Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Design, consumption and marketing: outcomes,

process, philosophy and future directions

Michael B. Beverland, Gerda Gemser & Ingo O. Karpen

To cite this article: Michael B. Beverland, Gerda Gemser & Ingo O. Karpen (2017) Design,
consumption and marketing: outcomes, process, philosophy and future directions, Journal of
Marketing Management, 33:3-4, 159-172, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2017.1283908

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1283908

Published online: 07 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2863

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2017
VOL. 33, NOS. 3–4, 159–172
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1283908

EDITORIAL

Design, consumption and marketing: outcomes, process,

philosophy and future directions

Introduction
Whether we know it or not (the best design is the least obvious), design plays a role in
many of the decisions and experiences we as consumers and marketers take for granted.
For better or worse, every customer experience is the result of a design decision and
execution, while customers are also curators of their identities, usually with the help of
designer brands, designer goods, designed servicescapes, experiences and co-designed
social media platforms. These observations, along with the belief that more rather than
less interaction between design, consumption and marketing research is needed, moti-
vated this special issue.
Although design has always played a role in the broad church we call marketing,
scholarly interest between the two disciplines remained relatively rare (outside of
marketing communications) and typically involved little appreciation for the practices,
processes and philosophies of each. Measures of the effectiveness of design cues on a
range of marketing-related outcomes such as likeability, attractiveness, willingness to
buy (Fajardo, Zhang, & Tsiros, 2016) and perceptions of quality reflected standard
research interests in marketing, while, apart from concern regarding the effects of
consumerism, product form, servicescape, logo and identity work were as far as
designers went in their embrace of marketing and the consumer.
This special issue aimed to build on more recent interest in what can best be called
the design–marketing interface. With alternate framings of the consumer (Belk, Sherry, &
Wallendorf 1989; Hirschman & Holbrook 1982), interest has moved to the motives at the
heart of identity design decisions (Arnould & Thompson, 2005), leveraging the techni-
ques of designers for better marketing decisions (Cayla & Arnould, 2013), triggering
emotions and the senses (Baron, Harris, & Harris, 2001; Kozinets et al., 2002; Pine &
Gilmore, 1999), building more relevant cultural brands (Allen, Fournier, & Miller 2008;
Holt & Cameron, 2010) or enabling brand relevance at the strategic level (Beverland,
Micheli, & Wilner, 2015), offering alternate views on product innovation (Verganti, 2009)
and complementary logics to market orientation (Beverland & Farrelly, 2007; Venkatesh,
Digerfeldt-Mansson, Brunel, & Chen, 2012), improving the product development man-
agement process (Beverland, Micheli, & Farrelly, 2016; Micheli, Jaina, Goffin, Lemke, &
Verganti, 2012) and reinvigorating interest in design tools such as anthropomorphism
(Brown & Ponsonby-McCabe, 2013). In so doing, we build on previous special issues
dedicated to further crossover between design, marketing and consumption published
in this journal (Journal of Marketing Management, 2007, Vol. 23 Iss. 9–10) and the Journal
of Product Innovation Management (2005 and 2012).
Before turning our attention to the articles and commentaries in this issue, we will
briefly review the ways in which design and marketing have intersected over the years,
© 2017 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
160 EDITORIAL

identifying potential areas for fruitful inquiry. We focus on research findings and future
research directions related to design as an outcome, design as a process and design as a
philosophy. While design as an outcome has traditionally received much attention in
marketing literature, design as a process and design as a philosophy can be considered
emerging marketing research streams.

Design’s influence on outcomes

Since the early 1990s, there is an increasing stream of literature suggesting positive
effects of design on product, service and company outcomes (e.g. Candi, 2016; Gemser &
Leenders, 2001; Hertenstein, Platt, & Veryzer, 2005; Roy & Potter, 1993). Research on the
relationship between design and outcomes has, however, struggled with defining or
operationalising design in a way that is representative of its outcomes.
Traditionally, design outcomes have been ascribed predominantly in terms of provid-
ing for aesthetically ‘pleasing’ product appearance. Aesthetically pleasing products, in
turn, may evoke, for example, consumer delight and loyalty (Chitturi, Raghunathan, &
Mahajan, 2008). To understand how product appearance influences consumer evalua-
tion and choice, marketing scholars have examined different appearance properties
including, for example, product (shape) typicality, unity and completeness (e.g. Sevilla
& Kahn, 2014; Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998). Typicality has received particular attention in
the literature (e.g. Blijlevens, Gemser, & Mugge, 2012; Hekkert, Snelders, & van
Wieringen, 2003; Landwehr, Wentzel, & Herrmann, 2013; Loken & Ward, 1990; Veryzer,
Jr. & Hutchinson, 1998). An example is the well-cited research of Veryzer and Hutchinson
(1998) which suggests that people prefer typically designed products over less typical
ones because people have a tendency to enjoy what is familiar to them. Blijlevens and
colleagues (2012) extend these findings, showing how the context in which a product is
placed influences a product’s perceived typicality and consequently its aesthetic apprai-
sal. Landwehr and colleagues (2013) find that the positive effect of design typicality on
aesthetic liking is moderated by customer exposure, in the sense that people like
atypical design more at higher exposure rates.
As noted by Liu (2003) and others (e.g. Desmet & Hekkert, 2007), aesthetic appraisal
of offerings tends to be multi-sensorial, being dependent on the interplay between a
person’s visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, haptic and even proprioceptive systems. We
thus posit that to operationalise aesthetics in terms of exterior appearance – as is
common in marketing literature – is too narrow since a product’s aesthetics may have
the capacity to gratify more of our senses including not only sight, but also hearing,
touch, taste and smell (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007). Indeed, Zomerdijk and Voss (2010) find
that the designers they interviewed try to address multiple senses when designing
rather than just one or two to positively influence customers’ experiences. Zomerdijk
and Voss (2010) use the term ‘sensory design’ to refer to design that provides for sensory
pleasure, a concept that is appealing since it does not exclude any of the human senses.
While in prior marketing literature design has often been measured solely in terms of
aesthetics, recent studies have proposed to measure design outcomes by means of a
three-dimensional construct, composed of aesthetic, symbolic and functional dimen-
sions (e.g. Bloch, 2011; Homburg, Schwemmle, & Kuehnl, 2015). As regards to the
symbolic dimension, it has been noted that design can allow persons to express their
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 161

self-image (e.g. Bloch, 2011; Homburg et al., 2015; Verganti, 2008; Tabeau, Gemser,
Hutink, & Wijnberg, 2017). Gruen (2017), for example, highlights the centrality of design
as providing sign value helping customers with self-expression and to shape their
‘identity(ies)’. What is needed, however, is more research on how design can help people
to express themselves in ways that contribute to people’s need to distinguish oneself
(‘be different’), but, on the other hand, also contributes to people’s fundamental need to
belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Blijlevens & Hekkert, 2015).
The recently proposed three-dimensional construct to measure design outcome
includes, next to the aesthetics and symbolism, also functionality (Bloch, 2011;
Homburg et al., 2015). Functionality relates to the functions that an offering can per-
form, the utilitarian goal of a product. However, sometimes this goal is hard to achieve
because the user has difficulties to operate or understand the offering. In other words,
an offering’s functionality (what it can do) does not necessarily imply usability or ease of
use. Thus, functionality and usability are two different concepts (Bloch, 1995), and both
deserve to be included as separate design outcomes in future marketing research on
design outcomes rather than being heaped together as one and the same concept (see,
e.g. Homburg et al., 2015). In fact, usability is the central concept of user-centred design,
in which the quality of users’ relation or interaction with the offering is a key (Desmet &
Hekkert, 2007). In his well-cited work, Norman (2002) emphasises the importance of an
offering’s intuitiveness and ease of use. He presents numerous examples of offerings
that fail to meet functionality objectives due to inattention to usability.
How design influences outcomes is not static but changing over time as the eco-
nomic and sociocultural environment is changing. For example, over time, the role of
design for creating a more sustainable and equitable society has gained more attention,
including, for example, designing for recyclability or for social inclusion (see Akama,
2017). However, the way design is positioned in marketing is still too often one of
‘seducing’ people into behaviour that may not contribute to their well-being in the
longer term. Wilner and Ghassan (2017), for example, discuss a case in which a chocolate
bar was redesigned, arguably to discourage excessive consumption in response to
increasing obesity rates. However, as noted by the authors, while this redesign was
successful in economic terms, ultimately it can be questioned from a sociocultural point
of view since the ‘new’ chocolate bar contained the same calories as before even though
they were split across two smaller bars.
Over time, we also see an ongoing shift from product to service-based competition in
manufacturing (e.g. Antioco, Moenaert, Lindgreen, & Wetzels, 2008; Kuijken, Gemser, &
Wijnberg, 2017). Relatedly, in marketing literature, we see the emergence of the service
perspective which considers value creation to be inherently interactional (Vargo & Lusch,
2004; 2008; Windahl, 2017), while in design, we see the emergence of ‘service design’ as
a new professional practice (Karpen, Gemser, & Calabretta, in press). Designing for
products and services and the resulting outcomes may differ. On the basis of her case
study on a French car-sharing system, Gruen (2017), for example, suggests that for the
product elements of this product–service system, ‘uniformity’ in design is needed, while
for the service elements ‘personalisation’ may be needed. Kuijken and colleagues (2017),
on the other hand, suggest that for designing effective product–service systems, creat-
ing coherence between the product and service elements is essential. Overall, more
162 EDITORIAL

research is needed on how to design services and product–service systems that provide
for outcomes that are valued by customers.
Recently, we not only gained more knowledge on how design contributes to out-
comes, we also gained more insight into antecedents and moderating and mediating
factors that influence the impact of design on outcomes. For example, it has been found
that in particular innovative, new design that is dissimilar compared to competing ones
enhances market performance (e.g. Gemser & Leenders, 2001; Micheli & Gemser, 2016;
Rubera, 2015; Tabeau et al., 2017; Talke, Salomo, Wieringa, & Lutz, 2009; Verganti, 2008),
particularly in the longer term (Landwehr et al., 2013; Verganti, 2008) and when accom-
panied by media attention for sensemaking and market acceptance (Micheli & Gemser,
2016; Wilner & Huff, 2017). Furthermore, it has been found that, in order to generate
positive design outcomes, effective design management is essential (e.g. Ravasi &
Locajono, 2005; Chiva & Alegre, 2009; Tabeau et al., 2017). However, more research is
needed on what type of design management is needed for what type of outcomes. For
example, the research of Tabeau and colleagues (2017) suggests that providing
designers with decision freedom is beneficial not only for design innovativeness, but
also for process outcomes, which may be because designers tend to make decisions
relatively quickly using their expert intuition (Calabretta, Gemser, & Wijnberg, 2016).
However, as the findings of Tabeau and colleagues also suggest, high designer decision
freedom may not lead to optimal market success because input from other (marketing)
specialists may also be needed, for example, to prepare the ground so that customers
are willing to accept new designs (Micheli & Gemser, 2016).

Design process
Interest in ‘design as process’ focuses on the combinations of tools and practices
designers use to shape their environment. When influential IDEO Designer Tim Brown
published his ‘Design Thinking’ article (2008) in the Harvard Business Review, he identi-
fied the strategic value flowing from how designers approach and solve problems. This
view has been subject to much controversy as Brown suggested that these tools could
be adopted by anyone, with little regard for the community of practice and its under-
lying logic from which they came (Kimble 2012). Beyond this debate, Brown (and others
before him including Herbert Simon (1969) in the Sciences of the Artificial) also suggested
that these tools and practices could also offer insights into wicked problems or enduring
problems that defy convention and are characterised by seemingly contradictory
requirements.
Although disagreement exists over the nature of design thinking, there is general
agreement over the practices and tools designers use (design as process). Beverland,
Wilner, & Micheli (2015) identified that design as process involved abductive thinking
(asking ‘what might be?’ questions), iteration and experimentation (ongoing trial and
error, prototyping, adaptation and co-creation with users), holism (looking at problems
in context) and user-centredness (a focus on experience, emotion and meaning, and
distinct from customer orientation as it focuses on latent needs as defined by the user’s
engagement with sociocultural contexts) as common themes amongst writers on design
practices. Consumption and marketing-related research, however, remain in its infancy.
In the spirit of the special issue theme, we’d like to offer insights derived from design as
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 163

process to select areas of consumption and marketing. The focus is by no means

exhaustive due to space limitations, but the tools and practices of designers can help
address wicked problems in new product development, customer learning and service
design, consumer competence and enhancing the customer orientation of
organisations.
In regard to consumers, consumer culture theorising (CCT) and transformative con-
sumer research (TCR) stand to benefit from an appreciation of design as process (e.g.
Gruen, 2017). CCT research has long framed the consumer as active users of marketplace
resources to assemble an identity, negotiate meaning, deal with seeming contradictions
and reinvigorate useful distinctions categories and dualisms (Canniford & Bajde 2016).
Despite this, it is a striking omission that in creating their identity the consumer is acting
as a designer, deploying many of the tools associated with design thinking. For example,
consumers may transform the meaning of mundane objects (Belk, Wallendorf, & Sherry
1989), de-authenticate marketplace myths (Arsel & Thompson, 2011), create markets,
shape market categories (Scaraboto & Fischer, 2013), generate and maintain communal
structures (Schau, Muñiz, & Arnould, 2009) and negotiate paradoxes and suspend
disbelief in order to authenticate marketplace offers (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Rose &
Wood, 2005).
How can consumer research benefit from design and process? First, there is interest
in consumer competence, especially in relation to identity construction, and of course in
transitioning to less harmful and more sustainable practices. Research suggests that
consumers and the communities they join struggle to counteract prevailing marketplace
norms (Thompson & Coskuner-Balli, 2007), resist co-optation and community decline
(Arsel & Thompson, 2011) and adopt new practices necessary to transition to more
sustainable outcomes (Gruen, 2017). Design as process can help marketers, consumers
and policy makers construct the practices necessary to strengthen communities (Schau
et al., 2009), challenge and reframe assumptions, and generate innovations that help
address tensions between multiple identity goals.
In regard to marketing, design as process research has already offered insights into
new methods of product innovation (Verganti, 2009; see also Tabeau et al., 2017),
leveraging cultural insights for brand meaning (Wilner & Huff, 2017), addressing wicked
branding problems (Beverland et al., 2015; Wilner & Ghassan, 2017) and enhancing
interfunctional coordination with NPD (Beverland et al., 2016). Research should of course
build on these domains but also address other enduring challenges facing the marketing
organisation. For example, researchers have long focused on how organisations can
become more customer or market oriented. However, to date, much of the focus has
been on structural factors or the diffusion of customer information throughout the firm
(Gebhardt, Carpenter, & Sherry, 2006), rather than the practices and tools necessary to
achieve and maintain these outcomes.
Two enduring challenges, however, relate to interfunctional coordination and main-
taining empathy for the customer over time. To date, research has largely assumed that
the provision of information or periodic immersion in the marketplace will stimulate
empathy for customers amongst non-marketing employees (Gebhardt et al., 2006). In
the light of work on thought-worlds, these assumptions are naïve (Dougherty, 1992), as
functional specialists will struggle to overcome their interpretive preferences in terms of
what information they focus on and what the screen out. Design as process is useful for
164 EDITORIAL

overcoming this challenge as it focuses on how information can be reframed empathe-

tically so as to give sense to others in ways that enable them to work efficiently and
achieve better market-oriented outcomes. Thus, it is not just the information per se that
is important, or even the methods used (Cayla & Arnould, 2013), but the resourceful
sensemaking practices marketers as designers use to transform that information to
enable greater understanding coordination that matters (Beverland et al., 2016).
Another enduring topic in the realm of strategy can also benefit from design as
process insights. Services research has long examined the benefits of customer scripts
(that define roles and expectations for both customers and providers), both from the
standpoint of the customer and firm. However, once a dominant script is established, it
is difficult for challengers to subvert this script and establish their own identity (e.g.
Starbucks has been successful is defining the customer script in coffee, while
McDonald’s did the same in fast food). Challengers, however, stand to benefit as they
can successfully subvert existing scripts and generate customer learning. Despite being
offered as a way for challengers to create new value, research is limited in terms of
examining how services marketers can reframe service encounters and redesign servi-
cescapes to trigger learning without also triggering dissatisfaction (Hoch & Deighton,
1989; Patricio et al. 2011; Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel, & Gutman, 1985).

Design as philosophy
While design outcomes and design processes have been fundamental to understanding
both the relevance and practice of design, the interface with marketing and consump-
tion research can further benefit from a third element: design as philosophy. In essence,
the latter here relates to an integrated set of designerly principles and attitudes that
guide behaviour (e.g. Luchs, 2015). For instance, designers need to make ongoing
decisions that often significantly influence techno-social contexts and systems. An
underlying designerly philosophy or mindset with respective beliefs, assumptions and
values helps co-determine moral standards and desired outcomes of design, which in
turn helps provide a rationale for interpretation and decision-making.
The design thinking literature often emphasises the ‘doing element’ of design. Yet,
we here argue that a focus on design as a ‘toolbox approach’ that includes a ready-to-
apply set of frameworks (e.g. experience or journey mapping, creative matrix, etc.) is not
enough (see Barry, 2017). Taken seriously, a designerly approach to innovation and the
market runs deeper than ‘just’ the doing part. Ideally, it is grounded in underlying
principles and attitudes that define how one understands the world. Importantly, such
a design as philosophy approach or design mindset can be embraced by individual
designers or collective structures such as teams and departments or even be pervasive
throughout an entire organisation or network. For example, Michlewski (2008, 2015)
outlines a range of attitudes that are common amongst individual designers such as
embracing discontinuity and risk. Barry (2017), on the other hand, highlights that
individual managers or the firm’s C-suite might need to adopt a designerly mindset
including respective attitudes when approaching strategy or innovation development.
Crossing individual and collective levels, Karpen et al. (in press) distinguish six generic
design principles that provide a philosophical frame or mindset for action. In short, these
principles express fundamental beliefs about what is important based on designerly
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 165

logic, namely a focus on being 1) human and meaning centred (human needs are the
start and end point of design), 2) co-creative and inclusive (design integrates various
stakeholders and leverages multiple perspectives), 3) transformative and betterment
oriented (design aims to improve conditions with a long-term view), 4) emergent and
experimental (design is iterative and open to failure), 5) explicative and experiential
(design seeks ways to stimulate meaning and senses) and 6) holistic and contextual
(design considers direct and flow-on effects in techno-social systems). Whether adopted
at individual or collective level, such beliefs guide decision-making towards more
desired and sustainable solutions. These principles have normative implications about
how to go about designing per se, as suggested above in the design as process section.
At their core, these six design principles represent fundamental beliefs and attitudes
about how we see the world and what we believe to be of importance.
How can design as philosophy now contribute to marketing and consumption con-
texts? While all three areas focus on human or customer experiences for that matter,
their roles, purposes and contributions might differ significantly. Marketing has long
been preoccupied by a customer or market orientation, which traditionally assumes a
rather passive role of the customer, whereby the firm leads and dominates value
creation processes. With the emergence of service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch,
2004), the conventional rather firm-centric perspective on value creation has been
questioned and alternative, more collaborative and customer-integrative approaches
to the market have been proposed (e.g. Karpen, Bove, Lukas, & Zyphur, 2015; Payne,
Storbacka, & Frow, 2008). Design with its inherently co-creative and inclusive nature
(Luchs, 2015) can further enrich the emerging view and practice of value co-creation
with customers and other stakeholders (Windahl, 2017). For example, participatory
design is a domain crossing design and social sciences that can reciprocally inform
marketing’s increasing interest in developing new and/or better fitting solutions
together with customers (Akama, 2017). Philosophically, customers are seen through
this lens as capable agents with creative and analytical potential that can enrich con-
textual insights and ideation processes through interaction (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012). It is
this underlying logic that design brings to the table that can help managers embrace
and implement a foundation for value co-creation and co-design at a strategic level.
From this perspective, design as philosophy is also highly related to organisational
culture. Indeed, facets of an individual’s or collective design philosophy can manifest
in cultural practices and contexts. For instance, the designerly attitude of being open
to risk or discontinuity can be encouraged or hindered by cultural codes and
routines. Just imagine an organisational cultural environment where failure is being
punished versus a cultural environment where such is seen as an opportunity to
learn, grow and better understand customers. On the other hand, traditional market-
ing planning as management and cultural practice is rather linear and sequential,
often embedded in cultural contexts that emphasise safe routes to success. Taking a
design perspective, marketing planning (or strategy for that matter) could benefit
from a more iterative and agile ideation and planning approach. For example, this
could mean combining technological capacities of ‘big data’ with design’s informa-
tion synthesising approaches on an ongoing basis to better anticipate and react to
human needs (Calabretta & Kleinsmann, 2017). And rather than assuming one best
way, design as philosophy might open up marketing planning towards prototyping
166 EDITORIAL

and testing a broader set of strategy alternatives in an iterative and competitive

process, critically assessing the impact of these alternatives in real-time progress or
assumption-based models. When it comes to product and service innovation, design
holds important implications that the innovation literature has covered (see section
on design outcomes above), and marketing increasingly draws on. Even the general
management literature is currently developing a broader interest in design thinking
(e.g. Gruber, De Leon, George, & Thompson, 2015), for instance, with regard to
design-driven human resource management. Future research in this area could thus
have implications for marketing staff such as frontline sales and service employees.
However, more research is needed that investigates implications of design (thinking)
for strategic marketing and marketing staff in view of better service management.
With an increasing desire for socially responsible solutions, marketing could further
benefit from design’s philosophy of multi-stakeholder concern and aim to improve
techno-social systems in the long-term (Akama, 2017 and design outcomes above),
rather than, for example, short-term marketing activities that are intended to boost
sales, potentially at the expense certain market segments or stakeholder groups.
Design’s approach of generating deep contextual understanding through immersion,
observation, etc., often goes beyond classic market research (e.g. customer feedback
surveys) and as such provides another important avenue for marketing to benefit from.
Ultimately, the better the front-end insights, the better the back-end chances for a
desirable solution. Desirability is, however, not enough. Both marketing and design
are under pressure to demonstrate impact in terms of viability (or contribution to firm
and relevant stakeholders) and feasibility (or the firm’s/stakeholders’ capacity to con-
tribute to the desired solution). Further research could indeed investigate the interface
of marketing and design in view of viability and feasibility considerations. In that sense,
design as philosophy provides a holistic thinking framework that seeks to benefit
relevant stakeholders.

This special issue

The first paper in this special issue on design, consumption and marketing is from
Sarah Wilner and Aysar Ghassan and is entitled ‘Tales of seduction and intrigue:
Design as narrative agent of brand revitalization’. In this paper, the focus is on the
role of design as a mechanism to help evolve a brand’s narrative according to the
changes in the sociocultural context. Wilner and Ghassan do so by analysing the
case of Mars’ chocolate bar, which was redesigned in shape and packaging with the
goal to shift brand associations from selfish indulgence and harm to sharing and
altruism.
Our next contribution is from Kasia Tabeau, Gerda Gemser, Erik Jan Hultink and
Nachoem M. Wijnberg. Their paper is entitled: ‘Exploration and exploitation activities
for design innovation’. Tabeau and colleagues examine antecedents and consequences
of design innovation, defined in terms of newness of product appearance, the emotions
a product evokes and how a product enables customers to express their identity. Using
dual-response survey data from 83 design innovation projects, their findings provide
new insights into the impact of design innovation on market and process outcomes and
give directions for effective management of design innovation.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 167

The third paper is by Adèle Gruen and is entitled ‘Design and the creation of mean-
ingful consumption practices in access-based consumption’. The paper enters into the
recent uptake of access-based consumption and discusses how design can help to
provide consumers a perceived sense of ownership or possession, even though the
actual product is not owned by these consumers, but shared, rented or swapped. She
does so by means of a case study approach, examining a Parisian car-sharing system.
Sarah Wilner and Aimee Huff provide a paper entitled ‘Objects of desire: The role of
product design in revising contested cultural meanings’. The paper explores how
product design and subsequent media attention can contribute to market legitimation.
Wilner and Huff examine the evolution of the design of vibrators in the U.S. market over
the last 25 years, an empirical setting that has received scant attention in marketing
literature but is very appropriate considering the authors’ research aim. The findings of
the research suggest that when popular media discusses culturally illicit products in
terms of their (aesthetic and functional) design rather than their use, this contributes to
the normative legitimisation of these products.
The next four articles in this special issue are invited commentaries that elaborate on
design in terms of outcomes (Akama), design in terms of practice (Calabretta and
Kleinsmann; Windahl) and design in terms of philosophy (Barry).
In the first commentary piece entitled ‘“With great power comes great responsibility”
when we co-create futures’, Yoko Akama analyses design, marketing and consumption
from a more critical perspective, emphasising that there is a need for increased scrutiny
and interrogation of how design and marketing can shape the future in a sustainable
way. Yoko also points towards a democratisation of design, consumption and marketing
by actively co-creating together with people rather than creating for people and
discusses some of her own practices to effectively design with people to address
complex social issues.
Next, Charlotta Windahl provides a commentary entitled ‘Market sense-making in
design practice: Exploring curiosity, creativity and courage’. Windahl gives us insight into
how, in the marketing literature, emphasis has shifted from a focus on goods and
services to a focus on customer experiences. On the basis of her extensive collaboration
with design professionals, Windahl subsequently identifies curiosity, creativity and cour-
age as ‘design catalysts’ and explains how these design catalysts and underlying design
methods and tools can help to actually create valuable, new customer experiences.
The third commentary is a paper entitled ‘Technology-driven evolution of design
practices: Envisioning the role of design in the digital era’, written by Giulia Calabretta
and Maaike Kleinsmann. The paper reflects on how designerly ways of working have
changed over time according to changes in the socioeconomic environment. Calabretta
and Kleinmann conceptualise design practice in terms of being human-centred, colla-
borative and visual and suggest that in the current digital era, design practice has
become a strategic capability at the heart of business.
The final paper in this special issue on design, consumption and marketing is a
commentary by Daved Barry entitled ‘Design sweets, C-suites, and the Candy Man
factor’. In his commentary, Barry provides a critical reflection on how the role of design
has shifted over time, from providing product aesthetics to an innovation approach
embraced by top management to change organisational culture. Barry emphasises that,
contrary to the hopes of many executives, design cannot deliver a ‘quick fix’ and that, on
168 EDITORIAL

the contrary, effectively embracing designerly ways of working requires much effort and
talent. He concludes by suggesting that what is needed is more research on how design
can effectively be integrated on a strategic level, noting that such effectiveness may be
contingent on specific circumstances.

Conclusions
Design is currently fashionable in business and marketing; managers and marketers
alike sense the potential of design to contribute to more meaningful customer and
organisational experiences. But design in marketing is more than just a fad. In its
domain, design has substance that manifests itself in decades of theorising and
enables a three-way perspective of design with relevance for marketing and con-
sumer research. As shown above, design outcomes attempt to demonstrate the
relevance of design from a performance perspective; design processes on the
other hand draw on a multitude on tools and practices with direct application
potential in marketing strategy and consumer contexts. Finally, design as philosophy
or mindset is relatively neglected in marketing and deserves far greater attention,
particularly as a designerly philosophy can build the conceptual foundation for
decision-making and action. This special issue aimed to facilitate dialogue and
stimulate research that crosses the domains of design, marketing and consumer
research, while considering outcome, process and philosophical implications. Each of
the papers and commentaries in this special issue contributes to the marketing–
design interface. However, much research remains to be done as we outlined in the
sections above.
Interestingly, not just the domain of inquiry (e.g. the marketing–design interface) but
also the method of inquiry offers valuable future research opportunities. For instance,
most marketing research to date relies on quantitative and qualitative research
approaches that largely follow guidelines established in social sciences. However,
designerly methods of inquiry are rather rare in marketing (although well established
in fields such as information systems (Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee,
2008)); marketing and business could benefit from a broader consideration of this
approach. In essence, DSRM iteratively creates and evaluates artefacts such as applicable
models and concepts dealing with complex issues. As Teixeira et al. (2016, p.4) point out
in their application of DSRM in a service design context, while design practice may, for
example, ‘generate new services that solve specific problems, DSRM creates novel
models and methods that advance the service design and the service research fields
through an iterative process of conceptualisation and validation’. In general, DSRM thus
complements the traditional scientific purpose of explanation and prediction in market-
ing by providing models or concepts that can be applied to a specific problem or
context. The design–marketing interface thus includes significant research opportunities
with theoretical and practical value, considering design as outcome, process and
philosophy.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 169

References
Akama, Y. (2017). With great power comes great responsibility when we co-create futures. Journal
of Marketing Management, 33, 272–279. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2017.1284433
Allen, C. T., Fournier, S., & Miller, F. (2008). Brands and their meaning makers. In C. P. Haugtvedt,
P. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 781–822). Abingdon: Taylor
& Francis.
Antioco, M., Moenaert, R., Lindgreen, A., & Wetzels, M. (2008). Organizational antecedents to and
consequences of service business orientations in manufacturing companies. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 337–358. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0085-1
Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882. doi:10.1086/426626
Arsel, Z., & Thompson, C. J. (2011). Demythologizing consumption practices: How consumers
protect their field-dependent identity investments from devaluing marketplace myths. Journal
of Consumer Research, 37(5), 791–806. doi:10.1086/656389
Baron, S., Harris, K., & Harris, R. (2001). Retail theater: The “intended effect” of the performance.
Journal of Service Research, 4(2), 102–117. doi:10.1177/109467050142003
Barry, D. (2017). Design sweets, C-suites, and the Candy Man factor. Journal of Marketing
Management, 33, 305–311. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2017.1282727
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.117.3.497
Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, Jr., J. F. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior:
Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 1–38. doi:10.1086/209191
Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. (2007). What does it mean to be design-led? Design Management
Review, 18(4), 10–17. doi:10.1111/j.1948-7169.2007.tb00089.x
Beverland, M. B., Micheli, P., & Farrelly, F. J. (2016). Resourceful sensemaking: Overcoming barriers
between marketing and design in NPD. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5),
628–648. doi:10.1111/jpim.12313
Beverland, M. B., Micheli, P., & Wilner, S. (2015). Reconciling the tension between consistency and
relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for achieving brand ambidexterity. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(5), 589–609. doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0443-8
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary
participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00165
Blijlevens, J., Gemser, G., & Mugge, R. (2012). The importance of being ‘well-placed’: The influence
of context on perceived typicality and esthetic appraisal of product appearance. Acta
Psychologica, 139(1), 178–186. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.11.004
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2015, July 7–9). Autonomous, yet connected: A social design principle
explaining consumers’ aesthetic appreciation of products. In L. O'Malley, M. Lichrou, & M.
Patterson (Eds.), 2015 Academy of Marketing Conference - the Magic in Marketing. Limerick:
University of Limerick.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of
Marketing, 59(3), 16–29. doi:10.2307/1252116
Bloch, P. H. (2011). Product design and marketing: Reflections after fifteen years. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 28(3), 378–380. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00805.x
Brown, S., & Ponsonby-McCabe, S. (2013). They’re gr-r-reat! Introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1–2), 1–4. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.762184
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2016). The interplay between intuition and rationality
in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0170840616655483
Calabretta, G., & Kleinsmann, M. (2017). Technology-driven evolution of design practices: envision-
ing the role of design in the digital era. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 292–304.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2017.1284436
170 EDITORIAL

Candi, M. (2016). Contributions of design emphasis, design resources and design excellence to
market performance in technology-based service innovation. Technovation, 55–56(September–
October), 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2016.05.004
Canniford, R., & Badje, D. (2016). Assembling consumption. In R. Canniford & D. Bajde (Eds.),
Assembling consumption: Researching actors, networks, and markets. London: Routledge.
Cayla, J., & Arnould, E. J. (2013). Ethnographic stories for market learning. Journal of Marketing, 77
(4), 1–16. doi:10.1509/jm.12.0471
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus
utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.3.48
Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2009). Investment in design and firm performance: The mediating role of
design management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(4), 424–440. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-5885.2009.00669.x
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design,
1(1), 57–66.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms.
Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.2.179
Fajardo, T. M., Zhang, J., & Tsiros, M. (2016). The contingent nature of the symbolic associations of
visual design elements: The case of brand logo frames. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4),
549–566. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw048
Gebhardt, G., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F. (2006). Creating a market orientation: A longitudinal,
multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 37–55.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.37
Gemser, G., & Leenders, M. A. (2001). How integrating industrial design in the product develop-
ment process impacts on company performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18
(1), 28–38. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(00)00069-2
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their
influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2),
296–312. doi:10.1086/422109
Gruber, M., De Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of
Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.4001
Gruen, A. (2017). Design and the creation of meaningful consumption practices in access-based
consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 226–243. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.
1229688
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality
and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of
Psychology, 94(1), 111–124. doi:10.1348/000712603762842147
Hertenstein, J. H., Platt, M. B., & Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The impact of industrial design effectiveness
on corporate financial performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 3–21.
doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00100.x
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of
Marketing, 53(2), 1–20. doi:10.2307/1251410
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140. doi:10.1086/208906
Holt, D., & Cameron, D. (2010). Cultural strategy: using innovative ideologies to build breakthrough
brands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015). New product design: Concept, measurement,
and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 41–56. doi:10.1509/jm.14.0199
Karpen, I., Gemser, G., & Calabretta, G. (in press). A multilevel consideration of service design
conditions: Towards a portfolio of organisational capabilities, interactive practices and indivi-
dual abilities. Journal of Service Theory and Practice.
Karpen, I. O., Bove, L. L., Lukas, B. A., & Zyphur, M. J. (2015). Service-dominant orientation:
Measurement and impact on performance outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 89–108.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2014.10.002
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 171

Kimbell, L. (2012). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129–148.
doi:10.2752/175470812X13281948975413
Kozinets, R. V., Sherry, J. F., DeBerry-Spence, B., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit, K., & Storm, D. (2002).
Themed flagship brand stores in the new millennium: Theory, practice, prospects. Journal of
Retailing, 78(1), 17–29. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00063-X
Kuijken, B., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). Effective product-service systems: A value-based
framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.04.013
Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer
responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing,
77(5), 92–107. doi:10.1509/jm.11.0286
Liu, Y. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a
dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46(13–14), 1273–1292. doi:10.1080/
00140130310001610829
Loken, B., & Ward, J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of
typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 111–126. doi:10.1086/208542
Luchs, M. G. (2015). The principles and the “Mindset” of design thinking. In M. G. Luchs, K. S. Swan,
& A. Griffin (Eds.), Design thinking: new product development essentials from the PDMA (Vols.
9–12). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Micheli, P., & Gemser, G. (2016). Signaling strategies for innovative design: A study on design
tradition and expert attention. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 613–627.
doi:10.1111/jpim.12308
Micheli, P., Jaina, J., Goffin, K., Lemke, F., & Verganti, R. (2012). perceptions of industrial design: The
“means” and the “ends”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 687–704.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00937.x
Michlewski, K. (2008). Uncovering design attitude: Inside the culture of designers. Organization
Studies, 29(3), 373–392. doi:10.1177/0170840607088019
Michlewski, K. (2015). Design attitude. London: Routledge.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic books.
Patrício, L., Fisk, R. P., Falcão e Cunha, J., & Constantine, L. (2011). Multilevel service design: From
customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting. Journal of Service Research, 14
(2), 180–200. doi:10.1177/1094670511401901
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2008). A design science research
methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24
(3), 45–77. 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ravasi, D., & Lojacono, G. (2005). Managing design and designers for strategic renewal. Long Range
Planning, 38(1), 51–77. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2004.11.010
Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality
television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 284–296. doi:10.1086/432238
Roy, R., & Potter, S. (1993). The commercial impacts of investment in design. Design Studies, 14(2),
171–193. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(93)80046-F
Rubera, G. (2015). Design innovativeness and product sales’ evolution. Marketing Science, 34(1),
98–115. doi:10.1287/mksc.2014.0875
Scaraboto, D., & Fischer, E. (2013). Frustrated Fatshionistas: An institutional theory perspective on
consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6),
1234–1257. doi:10.1086/668298
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value.
Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
Sevilla, J., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The completeness heuristic: Product shape completeness influences
size perceptions, preference, and consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 57–68.
doi:10.1509/jmr.12.0153
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
172 EDITORIAL

Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman, E. G. (1985). A role theory perspective on dyadic
interactions: The service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 99–111. doi:10.2307/1251180
Tabeau, K., Gemser, G., Hultink, E. J., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). Exploration and exploitation
activities for design innovation. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 203–225. doi:10.1080/
0267257X.2016.1195855
Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., & Lutz, A. (2009). What about design newness? Investigating
the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 26(6), 601–615. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00686.x
Teixeira, J. G., Patrício, L., Huang, K.-H., Fisk, R. P., Nóbrega, L., & Constantine, L. (2016). The MINDS
method; Integrating management and interaction design perspectives for service design.
Journal of Service Research. doi:10.1177/1094670516680033
Thompson, C. J., & Coskuner-Balli, G. (2007). Countervailing market responses to corporate
co-optation and the ideological recruitment of consumption communities. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(2), 135–152. doi:10.1086/519143
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
Venkatesh, A., Digerfeldt-Mansson, T., Brunel, F. F., & Chen, S. (2012). Design orientation: A
grounded theory analysis of design thinking and action. Marketing Theory, 12(3), 289–309.
doi:10.1177/1470593112451388
Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436–456. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00313.x
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven Innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovat-
ing what things mean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Veryzer, R. W. Jr., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic
responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374–385. doi:10.1086/209516
Wilner, S. J. S., & Ghassan, A. (2017). Tales of seduction and intrigue: Design as narrative agent of
brand revitalization. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 173–202. doi:10.1080/0267257X.
2016.1271346
Wilner, S. J. S., & Huff, A. (2017). Objects of desire: The role of product design in revising contested cultural
meanings. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 244–271. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1240099
Windahl, C. (2017). Market sense-making in design practice: Exploring curiosity, creativity and
courage. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 280–291. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1272306
Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of
Service Research, 13(1), 67–82. doi:10.1177/1094670509351960

Michael B. Beverland*
School of Fashion & Textiles, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
michael.beverland@rmit.edu.au

Gerda Gemser*
School of Economics, Finance, and Marketing, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Ingo O. Karpen*
Graduate School of Business, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
*Author contributed equally to the manuscript.