardly be willing to pay ex post for an economic good already consumed. The hypotheses are tested on 186 participants designing their own scarves with an MC toolkit. After completing the process, they submitted binding bids for “their” products in Vickrey auctions. Therefore, real buying behavior, not merely stated intentions, is observed. The present study finds that the subjective value of a self‐designed product (i.e., one's bid in the course of the auction) is indeed impacted not only by the preference fit the customer expects it to deliver but also by (1) the process enjoyment the customer reports, (2) the interaction of preference fit and process enjoyment, and (3) the interaction of preference fit and perceived process effort. In addition to its main effect, preference fit can be interpreted as a moderator of the value‐generating effect of process evaluation: in cases where the outcome of the process is perceived as positive (high preference fit), the customer also interprets process effort as a positive accomplishment, and this positive effect adds (further) value to the product. It appears that the perception of the self‐design process as a good or bad experience is partly constructed on the basis of the outcome of the process. In the opposite case (low preference fit), effort creates a negative effect that further reduces the subjective value of the product. Likewise, process enjoyment is amplified by preference fit, although enjoyment also has a significant main effect, which means that regardless of the outcome, customers attribute higher value to a self‐designed product if they enjoy the process. In a way, this effect resembles of the classic story of Tom Sawyer and the fence, in which Tom manages to “frame” the tedious chore of whitewashing a fence as a rare opportunity—thus persuading his friends to pay him for letting them work. Manufacturers designing an MC system therefore are advised to designing MC toolkits in a way that they elicit positive affective reactions that make their customers value their work.
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
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
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
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115 · Cited by 4,037 · cited 1×
“The composite scores of the independent variables were standardized, the interaction terms created, and a hierarchical regression conducted (with the interaction terms entered in the second step of the analysis, as suggested by Frazier, Tix, and Barron, 2004).”
MethodDabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070302303001 · Cited by 1,898
Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.7.821.2817 · cited 1×
“These toolkits allow trial-and-error experimentation and deliver immediate (simulated) feedback on the potential outcome of design ideas (von Hippel, 2001; von Hippel and Katz, 2002).”
Background
Cited by
Javornik, A., Marder, B., Barhorst, J. B., McLean, G., Rogers, Y., Marshall, P., & Warlop, L. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107126 · Cited by 224
Moretta Tartaglione, A., Cavacece, Y., Cassia, F., & Russo, G. (2018) · The TQM Journal · doi:10.1108/tqm-11-2017-0138 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Franke, N., & Schreier, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-10-15
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1020-1031
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W2162487635
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 32.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Customers Value Self‐Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00768.x
- The paper
- Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2010). Why Customers Value Self‐Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment*. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00768.x
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.