The paper presents activities within consumer practices as context for service usage, and shows how consumers’ requirements for a service differ depending on their surrounding systems of practice. Practices are units of socially informed and meaning-laden behaviour that people carry out as a part of their daily life. Interviews with five wine consumers revealed five different contexts for the services of a wine store. Activities within the practice were divided into having cognitive, affective or informational purposes, and were arranged into an “activity tree”, where the position and function of the service could be observed

Mickelsson, Karl-Jacob

English

The paper presents activities within consumer practices as context for service usage, and shows how consumers’ requirements for a service differ depending on their surrounding systems of practice. Practices are units of socially informed and meaning-laden behaviour that people carry out as a part of their daily life. Interviews with five wine consumers revealed five different contexts for the services of a wine store. Activities within the practice were divided into having cognitive, affective or informational purposes, and were arranged into an “activity tree”, where the position and function of the service could be observed.Peer reviewe

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

1Systems of Consumer Practice as Context for Service UsageJacob MickelssonHanken School of Economics, Finland,karl-jacob.mickelsson@hanken.fiABSTRACTThe paper presents activities within consumer practices as context forservice usage, and shows how consumers’ requirements for a service differdepending on their surrounding systems of practice. Practices are units ofsocially informed and meaning-laden behaviour that people carry out as apart of their daily life. Interviews with five wine consumers revealed fivedifferent contexts for the services of a wine store. Activities within the practicewere divided into having cognitive, affective or informational purposes, andwere arranged into an “activity tree”, where the position and function of theservice could be observed.INTRODUCTIONInspired by the SD-logic discussions, Arnould (2008) suggests thatresearchers develop sociologically enriched and complex models of inter-agent resource resource exchange. One way this challenge has been tackledis through applying theories of practice or social construction. Edvardsson etal. (2010) suggested that customer value should be understood within itssocial context, and that understandings of value are influenced by sharedsocial meanings. The concept of practices has been used to explain howconsumers create value for themselves using services (Holttinen 2010,Korkman et al. 2010). Practices are systems of routinized, sociallymeaningful activity that consumers carry out as a part of their daily life(Bourdieu 1977). Current discussions within service marketing are focusedon understanding the constellations of social influence that effectunderstandings of value that are realized through activity. There is anopportunity to look also at the meanings of services as parts of consumeractivity from a more phenomenological perspective. This paper analysesconsumer practices as systems of temporally separate activities, andinvestigates how services fit into such systems using the consumer’s ownphenomenological point of view (Thompson et al. 1989, Baron and Harris2010).The paper suggests a technique for illustrating how services fit intoconsumers’ practices. The technique consists of identifying activities thatbelong to a particular class of practice through an interview, then finding out2the most important function for each identified activity, and finally exploringhow the activities relate to each other as elements in the overarchingpractice. This information is used to create a graphical representation of theconsumer’s practice: An activity tree. The representation provides anoverview of consumers’ perceptions of their activity patterns and the positionof one or several services in this pattern. Comparing different consumers’patterns, it shows the differences between their practices, and providesinsight into how services are used to create value within them.The technique is used to describe the wine-related practices of five wineconsumers. The technique reveals that each consumer has a uniquelyshaped wine consumption practice, but that each contains elements sharedwith other consumers. In line with earlier research, the activities within thepractice can be classified as having mainly hedonic, instrumental orknowledge-seeking purposes. When the activities are viewed in relation tothe central service provider’s offering, the cases show that consumers bringwith them their own unique but stable contexts to the offering, and havedifferent intentions when using the service. The information provided bymapping consumers’ practices can help firms when designing their service orcommunication, and can even provide insights for business reconfiguration.The paper contributes service literature, where there currently are no clearlydescribed techniques for visually mapping out service usage in the context ofconsumer practices.CONSUMER PRACTICES AS CONTEXT FOR SERVICE USAGEIn line with Edvardsson et al. (2010), this paper sees the consumer as actingwithin a social context where the consumer’s understanding of whichconsumption activities are viable is socially constructed. This puts the studyin the realm of practice theory, where human activities are seen as sociallycreated and maintained, and reproduced as well as modified by individuals insocial context (Bourdieu 1977, Schatzki 2001). This paper uses Reckwitz’(2002, p. 249) definition of practices:[...] a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements,interconnected to each other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mentalactivities, “things” and their use, a background knowledge in the form ofunderstanding, know how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge.In practice theory, activities are seen as existing in a social sphere.Individuals are aware of practices, and can choose to carry them out if it fitstheir context. Practice theory also allows for room for manouvering within theactivities of a particular practice, so that a practice does not need to becarried out in the same way by everyone. In fact, consumers modify practicesand invent new ones (Warde 2005, Holttinen 2010). So if consumer activity is3seen through the lens of practice theory, it must be understood as systems ofreoccurring, meaning-laden behavior that is context-appropriate andcreatively modified. This indicates that the individual’s context of serviceusage is not stable, but dependent on the shape of a person’s practices. Inthis paper, practices are analyzed as a set of recurring but temporallyseparate activities that have a common theme or overarching purpose.THE PURPOSE OF ACTIVITY IN PRACTICESPractices have many different purposes, but the basic view is that practicesare carried out as an expression of meaning within human culture (Bourdieu1977, Schatzki 1996). Based on Schatzki (1996), Holttinen (2010) describeshow a practice can have teleological (goal-oriented) dimensions as well asaffective dimensions. This is similar to the division between instrumental andhedonic value of consumption (Batra and Ahtola 1991; Babin, Darden andGriffin 1994; Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann 2003).Practices have been presented as fundamental units of value-creation, wherethe nature of value is socially constructed (Holttinen 2010, Korkman et al.2010). Within the SD-logics, the question of value creation has beenapproached from the perspective of operand and operant resources (Vargoand Lusch 2004, 2008, Madhavaram and Hunt 2007). Operand resources arephysical goods, while operant resources are skills and knowledge, which arecombined with goods to create value. If these are seen as resources neededfor producing value, then an important purpose of consumer activity must beto aquire such resources. Thus, the consumer’s consumption-relatedpractices can be expected to aim for either acquiring objects (operandresources) or skills or information (operant resource), either of which then areapplied in use to produce hedonic or experiential value.METHODTo investigate how consumers’ practices can serve as context for serviceusage, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five students at auniversity. The focus was to understand the context for the services of thestate monopoly alcohol store within the students’ wine-related practices. Therespondents were asked to consider the following question: “What things doyou do that are related to wine in some way?” To assist the respondents’thought process, they were also asked:? “In what contexts do you drink wine?”? “How do you acquire your wine?”? “Do you ever read or communicate about wine?”4These questions were intended to uncover the respondent’s wine relatedactivities, thus creating a picture of the consumer’s personal context forservice usage. The respondents were encouraged only to mention activitiesthat they felt that they do regularly, so that they actually would be practicesthat play a significant role in the respondent’s life. To categorize therespondent’s activities according to their purpose, the respondent was furtherasked to consider two follow up questions for each mentioned activity: “Whydo you do this activity? What good is it for you?” and “Where do you usewhat you obtain from doing this activity?” (Referring to the other mentionedactivities.) These questions were intended to give an understanding of thedrivers and reasons of the activity, as well as how the different activities arerelated to each other. This intended to reflect the surface meanings ofpractices, intentionally excluding more complex meanings. To understandpractice as a system, activities need to be connected to each other.FINDINGSThe interviews were analyzed, and nine different types of wine-relatedactivity were found. The activities fell into three different categories: Thosethat had a primarily experiential or hedonic function, those that had aprimarily instrumental function and those that had a primarily information-seeking function. For example, a wine dinner with family primarily has afunction of enjoyment and social connectedness, while reading wine reviewshas a primarily information-gathering function. In order to draw up a systemwhere the function of activity is immediately understandable, the three activitytypes were given three different symbols, as shown in figure 1.Figure 1: The tree basic types of consumer activity in the studyInformation- and knowledge-gathering activityInstrumental-provisional activityExperiential-hedonic activityThe lightbulb is meant to symbolize knowledge and ideas, the cogwheelfunctionality (the “gears of the machine”), while the heart symbolizes positiveemotions. Table 1 shows which activities were carried out by whichrespondents, and uses the symbols to categorize the activities.5Table 1: The wine-related activities of the respondentsRespondent No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No.5Sex Male Male Female Female MaleAge 21 21 20 23 26Drinking wineat partiesDrinking wineat dinnersDrinking winein barsDrinking wineat homewithout foodBuying winefrom statemonopolystoreBuying wineon tripsabroadTalking tofriends aboutwineReadingabout wine innewspapersReadingabout wine inmagazinesThere was a lot of variation in the patterns. Respondent number two regularlycarried out only three types of activity, while respondent number one carriedout six activities. As could be expected, the activities where the wine wasactually used were completely experiential-hedonic, while the activities wherewine was acquired were mostly rated as instrumental. Three of therespondents mentioned that visiting the state monopoly store hadinformational functions as well, while respondent number 5 said that itactually was a fun and enjoyable experience, not only focused on theacquisition of wine. Finally, three of the respondents carried out activities that6were mainly informational, providing facts and opinions about wine in itsdifferent forms. The interviews revealed that the knowledge from information-seeking activities was mostly used within the wine-purchasing activities, whilethe wine purchased was in most – but not all – cases used in the activitieswhere wine was being drunk.DISCUSSIONThe purpose of this paper was to investigate practices as systems ofconsumer activity, working as a context for service usage. The findings fromthe interviews indicated that consumers combine the outcomes of differentactivities, where many different types of service providers are involved. Thispaper proposes that consumer’s service systems can be illustrated as asystem in the manner presented in figure 2.Figure 2: The wine-related activity tree of respondent 1Figure 2 contains those of the first respondent’s wine related activities whichcould be connected to each other. The respondent claimed that he used theknowledge he got from reading about wine within the activity of buying wine,so that he could make an informed choice. The activity of buying wine wasDrinking wine atpartiesDrinking a glass ofwine alone at homeDrinking wine atwine- and cheesenights with friendsBuying winefrom statemonopolyReading about winein magazinesReading about winein newspapers7carried out so that the respondent could maintain three types of experiential-emotional activities: Drinking wine at parties, drinking wine alone at home,and at wine- and cheese nights with friends.This very simple system of consumer activity shows how different types ofresources are continuously combined within the consumer’s practices.Operant resources (knowledge) are acquired and used in the acquisition ofoperand resources (wine), which then are employed in a set of end-usagesituations. It can also be noted, that if the systems of the other respondentswere drawn up, they would look different from figure 3. The respondentswere in general not very involved wine consumers, and thus maintainedsimple systems. One can imagine more complex systems for more involvedconsumers. In summary, the consumer can be said to create and maintainpersonal, often unique practices, the shape of which is not determined by theprovider, but the end user. Effectively, the consumer creates the context forservice. Because of different types of information seeking activities, the fiveconsumers had different levels of knowledge when coming into the purchasesituation, as well as different requirements for the contexts where thepurchased wine is actually used.REFERENCESArnould, E.J., (2008), "Service-dominant logic and resource theory", Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1) 21-24.Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M., (1994), "Work and/or fun:measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value", Journal of ConsumerResearch, 20 (4) 644-656.Baron, S. and Harris, K., (2010), "Toward an understanding of consumerperspectives on experiences", Journal of Services Marketing, 24 (7)518-531.Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T., (1991), "Measuring the Hedonic and UtilitarianSources of Consumer Attitudes", Marketing Letters, 2 (2) 159-170.Bourdieu, P., (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T., (2010), "ExpandingUnderstanding of Service Exchange and Value Co-Creation: A SocialConstruction Approach", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,39 (2) 327-339.Holttinen, H., (2010), "Social practices as units of value creation: theoreticalunderpinnings and implications", International Journal of Quality andService Sciences, 2 (1) 95-112.Korkman, O., Storbacka, K. and Harald, B., (2010), "Practices as markets:Value co-creation in e-invoicing", Australasian Marketing Journal, 18 (4)236-247.8Madhavaram, S. and Hunt, S.D., (2007), "The service-dominant logic and ahierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resourcesand implications for marketing strategy", Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 36 (1) 67-82.Reckwitz, A., (2002), "Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Developmentin Culturalist Theorizing", European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2) 243-263.Schatzki, T.R., (2001), "Introduction: Practice theory", The Practice Turn inContemporary Theory, eds. T.R. Schatzki, K.D. Knorr Cetina and E. vonSavigny, Routledge, London.Thompson, C., Locander, W.B. and Pollio, H.R., (1989), "Putting consumerexperience into consumer research", Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2) 133-147.Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., (2008), "Service-Dominant Logic: Continuingthe Evolution", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1) 1-10.Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., (2004), "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic forMarketing", Journal of Marketing, 68 (1) 1-17.Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B., (2003), "Measuring thehedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude", Journal ofmarketing research, 20 (3) 310-320.Warde, A., (2005), "Consumption and theories of practice", Journal ofConsumer Culture, 5 (2) 131-153.

Systems of Consumer Practice as Context for Service Usage

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/10138/36873/2/QUIS_2011_full_paper_mickelsson_updated.pdf

Systems of Consumer Practice as Context for Service Usage

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto