Managerial Decision-Making in Marketing: Matching The Demand and Supply Side of Creativity

Journal of Marketing Behavior, 2016, 2: 129–176
Managerial Decision-Making in
Marketing: Matching the Demand
and Supply Side of Creativity∗
Niek Althuizen1 , Berend Wierenga2 , and Bo Chen3∗∗
1
ESSEC Business School, France
2
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, The Netherlands
3
Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea
ABSTRACT
This article provides an overview of creativity research in marketing and
offers a novel framework for matching the demand and supply side of
creativity. The demand side comprises the marketing problem domain
and the specifics of the task, which will influence how much emphasis
management places on the originality versus usefulness of the generated
ideas or solutions. The supply side includes individual and organizational
resources that management can put to use for boosting creativity. Based
on contemporary creative cognition research, this article distinguishes
the following pathways to creativity: fluency, persistence, and flexibility.
Examples of common marketing decisions, including their need for
creativity, the emphasis placed on originality versus usefulness, and the
pathway(s) that may lead to the desired level of creativity, are used to
illustrate how the presented framework for matching the demand and
supply side of creativity can guide managerial decision-making. This
article concludes with a discussion of creativity research priorities in
marketing.
Keywords: Marketing, Decision-making, Creativity, Demand, Supply
∗ This paper was processed and accepted by Klaus Wertenbroch, Editor of the Journal
of Marketing Behavior.
∗∗ Niek Althuizen, Associate Professor, Department of Marketing, ESSEC Business School,
ISSN 2326-568X; DOI 10.1561/107.00000033

© 2016 N. Althuizen, B. Wierenga, and B. Chen
130 Althuizen, Wierenga, and Chen
Introduction
T he tilted “smiling” e’s of Heineken that characterize the beer brand logo,
the yellow “sticky notes” that made the 3M company famous, the catchy “Q8”
brand name and logo of Kuwait Petroleum, and the sensual shape of the Coca
Cola bottle are iconic examples that explain why creativity is often put on a
pedestal in marketing. Emblematic companies of the new economy, such as
Apple, Google, and Amazon, also provide great examples of creativity and
product innovations. And although they may not garner as much attention
from the media as the powerhouses of the digital age, “old-economy” companies
such as Unilever and Procter & Gamble have long showcased high levels of
creativity in the marketing of their products and brands. Given the tendency for
products, brands, and marketing communications to commoditize (Clancy and
Krieg 2007; Kleinberg 2013), innovative new products, creative advertisements
and promotions, and ingenious marketing strategies will remain an important
source of differentiation for companies and, hence, are important for their
long-term survival (Andrews and Smith 1996; Levitt 1983; Woodman et al.
1993). Therefore, it is not surprising that CEOs worldwide frequently mention
creativity as one of their top priorities (IBM 2012).
The words creativity and innovation are often used interchangeably, but
in the academic literature they are viewed as distinct concepts. From an
academic perspective (see, for example, Amabile 1983; Baer 2012), the concept
of creativity refers to the early stages of the process, which involve thinking up
original ideas to tackle a problem, while innovation refers to the subsequent
stages of the process, which involve the evaluation, selection, and successful
implementation of a creative idea. While innovation research has a long-
standing tradition in marketing, creativity started to attract attention from
marketing scholars more recently. This article intends to provide an overview of
this growing body of research, with a focus on the implications for managerial
decision-making in marketing.
Creativity has long been regarded as an elusive phenomenon, an innate
trait that cannot be taught, associated with geniuses such as Albert Einstein,
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Pablo Picasso, or Steve Jobs, which may partly ex-
plain the relative dearth of academic research on the topic. However, following
Guilford’s (1950) influential presidential address to the American Psychological
Avenue Bernard Hirsch, 95201 Cergy-Pontoise, France, phone: +33 1 3443 3645, fax: +33
1 3443 3211; althuizen@essec.edu. Berend Wierenga, Professor, Department of Marketing,
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, P.O. Box
1738, 3062 PA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, phone: +31 10 408 1969, fax: +31 10 4089 011;
bwierenga@rsm.nl. Bo Chen, Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, Sungkyunkwan
University, 25-2, Sungkyunkwan-ro, Myeongnyun 3 ga, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
phone: +82 10 43464904; chenbo@skku.edu.
Managerial Decision-Making in Marketing 131
Association, most scholars nowadays agree that creativity is not limited to

the exceptionally gifted. Hence, a distinction has been made in the literature
between big-C creativity (i.e., extraordinary accomplishments by extraordinary
people) and little-c creativity (i.e., everyday accomplishments by everyday
people) (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi 1996). Notwithstanding the importance of
big-C creativity, we take a little-c perspective by assuming that any employee
at any organizational level is, to some extent, capable of producing creative
ideas (Shalley et al. 2004).
Burroughs et al. (2011) reported that few companies have actually put in
place resources or arrangements to facilitate and support the creativity of their
employees. It therefore seems worthwhile to take stock of recent advances
in creativity research, which have greatly improved our understanding of the
phenomenon (see, for an overview, Simonton 2004; Sternberg 1999; Weisberg
2006), and use these insights to support creativity more effectively in practice
(see, for example, Couger et al. 1993; Garfield 2008; Seidel et al. 2010). Epstein
et al. (2013), for example, found that most managers lack (trainable) skills
that can be useful for encouraging employee creativity, while Althuizen et al.
(2012) showed that simply providing (IT-enabled) creativity support tools does
not guarantee success, as the effectiveness of such tools can be undermined
by a neglect or underutilization on the part of the user. In this article, we
therefore set out to develop a framework that brings together the demand and
supply side of creativity, which should help managers to support creativity
more effectively and aid researchers in identifying interesting research topics.
There are two existing frameworks for creativity that are heavily cited
and provide good starting points for developing a framework that matches
creative demand and supply. First, Amabile’s (1988) model of creativity in
the workplace comprises three core ingredients, namely (intrinsic) motiva-
tion, domain-relevant knowledge, and creative thinking skills and abilities.
Second, Woodman et al.’s (1993) interactionist model of organizational cre-
ativity focuses on the interplay between individual-level, group-level, and
organizational-level input factors. For example, the influence of the innate
creative ability of the employee on the creative output of the organization is
likely to be moderated by situational factors, such as time constraints or the
availability of creativity support tools (see also Shalley et al. 2004; Wierenga
and Van Bruggen 1998).
Creativity is commonly defined as the generation of ideas that are both
original and useful (see, for example, Althuizen and Wierenga 2014; Amabile
1983; Burroughs et al. 2011; Sternberg and Lubart 1999). The demand side of
our framework therefore comprises the desired level of originality and usefulness
of the generated ideas, which we will argue is contingent on the marketing
problem domain and the nature and objectives of the creative task. The supply
side includes the individual resources, e.g., creative ability and knowledge,
and organizational resources, e.g., (financial) incentives and creativity support
tools, which are at the disposal of the manager for stimulating creativity. When
deciding which resources to deploy, we propose that managers should take
into account the (cognitive) pathway(s) via which these resources are likely to
influence creativity, as these pathways may lead to different outcomes. Drawing
on the creative cognition literature, we distinguish three possible pathways, i.e.,
fluency, persistence, and flexibility. Figure 1 depicts the resulting framework
that will be discussed in more detail in the first part of this article. The
second part of this article attempts to link common marketing decisions to
the different creative pathways, providing many examples that illustrate how
our framework can guide managerial decision-making in practice. The article
concludes with a discussion of the managerial implications and priorities for
creativity research in marketing.
The Demand Side of Creativity
Marketing Problem Domains
Marketing problem domains greatly vary in terms of their structuredness.

Ill-structured problems typically come with a vast space of possible solutions
(Moreau and Engeset 2016; Kornish and Ulrich 2011) and, hence, demand
greater levels of creativity to solve these problems. Creativity has therefore
been studied primarily in ill- or weakly-structured marketing problem domains,
such as new product development (e.g., Burroughs et al. 2011; Dahl et al. 1999;
Dahl and Moreau 2002; Franke et al. 2014; Goldenberg et al. 1999b; Moorman
and Miner 1997; Moreau and Dahl 2005; Sellier and Dahl 2011; Sethi et al.
2001), advertising (e.g., Goldenberg et al. 1999a; Kilgour and Koslow 2009;
Koslow et al. 2006; Pieters et al. 2002; Reid et al. 1998; Rossiter 2008; Smith
et al. 2007; Till and Baack 2005; Yang and Smith 2009), and sales promotions
(e.g., Althuizen 2012; Althuizen and Wierenga 2014; Althuizen et al. 2010).
However, other weakly-structured marketing domains where creativity can
play an important role, such as strategy (e.g., Andrews and Smith 1996; Im and
Workman Jr. 2004; Toubia 2006) and decision-making (e.g., Easton et al. 1990;
Harrison and Horne 1999; Mumford et al. 2012), have received less attention.
In our framework presented in Figure 1, the marketing problem domain
constitutes an important element of the demand side. Advertising, for example,
relies heavily on originality to attract attention (Pieters et al. 2002), which
is necessary to get a message across. In sales promotions, originality is
also important to stand out in the clutter, but since the ultimate goal is to
temporarily boost sales effectiveness is at least equally important (Kover et al.
1995). New product development often involves making novel combinations of
existing features (Goldenberg et al. 1999b), but to be successful new products
should fulfill customer needs.
Figure 1: Framework for matching the demand and supply side of creativity.
Furthermore, the degree of creativity required may depend on the nature of

the product or product category. Due to restrictions in terms of food safety and
taste, developing new yoghurts arguably leaves less room for creativity than
developing new software applications, for example. Likewise, redesigning a
package for a pasta product requires a different level of creativity than redesign-
ing the exterior of a sports car. And while creativity for experience goods may
exist at an abstract level, such as an ingenious plot in a movie, for shopping
goods it can be much more concrete, such as an original print on a t-shirt.
Finally, task specifics and constraints constitute another important element
of the demand side (see Figure 1). For example, creativity is less needed for
producing a novel-based movie or a sequel of blockbuster movie than for an
original motion picture. In a similar vein, the constraint of a tight advertising
budget may lead to the recycling of a successful past campaign rather than
the development of a novel campaign. We come back to the demand side when
linking common marketing decisions to creative strategies and pathways (see
Figure 3) and the deployment of individual and organizational resources.
The Need for Creativity: Originality versus Usefulness
Consistent with the definition of creativity, the first decision that manage-
ment has to make concerns the relative importance of originality (or novelty)
versus usefulness (or effectiveness) for the creative task at hand. If one con-
siders the traditional marketing mix variables that are under the control of
the manager, namely product, promotion, price, and place (the 4P’s), then
product and promotion decisions arguably tolerate, or even demand, higher
levels of originality (e.g., to attract the consumer’s attention) than price and
distribution decisions, for which effectiveness is more important (see also
Figure 3).
However, within each element of the marketing mix, the demand for
originality versus usefulness can also vary. Take for example advertising.
To convey the speed of a new type of cordless electric screw driver, an ad
displaying a fly with one leg screwed onto a surface will draw attention and
may be perceived as highly original (see Althuizen 2017), but perhaps a more
informational ad, specifying the technical details concerning the power and
performance of the screw driver relative to existing products in the market,
would be more effective for persuading potential buyers. Differences in the
emphasis placed on originality versus usefulness may also be observed within
other types of marketing decisions. For example, when devising marketing
plans, effectiveness is likely to weigh more heavily for short-term plans, while
for long-term plans the balance may tip in favor of originality.
Besides the problem domain, the type of product, the task specifics, and
constraints, management objectives should also be taken into account when
determining the level of originality and usefulness needed for solving the
creative problem. For example, advertising research has shown that originality
fosters short-term ad recall, whereas usefulness or meaningfulness improves
short-term and long-term brand recall (Sheinin et al. 2011). In the context of
new product development, originality has been found to increase the amount
of buzz or word-of-mouth, while usefulness influences the valence of word-of-
mouth (positive or negative) and eventually market success (Moldovan et al.

2006). Marketers, and advertisers in particular, have a tendency to favor
originality (see, for example, Kover et al. 1995), which may come at the cost of
the effectiveness of marketing actions. Also, ideas or solutions that are highly
original may encounter substantial resistance within organizations (Mueller
et al. 2012).
The Supply Side of Creativity
Creativity Resources
The supply side comprises all the individual and organizational resources
that marketing managers have at their disposal for producing creative outcomes.
In the spirit of the aforementioned frameworks of Amabile (1988) and Woodman
et al. (1993), researchers have studied how creative performance in organizations
is influenced by (1) personal factors, such as cognitive abilities and skills (e.g.,
Scott and Bruce 1994), personality traits (e.g., Madjar et al. 2002), (domain)
knowledge (e.g., Cerne et al. 2014), and motivation (e.g., Amabile 1996), (2)
contextual factors, such as incentives (e.g., Ederer and Manso 2013), task
constraints (e.g., Rosso 2014), feedback and support (e.g., Gong et al. 2009),
teams and social networks (e.g., Sosa 2011), and (3) interactions between these
personal and contextual factors (e.g., Grant and Berry 2011).
On the supply side of creativity, we therefore distinguish two types of
resources that are under managerial control, namely the person (see Fig-
ure 1: “Individual Resources”) and his or her work environment (see Figure 1:
“Organizational Resources”). To obtain creative business ideas or solutions,
managers may either identify and assign highly creative individuals to the
task (Althuizen 2012; Althuizen et al. 2010) or, in line with the interactionist
perspective, put in place mechanisms to enhance the creative performance of
less gifted individuals (Althuizen and Wierenga 2014). In the next sections,
we discuss the factors associated with creative individuals, viz. abilities and
skills, (domain) knowledge, and motivation, and the organizational factors
that can promote (or kill) creativity, viz. management practices, training, and
(IT-enabled) creativity support systems.
Individual Resources
Abilities and Skills
The core ability for creative production is divergent thinking (Guilford

1950), which can be defined as the ability to generate numerous and diverse
ideas in response to an open-ended problem (Plucker and Renzulli 1999).
It comprises the following cognitive subskills: fluency (i.e., the number of
generated ideas), flexibility (i.e., the diversity of the ideas), and originality (i.e.,
the statistical rarity of the ideas) (Guilford 1950; Torrance 1974). Although
divergent thinking is essential, creative production also requires convergent
thinking in order to evaluate, select, and work out the most promising ideas
(Plucker and Renzulli 1999).
Tests of creative ability, such as the extensively validated Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking (Torrance 1974) or the 15-minute Abbreviated Torrance Test
for Adults (Goff and Torrance 2002), can be deployed to identify both creative
individuals and specific cognitive subskills (see Althuizen 2012; Althuizen and
Wierenga 2014; Althuizen et al. 2010). These tests typically ask subjects to
generate as many ideas as possible in response to an open-ended task, such
as listing alternative uses for a brick. Subjects are scored on their fluency,
flexibility, and originality in generating ideas, but also on elaboration, which is
the embellishment of ideas with details. Elaboration is a subskill that is more
closely associated with convergent thinking (Torrance and Ball 1984). These
creative ability tests can be complemented with tests of other, more specific
cognitive abilities that have been found to be conducive to creativity, such as
analogical or metaphorical reasoning (Burroughs and Mick 2004; Dahl and
Moreau 2002). These tests are not only valuable for identifying and selecting
creative employees, but they can also help determine the type of support that
the organization should offer to complement or strengthen the abilities of its
employees.
Domain Knowledge
Creative ideas may sometimes seem to come out of the blue (so-called
“aha” moments), but they are typically rooted in existing knowledge and
thus do not spring out of nothing (Ward 2004). Nonetheless, original ideas
cannot be retrieved from memory directly, but they have to be created by
combining existing concepts or knowledge in novel ways (e.g., Finke et al.
1992; Nijstad et al. 2002; Welch 1946). Smith et al. (2005), for example,
found a positive relationship between the ability of employees to exchange
and combine knowledge and the rate of new product introduction in high-
technology firms. In other words, existing knowledge provides fertile ground
on which creative ideas can grow. The knowledge base can be internal (i.e.,
personal or organizational memory) or external, such as (digital) knowledge
repositories or databases.
Knowledge can be acquired through education and previous experiences
within the target domain (e.g., Simonton 2003; Smith et al. 2005; Tierney
and Farmer 2002) or analogous domains (e.g., Althuizen and Wierenga 2014;
Franke et al. 2014). Experienced problem solvers, who have arguably developed
a more extensive knowledge base, have been shown to produce more creative
ideas (Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Sellier and Dahl 2011). Similarly, the amount
and diversity of knowledge present at the organizational level, such as patents,
white papers, reports, and best practices, have been found to be positively
related to creativity and new product performance (see, for example, Moorman
and Miner 1997). However, the possession of extensive domain knowledge can
also have an adverse effect on creativity, as it may inhibit switching perspectives
when a person is stuck in a creative rut (see, for example, Weisberg 1999).
This effect is also known as “cognitive inertia” or “fixation” (Dahl and Moreau
2002; Lamm and Trommsdorff 1973).
Personality Traits
Next to creative abilities and domain knowledge, some personality traits

have been found to be positively associated with creativity and, hence, organi-
zations could also use these traits for identification and selection purposes. Of
the “Big Five” personality traits (see Costa and McCrae 1992), “openness to
experience” is the one that is most commonly associated with creativity (e.g.,
Baer and Oldham 2006; George and Zhou 2001). Individuals who score high on
“openness” tend to seek variety, novelty, and uniqueness rather than confining
themselves to conventions, routines, and familiar things (Costa and McCrae
1992). Besides measures of these broad, relatively stable personality traits,
there are also personality measures that seek to assess creativity more directly.
For example, Gough’s (1979) Creative Personality Scale (CPS) comprises 30
adjectives that characterize creative people, such as “capable”, “clever”, and
“confident”. Kirton’s (1976) Adaption–Innovation (KAI) inventory classifies
people as adaptors, i.e., people who tend to solve problems in conventional
ways, or innovators, i.e., people who tend to adopt new problem-solving ap-
proaches. For marketing purposes, such as monitoring emerging customer
needs in order to enhance the company’s capacity to innovate, Lilien et al.
(2002) argue for the identification of “lead users”, who are likely to score high
on the consumer innovativeness scale (see Hirschmann 1980).
Motivation
Motivation is often key to creative achievements (Amabile 1983, 1996;

Andrews and Smith 1996). A person’s motivation to perform a creative task
can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Ryan and Deci 2000). Intrinsic motivation means
that one performs the task because it is interesting, challenging, enjoyable, or
satisfying, whereas extrinsic motivation means that one performs the task for
other reasons than the task itself, such as (financial) rewards or recognition
(Deci and Ryan 1985; Ryan and Deci 2000). Intrinsic motivation is said to
be conducive to creativity, while extrinsic motivation undermines creative
performance (see, for example, Amabile 1998). However, recent findings (see
the section on (financial) incentives) seem to call for a more nuanced view
on the role of extrinsic motivators. Management practices (see next section),
such as providing (financial) incentives, feedback, and performance monitoring
(Sethi et al. 2001), may influence an employee’s intrinsic motivation to perform
a creative task and, consequently, his or her creative performance.
Organizational Resources
Management Practices
A substantial body of research has been devoted to the question of how

management practices, such as providing incentives, giving feedback, and
performance evaluations, can promote or undermine creativity through their
effects on the employee’s motivation to perform the task (e.g., Grant and
Berry 2011; Sethi et al. 2001; Shalley et al. 2004; Toubia 2006). For example,
a stimulating work environment that encourages risk taking (Andrews and
Smith 1996) and tolerates failure (Ederer and Manso 2013) has been found to
foster creativity. Leadership styles that support and empower employees have
also been found to enhance motivation and stimulate creativity (Oldham and
Cummings 1996; Zhang and Bartol 2010). In the next sections, we highlight
a number of creativity-enhancing practices that are supported by empirical
research and that managers can easily apply.
Incentives. Providing employees with financial incentives or other types
of external rewards has been argued to undermine intrinsic motivation and
creativity (see, for example, Amabile 1996). However, recent research has
shown that under carefully crafted conditions, external rewards can increase
motivation and, consequently, creative performance (e.g., Ederer and Manso
2013; Eisenberger and Aselage 2009; Toubia 2006). For example, Toubia
(2006) found that a reward system that recognizes individual contributions
to group-level idea-generation efforts can enhance creative performance. Also,
employees working in an environment that is tolerant of failure have been
shown to produce more novel ideas when external rewards are offered for
long-term success (Ederer and Manso 2013).
Constraints. Conventional wisdom suggests that creativity thrives best
when there are no constraints. However, research has demonstrated that
constraints can actually boost creativity (see, for example, Metha and Zhu,
2015). Moreau and Dahl (2005), for example, asked participants in their
studies to use a limited set of designated materials for developing a new toy
for children. Provided that participants were given ample time to complete
the task, this resulted in more creative toys than when participants were given
no input constraints, Burroughs and Mick (2004) showed that with an internal
locus of control and high situational involvement, participants performed
better under time pressure in creatively solving the “scuffed shoes” problem,
i.e., quickly cleaning shoes without polish. Thus, input or time constraints can
be conducive to creativity.
Feedback and Support. Based on prior research, it seems important for
managers to strike a balance between providing feedback and support, on the
one hand, and leaving sufficient room for employees to take initiatives (and
let them fail), on the other hand (e.g., Zhang and Bartol 2010). Employee
creativity has been found to benefit from supervisors and coworkers who
provide developmental feedback and active support during the creative process
(e.g., Gong et al. 2009; Oldham and Cummings 1996; Shalley and Perry-Smith
2001; Zhou 2003). Transformational leadership, coupled with the provision
of constructive feedback, is likely to enhance an employee’s motivation to
perform the task and his or her perceived job autonomy, which can positively
influence creative performance (e.g., Gong et al. 2009; Zhou 1998). Conversely,
supervisors who monitor their employees closely run the risk of instilling a
fear to deviate from what is common, accepted, or expected, which is likely to
negatively influence intrinsic motivation and creativity (e.g., George and Zhou
2001; Sethi et al. 2001; Zhou 2003). Finally, exposure to creative coworkers may
enable individuals to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for boosting
their own creative performance (Shalley and Perry-Smith 2001; Zhou 2003).
Creativity Training
Despite its reputation of being elusive, evidence suggests that creativity

can be taught, at least to some extent. Based on a meta-analysis, Scott et al.
(2004) concluded that, if properly designed and executed, training programs
can have a positive effect on creative performance (see also Burroughs et al.
2011; Ma 2006). Creativity training programs that focus on stimulating people
cognitively or that involve domain-specific exercises were found to be most
effective. However, training can also be effective if it strengthens people’s
confidence in their own creative skills and abilities (which is also known as
“creative self-efficacy”; see, for example, Scott et al. 2004).
In marketing, Goldenberg et al. (1999a) trained individuals to use creativity
“templates” that were derived from a systematic analysis of successful new
products. For example, one of their templates involves making connections
between previously unrelated product attributes, such as making the color
of a glass dependent on the temperature of its content. In their studies,
template-trained individuals produced more creative ideas for baby ointments,
mattresses, and drinking glasses than untrained individuals (see Goldenberg
et al. 1999a). More recently, Burroughs et al. (2011) trained individuals in using
a technique called “customer-focused visualization”. This technique basically
involves putting oneself in the customers’ shoes (also called “perspective taking”,
see Hoever et al. 2012). Dahl et al. (1999), for example, asked young engineers
to image what kind of problems seniors face while driving a car, which enhanced
the creativity of their ideas for a new type of car jack targeted at senior drivers
(Burroughs et al. 2011).
Creativity Support Systems
The growing attention for creativity in research and practice has also
spurred the development of IT-enabled Creativity Support Systems (CSS:
Garfield 2008). CSSs intend to aid individuals or teams in the process of gener-
ating creative ideas or solutions. Many CSSs, such as electronic brainstorming
tools (e.g., Dennis and Valacich 1993), analogical or case-based reasoning
systems (e.g., Althuizen and Wierenga 2014), and computer-guided fantasy
(see Couger et al. 1993), focus predominantly on activating knowledge that
can be brought to bear on the creative task. That is, these IT-enabled systems
stimulate individuals to explore their own memory more thoroughly and/or
provide access to an external knowledge base. Because people have a tendency
to search for ideas within easily accessible, but bounded areas of their knowl-
edge base, stimulating them to leave the path of least resistance (Ward 1994)
has been shown to boost creativity (Müller-Wienbergen et al. 2011). CSSs
therefore typically deploy cognitive “stimulation tactics” in order to deepen or
broaden an individual’s search for ideas (Smith 1998, p. 119).
An example of a CSS in marketing is the LEAPS system developed by
Althuizen and Wierenga (2014), which intends to aid marketers in exploring
the vast space of ideas for sales promotion campaigns more thoroughly. The
core of the LEAPS system is a knowledge repository in which cases of previous
(creative) sales promotion campaigns are stored. This repository serves as
an unbiased external memory that can be used as a source of inspiration by
retrieving past cases that are similar or analogous to the problem at hand.
The LEAPS system makes use of an artificial intelligence technique, called
Case-based Reasoning (CBR), which mimics human analogical reasoning (see
Kolodner 1993). Althuizen and Wierenga (2014) found that the use of the
LEAPS system enhanced the creativity of sales promotion campaign designs,
and particularly when the system’s knowledge repository contained a sufficiently
large and diverse set of sales promotion cases.
The Confluence of Individual and Organizational Resources

Consistent with the interactionist perspective, managers should be aware
that creativity-enhancing practices and tools are not a “one-size-fits-all” propo-
sition (cf. Goncalo and Duguid 2012; Kilgour and Koslow 2009; Müller-
Wienbergen et al. 2011). As Kilgour and Koslow (2009, p. 299) note, each
individual “brings to the creative thinking process different kinds of abilities
and knowledge that need to be taken into account in order to identify the
creative thinking techniques that are most useful to them”. However, research
investigating interaction effects between individual and organizational factors
is relatively sparse and inconclusive as to who benefits most from what type
of support (see Shalley et al. 2004).
In the context of creativity support systems, for example, MacCrimmon and
Wagner (1994) reported that a CSS, which provided external stimuli to spark
creative thinking, improved the performance of highly creative individuals
most, suggesting a reinforcement effect. However, Cheung et al. (2008) found
that providing access to a knowledge repository deteriorated the performance
of highly creative individuals, whereas Althuizen and Wierenga (2014) showed
that individuals with low to moderate levels of creative ability benefited most
from having access to a repository of sales promotion cases, which suggests a
compensatory effect. In the context of management practices, Zhou (2003) also
found a compensatory effect, such that employees with non-creative personality
traits benefited more from creative coworkers and non-controlling supervision
than those with creative personality traits, whereas Sellier and Dahl (2011)
showed that the practice of setting constraints worked best for boosting the
creativity of individuals who had substantial domain experience.
Matching the Demand and Supply Side of Creativity
The Creative Process
Before elaborating on our approach for matching the demand and supply
side of creativity, it is imperative to discuss the cognitive processes that
underlie the generation of creative ideas. Many marketing domains, such
as advertising, new product development, and marketing strategy, comprise
open-ended, weakly-structured problems that typically come with a vast space
of possible solutions (Reitman 1965; Kornish and Ulrich 2011; Voss and Post
1988). When confronted with such problems, one of the first things that people
will do is to search their long-term memory for knowledge that can be used
for generating ideas or developing solutions. However, as mentioned earlier,
creative ideas or solutions, however, cannot be retrieved from memory directly.
The Search for Ideas in Associative Memory (SIAM) model (Nijstad et al.
2002) distinguishes two essential phases in the process of generating creative
ideas: (1) knowledge activation and (2) idea production. Imagine, for example,
that a marketer is seeking creative ideas for conveying the speed of a new
type of new hard disk drive in a print advertisement. The problem description
provides clues for searching long term memory. For example, the problem
cue “speed” may activate related knowledge in long-term memory, such as the
concept of Formula 1 racing (see Althuizen 2017). If deemed relevant for the
task at hand, the activated knowledge will enter working memory, where it
can serve as input for the production of new ideas. New ideas can be formed
by making novel connections between existing concepts, as in the example of
the color of a glass that varies based on the temperature of its content, or by
applying existing concepts in novel ways, such as using a smartphone as a
wallet (Mednick 1962; Nijstad et al. 2002).
The ease with which relevant knowledge can be retrieved from long-term
memory is largely dependent on the strength of association with the problem
cues (Rietzschel et al. 2007). The first ideas that people generate are therefore
usually not the most creative ones, since they are based on easily accessible
knowledge structures that are strongly associated with the problem (Rietzschel
et al. 2007; Santanen et al. 2004). If the cognitive effort to produce additional
ideas becomes too high, people will either attempt to switch perspectives and
search within other areas of one’s knowledge base (Lamm and Trommsdorff
1973) or stop generating ideas (Nijstad and Stroebe 2006). Following the
SIAM model, creativity-enhancing tools could thus provide support for: (1) the
activation of less accessible, more remote knowledge for stimulating divergent
thinking to enhance the originality of ideas; and (2) the production, selection,
and refinement of ideas in order to stimulate convergent thinking and enhance
the usefulness of ideas (cf. Müller-Wienbergen et al. 2011).
Concerning the knowledge activation phase of the SIAM model, the dual
pathway to creativity theory (Baas et al. 2011; De Dreu et al. 2008) identifies
two routes that can lead individuals to more novel ideas: (1) cognitive per-
sistence, i.e., by engaging in a deeper exploration of the idea space; and (2)
cognitive flexibility, i.e., by engaging in a broader exploration of the idea space.
A third route frequently mentioned in the creativity literature is cognitive
fluency (see, for example, Nijstad et al. 2010). Fluency concerns the generation
of a large number of ideas, following the brainstorming philosophy of “quan-
tity breeds quality” (see Osborn 1957; Rossiter and Lilien 1994). Persistence
concerns the number of ideas generated within a particular category, i.e.,
within-category fluency or “depth breeds quality”, whereas flexibility concerns
the number of categories in which ideas are generated, i.e., across-category
fluency or “breadth breeds quality”. Thus, fluency can be the result of persis-
tence, flexibility, or both, and the persistence pathway and flexibility pathway
are not mutually exclusive (Nijstad et al. 2010).
Cognitive Pathways to Creativity: Fluency, Persistence, or Flexibility?

Aim for Fluency (Undirected, Free-flowing Idea Generation)
The rationale for the fluency pathway is that the larger the number of
ideas generated, the higher the likelihood of creative ideas (Osborn 1957). In
creativity research, the sheer number of generated ideas is therefore often used
as an outcome measure and proxy of quality (e.g., Briggs and Reinig 2010;
Dean et al. 2006; Massetti 1996; Wierenga and Van Bruggen 1998). Rossiter
and Lilien (1994) argue that in brainstorming sessions the primary focus should
be on the quantity of ideas generated, and thus not on quality, in order to
obtain the most creative outcomes. To increase the likelihood of creative ideas,
Rossiter and Lilien (1994) recommend an Individual-Group-Individual (IGI)
brainstorming procedure, in which individuals first independently generate as
many ideas as possible, then discuss the generated ideas in a group setting,
followed by an independent selection of the best ideas.
The fluency pathway may be most fruitful in the context of an initial
exploration of the idea space for identifying and selecting promising areas
that warrant further exploration. Examples of a fluency strategy are the in-
house suggestion scheme of Japanese car manufacturer Toyota, which allegedly
generates over 2 million ideas per year (Benders and Morita 2004), and the
conception of Pixar’s Oscar-winning animated film “Ratatouille”, which started
with the generation of thousands of movie ideas (Rao et al. 2008). However,
according to creative cognition research (e.g., Rietzschel et al. 2006), generating
a large quantity of ideas alone is unlikely to be sufficient. The relationship
between the quantity and quality of ideas depends on the depth and breadth of
exploration of the idea space (e.g., Rietzschel et al. 2007). Therefore, depending
on the managerial objectives, one could opt for a more focused strategy by
following a pathway of persistence or flexibility.
Aim for Persistence (Directed, “within the Box” Idea Generation)
Nijstad et al. (2002, p. 44) describe the persistence pathway as a systematic

and effortful “in-depth exploration of only a few [idea] categories or perspec-
tives”, which should lead to more novel ideas “after more readily available ideas
have been examined and discarded”. In other words, digging deeper within a
particular category of ideas should yield more original ones (Baas et al. 2011;
Moreau and Dahl 2005; Nijstad and Stroebe 2006; Rietzschel et al. 2007; Sellier
and Dahl 2011). If the explored idea categories or knowledge structures are
conceptually closely related to the task at hand, akin to thinking “within the
box” (see Coyne et al. 2007), it may also be conducive to the usefulness of the
generated ideas. For example, using previous marketing campaigns for beer as
a source of inspiration for developing a new marketing campaign for a beer
brand may enhance the feasibility of the generated ideas, as compared to ideas
that are generated based on previous campaigns for cars or life insurances (see
Althuizen and Wierenga 2014).
The persistence pathway can be useful for companies that are looking for
incremental improvements to existing products or product lines. One way to
stimulate persistence is to activate easily accessible knowledge prior to the
idea-generation task, for example by using the most obvious ideas as external
stimuli (e.g., Althuizen and Chen 2016) or by asking questions related to the
task (e.g., Rietzschel et al. 2007). To pre-activate easily accessible knowledge
and thus push people to explore the idea space more deeply, Rietzschel et al.
(2007) asked participants to answer a number of health- and sports-related
questions prior to the task of generating novel ideas for improving one’s health,
whereas Althuizen and Chen (2016) used a product prototype (of a tablet
computer holder) that already incorporated the most obvious features (e.g.,
making it foldable, adding LED lights, including a battery charger) to enhance
the novelty of ideas for product improvements. In a similar vein, Althuizen and
Wierenga (2014) and Dahl and Moreau (2002) asked individuals to retrieve
close cases or near analogies prior to generating ideas for solving the problem
at hand. An example from practice is the online “IKEA hacker” community
that encourages customers to generate ideas for product improvements based
on existing IKEA products.
Aim for Flexibility (Directed, “Outside the Box” Idea Generation)
The flexibility pathway involves “switching among [idea] categories, ap-

proaches, and sets, and through the use of remote (rather than close) associa-
tions” (Nijstad et al. 2010, p. 43). Exploring the idea space more broadly, and
remote areas in particular, akin to thinking “outside the box” (e.g., Girotra
et al. 2010; Miron-Spektor and Beenen 2015), should also lead to the generation
of more original ideas (Althuizen and Wierenga 2014; Baas et al. 2011; Baer
2010; Hirst et al. 2015; Miron-Spektor and Beenen 2015). However, this may
come at the cost of the usefulness of the ideas (Althuizen and Wierenga 2014;
Rietzschel et al. 2007). That is, if the activated knowledge is remotely related
to the task at hand, such as using marketing campaigns for life insurances as
a source of inspiration for developing a campaign for a beer brand, so-called
“mental leaps” may be necessary to apply this knowledge effectively for solving
the target problem. The successful transfer of knowledge that is remotely
related to the target problem may also depend on the individual’s level of
expertise or creative ability (Althuizen and Wierenga 2014; Kilgour and Koslow
2009; Ward 1998) or on the provision of support in the idea production phase.
The flexibility pathway can be useful for companies that seek radical
innovations. The crux for stimulating a flexibility pathway is to activate less
accessible knowledge structures, particularly those that are remotely related
to the target problem. The provision of external stimuli in the idea-generation
process can help individuals to search more distant locations of one’s knowledge
base (Knoll and Horton 2011). To boost the originality of the generated ideas,
Althuizen and Wierenga (2014) and Dahl and Moreau (2002), for example,
asked individuals to use remote cases or far analogies as a starting point for
generating ideas. To give two practical examples: (1) Apple could broaden
its search for novel ideas for operating the iPhone to other domains than
touch screen technology, such as medical devices that are operated by speech,
vision, or even brainwaves; or (2) the scheduling trains in complex railway
systems could benefit from drawing an analogy with the scheduling of movies
in multiplex theaters (see Eliashberg et al. 2009).
The Deployment of Individual Resources

Assigning Individuals to the Creative Task
After setting the managerial objectives for the creative task, the next step
is to assign resources. The resource that has been found to be most predictive
of creative success is the creativity ability of the individual (Althuizen 2012;
Althuizen et al. 2010; Kabanoff and Rossiter 1994). Divergent thinking abilities,
comprising fluency, originality, and flexibility, are conducive to the originality
of the generated ideas, while convergent thinking abilities, such as elaboration,
are conducive to the usefulness of the generated ideas. However, these cog-
nitive subskills are not directly observable and require the administration of
a validated test, such as the Torrance Tests mentioned earlier, or they could
be inferred from the individual’s portfolio of prior creative work. In case a
preferred pathway to creativity has been identified for the task, managers could
screen individuals more specifically on the basis of their fluency, persistence,
and flexibility in generating ideas.
Another important individual resource is the amount and diversity of
knowledge acquired through education and previous experiences. The amount
of domain-specific knowledge is particularly important for the persistence
pathway, whereas the diversity of knowledge will facilitate the flexibility
pathway. However, this knowledge does not necessarily have to reside in the
individual’s mind, but it also comprises the knowledge that one has access
to, for example via social networks or knowledge repositories (e.g., Baer 2010;
Moorman and Miner 1997). Of course, managers can also opt to outsource the
creative task to individuals or organizations with specialized knowledge, skills,
and abilities, such as advertising agencies, consultancy firms, or consumers
(so-called “crowdsourcing”).
Given that individuals who are highly motivated to perform the task,
whether it be intrinsically or extrinsically, are more likely to generate a larger
number of ideas and explore the idea space more thoroughly (Lucas and
Nordgren 2015), motivation should also be an important selection criterion
when assigning individuals to creative tasks. As for the “Big Five” personality
traits, individuals who score high on “openness to experience” are more likely
to have extensive and diverse knowledge bases from which they can draw
inspiration (cf. Homan et al. 2008), fostering the flexibility pathway and the
originality of ideas in particular. “Conscientiousness” is likely to be conducive
to the persistence pathway and the usefulness of ideas (cf. George and Zhou
2001), because conscientious individuals tend to work meticulously and do a
thorough job (Costa and McCrae 1992).
Assigning Individuals to Teams
Creative tasks are often tackled in team settings, such as brainstorming

sessions. When assigning individuals to teams, there are a number of factors
that managers should take into account. First, larger teams are likely to
have deeper, more profound knowledge bases (or social networks) from which
creative ideas can be sourced (Smith et al. 2005; Valacich et al. 1992), which
is particularly conducive to the fluency and persistence pathways. However,
forming larger teams may also hamper creativity due to effects such as “produc-
tion blocking” (i.e., having to take turns when expressing ideas) or “evaluation
apprehension” (i.e., the fear of being judged by others) (Diehl and Stroebe
1987). The use of digital communication tools can alleviate these negative
effects by allowing people to generate ideas simultaneously and anonymously
(see Dennis and Valacich 1993).
Second, teams composed of individuals with different backgrounds and expe-
riences, or teams that have access to more dispersed social networks (Sosa 2011)
and so-called “weak ties” in particular (Baer 2010), will have broader, more
diverse knowledge bases from which creative ideas can be sourced (e.g., Singh
and Fleming 2010; Taylor and Greve 2006), which is particularly conducive to
the flexibility pathway. Managers should pay attention to the structure of the
team and establish open communication lines to ensure an effective exchange
of ideas, especially when team members have different backgrounds (Paulus
and Yang 2000; Sosa 2011). Girotra et al. (2010), for example, found that a
hybrid team structure, in which people work independently first and then in
teams, led to higher creativity.
The Deployment of Organizational Resources

The managerial objectives (and the emphasis placed on novelty versus
usefulness), in conjunction with the preferred pathways and the deployment
of individual resources, will influence what type of organizational resources
should be brought to bear on the creative task. For example, setting input
constraints will limit the breadth of exploration of the idea space, but it may
deepen the exploration within a confined area and, hence, enhance creativity
(e.g., Dahl and Moreau 2007; Sellier and Dahl 2011). Incentive schemes can
be designed such that they stimulate the generation of a large number of
ideas (fluency), a deeper exploration (persistence), or a broader exploration
(flexibility). Feedback and support could involve domain-specific knowledge
(stimulating depth) or knowledge from other domains (stimulating breadth),
and training programs could teach participants how to switch perspectives to

broaden the search for creative ideas (Baruah and Paulus 2008) or promote the
use of templates that deepen one’s exploration of the idea space (Goldenberg
et al. 1999a,b).
Organization can also deploy (IT-enabled) creativity support systems to
aid employees in the process of generating creative ideas. Based on an analysis
of commercially available tools, Althuizen and Reichel (2016) distinguish
three common types of CSSs, namely mind mappers, process guides, and
stimuli providers. Mind mappers aid individuals in making their knowledge
networks in long-term memory explicit (Ausubel 1968). By pre-activating
knowledge structures that are closely related to the target problem, mind
mappers may thus stimulate a deeper exploration of the idea space (i.e.,
the persistence pathway). However, mind mappers do not aid individuals in
switching perspectives for exploring the idea space more broadly. Process guides
provide assistance in each step of the creative process, including idea generation
(or divergent thinking) and idea production (or convergent thinking), which
may thus enhance both the originality and usefulness of the generated ideas.
Stimuli providers aim at activating knowledge stored in long-term memory
by providing external stimuli, which can take the form of words, images, or
even sounds. Depending on the nature of the provided stimuli, i.e., their
conceptual distance to the target problem (“close” versus “remote” stimuli;
see, for example, Althuizen and Wierenga 2014; Dahl and Moreau 2002), the
search for ideas in associative memory may be deepened or broadened. It
should be noted here that, in a laboratory experiment, Althuizen and Reichel
(2016) found that providing external stimuli was most effective for boosting
the creativity of the individual.
Figure 2 presents a classification grid of (IT-enabled) cognitive stimulation
tools based on the pathways to creativity that they are most likely to facilitate
and the possible outcomes in terms of the originality and usefulness of the
generated ideas. The horizontal axis distinguishes the two phases of the search
for ideas in associative memory theory (Nijstad et al. 2002): (1) knowledge
activation (to support divergent thinking and the generation of more original
ideas); and (2) idea production (to support convergent thinking and the
production of more useful ideas). The vertical axis comprises the cognitive
pathways to creativity (see De Dreu et al. 2008; Nijstad et al. 2010) that the
tools are likely to stimulate: (a) cognitive persistence (depth of exploration) or
(b) cognitive flexibility (breadth of exploration). The classification grid does
not include (electronic) brainstorming tools, since their focus is predominantly
on facilitating the fluency pathway (i.e., the production of many ideas).
The resulting four quadrants can be described as follows: (1a) “preser-
vational” tools (lower-left quadrant), such as “mind mappers”, which merely
activate knowledge closely related to the task; (1b) “inspirational” tools (upper-
left quadrant), such as “stimuli providers”, which are capable of activating less
Figure 2: Grid for selecting creativity support systems to support creative problem-solving.
accessible, more remote knowledge; (2a) “developmental” tools (lower-right

quadrant), such as “process guides”, which focus on providing guidance in the
creative process (although it should be noted here that the convergent think-
ing, idea production phase is often neglected in CSS; see Müller-Wienbergen
et al. (2011)); and (2b) “transformational” tools (upper-right quadrant), such
as “fantasy guides”, which intend to support “radical” or “paradigm shifting”
thinking by stimulating cognitive flexibility and providing guidance in the
creative process (see Garfield et al. 2001).
Assessing the Creativity of the Outcomes
To assess whether the match between the demand and supply side of
creativity has been successful, managers have various options to evaluate the
creative output. The first option, in line with the brainstorming philosophy, is
to simply count the number of generated ideas (Osborn 1957; Rossiter and
Lilien 1994), assuming that there is a positive relationship between the quantity
and quality of ideas (see Simonton 2003, 2004). However, research has shown
that this relationship is more complex, as it depends on the processes that
underlie the generation of ideas (see Nijstad et al. 2010). These findings have
led to a call for shifting the attention in creativity research from the quantity
to the quality of ideas (e.g., Briggs and Reinig 2010; Nijstad et al. 2010), but
the latter is difficult to assess objectively.
The creativity literature offers several methods for evaluating the quality
of ideas. Amabile’s (1983) consensual assessment technique (CAT) is probably
the most commonly used method. The tenet of the CAT is that if experts in
the domain of interest independently agree that something is creative, then
it must be creative (Amabile 1983). Judges can be asked to rate the overall
creativity of the ideas or solutions or to rate the originality and usefulness
dimension separately. The number of judges can vary from less than 10 in
case of expert judges (typically 2 to 4; see, for example, Burroughs et al. 2011)
or tens to hundreds in case of consumer judges (e.g., Dahl and Moreau 2002;
Kornish and Ulrich 2014).
With regard to the quality of ideas or solutions, we distinguish three
possible managerial perspectives. First, in some cases management might want
to know whether or not their decisions improved the average quality of the
generated ideas or solutions in terms of overall creativity, novelty, and/ or
usefulness (see, for example, Nijstad et al. 2010; Rietzschel et al. 2007). Second,
in other cases managers might be interested in whether or not their decisions
enlarged the pool of high-quality ideas. To identify the number of high-quality
ideas, a cut-off scoring procedure could be used (see Parnes 1961). For example,
ideas are considered creative if they score above the scale’s midpoint (or above
the sample average) on both originality and usefulness (see also Briggs and
Reinig 2010; Diehl and Stroebe 1987). And sometimes the only thing that
matters is whether or not the creativity of the best idea improved (Althuizen
and Chen 2016; Girotra et al. 2010).
Ultimately, management would like to know what the effect of creative ideas
or solutions is on sales or profitability (see, for example, Kornish and Ulrich
2014), i.e., how much value do they create for the organization? Marketers have
always been convinced that creativity (or “Marketing Imagination”, see Levitt
1983) is at a premium in marketing. Empirical research appears to confirm
that belief. For example, launching creative new products has been associated
with higher customer satisfaction (Im and Workman Jr. 2004; Moorman and
Miner 1997), higher competitive advantage (Andrews and Smith 1996), higher
market shares, and higher return on investment (Im and Workman Jr. 2004).
The Framework for Matching Creative Demand and Supply in Marketing
Based on our conceptual framework for matching the demand and supply
side of creativity, we will now develop practical guidelines for marketing
Figure 3: The demand side and pathways to creativity.
managers. To this end, Figure 3 shows the marketing mix decision variables
(the 4P’s), subdivided into a selection of common marketing decision areas. The
order of the 4P’s reflects the relative importance of originality versus usefulness,
with “Promotion” decisions that generally demand higher originality at the top
and “Pricing” decisions that generally demand higher usefulness at the bottom.
For each marketing decision area, we indicate the most appropriate pathway to
creativity (i.e., FLUE: fluency; PERS: persistence; FLEX: flexibility) as well
as the relative importance of the originality (ORI) and usefulness (USE) of the
generated ideas. Figure 3 awaits further (empirical) validation, for example by
means of a survey among marketing managers.
Pricing Decisions
Pricing decisions involve setting the right price for a product or service
depending on the company’s objectives (e.g., maximizing sales or profits).
There are various pricing strategies, such as cost-driven, competitor-driven,
and demand-driven pricing (see Figure 3). The widely used cost-driven pricing
strategy concerns adding a fixed profit margin (e.g., 20%) to the production
costs. This is merely an accounting exercise, which leaves little room for
creativity. However, marketing managers use an original approach to commu-
nicate the price to customers, for example via creative (digital) price tags or
by using psychological pricing (e.g., $99 instead of $100) (see, for example,
Monroe 2003). Another example here is the creative bundling of prices by
manufacturers of razors, coffee machines, or printers, who charge relatively
little for the machines or holders but sell the cartridges at premium prices
(Stremersch and Tellis 2002). The online entertainment industry uses similar
creative pricing strategies by charging relatively little for monthly or yearly
subscriptions in comparison with one-time download or streaming options.
Creativity in cost-based pricing is most likely to emerge from a deeper ex-
ploration within existing pricing tactics and strategies, i.e., the persistence
pathway to creativity (see Figure 3).
A competitor-driven pricing strategy is often used when there is little
product differentiation and customers are highly price sensitive, e.g., for
commodities such as water, electricity, and oil. In such situations, setting a
price above the market will put the company out of business, while a price below
the market can evoke a price war that erodes profits. A common strategy is to
try to reduce switching behavior (see, for example, Burnham et al. 2003), which
may demand a certain level of creativity. Energy companies, for example,
nowadays provide free online metering systems, which allow customers to
monitor their gas or electricity consumption in real time. Familiarity with
the system of the current provider makes it less likely that the customer will
switch to a competitor with a different system. Likewise, many customers
do not switch easily between telecom or software providers because of the
(psychological) barriers that their current provider has put in place. Starbucks
solved the commodity problem in a different way. By establishing a premium
brand image, it successfully managed to turn a commodity (coffee) into a
luxury product, enabling the company to charge prices well above the market.
Creative competitor-driven pricing solutions are most likely to result from a
deeper exploration of the drivers of price sensitivity and switching behavior,
i.e., via the persistence pathway (see Figure 3).
A demand-driven pricing strategy means that the price fluctuates based on
consumer demand. A variable price setting of products or services arguably
allows for higher levels of creativity. A well-known example is “yield manage-
ment” (Jallat and Ancarani 2008), meaning that in order to maximize revenues
companies charge different prices for essentially the same product (with limited
availability) based on the customer’s willingness to pay. American Airlines
was the first to pioneer with a real-time yield management system (Smith
et al. 1992) that took into account the number of bookings and flight inquiries.
Other industries high fixed costs and limited capacity such as (movie) theaters,
also use demand-driven pricing by charging lower prices in the early afternoon
or just before the start of a show, for example. The use of big data analytics
may help enlarge the range of options for demand-driven pricing by offering
numerous possibilities to link willingness to pay to consumer characteristics,
such as the type of internet browser used and the consumer’s IP address, thus
going beyond the usual suspects, such as gender, age, postal code, and income
level, following the pathway of persistence (see Figure 3).
Distribution Decisions
Distribution decisions concern the selection and design of the channels

through which the products or services are delivered to the customer. Distribu-
tion channel decisions are primarily driven by cost and efficiency considerations,
i.e., delivering the product or service to the customer against minimal costs in
the shortest possible time, which places most emphasis on the usefulness of the
generated ideas or solutions. To find the best possible solution, optimization
techniques from operations management are typically used, which aim to
narrow down instead of enlarging the number of options. Creative ideas or
solutions to get a product from A to B are thus most likely to result from
a deeper exploration of existing channel configurations (i.e., the persistence
pathway). For example, Bechtle Logistik, a German logistics provider, recently
decided to use augmented reality glasses to scan bar codes and guide warehouse
operators visually to the item’s pick-up location. DHL and Amazon are pilot
testing services for delivering parcels directly into the trunk of the customer’s
car, while Amazon’s Prime Air is experimenting with drones to deliver orders
to their customers. Walmart’s crowd delivery program encourages in-store
customers to deliver online orders from other customers on their way back home
in return for shopping points (all these examples are taken from Papier 2016).
Decisions related to customer touchpoints, i.e., the places where customers
come in contact with the product, arguably offer more leeway for experi-
mentation and originality (see Figure 3). A distinction should be made here
between offline and online touchpoints. In brick-and-mortar stores, brands
could need originality to attract attention and to present their products in
an appealing way, while the store manager may want to offer an original and
memorable shopping experience. Local Motors, a US-based start-up, recently
announced that in a few years it hopes to produce customized cars on the
spot in shopping centers with the help of 3D printing technology (Papier
2016). 3D printing enables companies to take an existing idea (for example,
Subway already customizes sandwiches on the spot) one step further, thus
via the pathway of persistence (see Figure 3). Creative ideas may also come
from more remote areas, thus via the flexibility pathway, as evidenced by the
ingenious, labyrinth-like lay-out of IKEA stores, for example. The objective of
this lay-out is to maximize shopping time and route consumers via as many
products as possible. It was inspired by the lay-out of adventure parks, zoos,
and expositions, which aim at striking a balance between offering guidance
and adventure (Edvardsson et al. 2005).
Online touchpoints, such as e-commerce stores, brand communities on
social media, and smartphone apps, offer even more possibilities for creativity.
Technological advances, such as Quick Response (QR) codes and augmented

reality, and a limited dependence on physical resources, such as sales personnel
and opening hours, allow for greater customization, personalization, and
interactivity in terms of product presentation and shopping experience. As
indicated in Figure 3, manager could thus follow the fluency pathway to obtain
a large number of ideas. According to CEO Jeff Bezos, Amazon is committed to
making a difference in their online shopping experience by generating numerous
ideas for (website) improvements, which are then scrutinized via real-time
randomized “A/B” experiments (i.e., testing version A against version B). One
of his quotes is: “if you’re not stubborn [persistence pathway], you’ll give up
on experiments too soon. And if you’re not flexible, you’ll pound your head
against the wall and you won’t see a different solution to a problem you’re
trying to solve.” (Dyer et al. 2009).
Product Decisions
Product decisions involve the development, design, and production of

the core and extended product (i.e., including the brand) as well as the
company’s product assortment. Similar to distribution, production decisions
are predominantly technical in nature with the aim to optimize the production
process, which implies a strong emphasis on the usefulness of the generated
ideas or solutions (see Figure 3). Ideas for production improvements therefore
can be achieved best via a deeper exploration of existing options, i.e., the
persistence pathway (see Figure 3). However, Henry Ford’s invention of the
assembly line for cars by drawing an analogy with slaughterhouses (see Ford
and Crowther 1922) is an example of an original solution obtained via the
flexibility pathway. In slaughterhouses, carcasses are hooked on chains at
the ceiling and move around in the factory. Workers have a fixed position,
standing side-by-side, with each worker cutting off a particular piece of meat
from the carcass. Ford applied this idea of moving the product around and
having each worker carry out one specific operation to the assembly of cars,
with the difference that each worker added a component rather than removing
something. Drawing an analogy between slaughterhouses and car factories
requires a “mental leap” to apply knowledge from a remote domain to the
target domain and produce an idea that is both original and useful. Production
line orassortment decisions are constrained by the company’s resources and
skills as well as consumer preferences and expectations. However, research has
shown that consumers generally appreciate larger assortments (see, for example,
Oppewal and Koelemeijer 2005). Creative ideas for assortment additions are
most likely to originate from a deeper exploration within existing product
varieties, i.e., via the persistence pathway (see Figure 3).
Branding decisions, comprising product positioning and brand extensions,
constitute an important aspect of the marketing of products and services.
Brands need to be carefully loaded with meaning and affect to positively

influence consumer decision-making. Imprinting brand associations in the con-
sumers’ mind requires persistence and consistency, which makes the usefulness
of the generated ideas at least as important as their originality (see Figure 3).
For example, to convey the speed and reliability of a high-end car brand, it
seems more effective to develop associations with Formula 1 racing than with
Elon Musk’s SpaceX project, even though the latter association is likely to be
perceived as more original. Ideas for extending a brand may be best obtained
via the fluency pathway (see Figure 3). For example, Virgin has extended its
brand in many, sometimes seemingly unrelated, directions (airlines, telecom,
insurances, cola, vodka, jeans, wedding services, etc.) (see Wisniewska 2014).
Other brands have followed a persistence pathway by extending their offer in
closely related areas, such as the Honda brand that comprises lawn mowers,
motorcycles, and cars. If a brand extension is too remote, causing consumers
to perceive a lack of fit with the brand image, it may actually hurt the brand
(e.g., Mao and Krishnan 2006). Hence, the usefulness of the generated ideas
for brand extensions should not be ignored (see Figure 3).
Within the realm of new product development decisions, a distinction can
be made between incremental innovations, i.e., modifying or adding new
features to existing products, and radical innovations, i.e., really new products
for which there is no market yet (Schumpeter 1942). Because incremental
innovations build on existing products, the most appropriate pathway to obtain
creative ideas is persistence (see Figure 3), i.e., via a deeper exploration of
existing product categories and features. One can think here of Apple’s yearly
iPhone upgrades or the many Coke flavors and varieties. For incremental
innovations both originality and usefulness are important (see Figure 3).
Radical innovations, such as Google glasses, require a broader exploration
of the idea space, drawing on knowledge from various domains, i.e., via the
flexibility pathway (see Figure 3). For example, Google glasses’ combination of
traditional eyewear and hands-free, smartphone-like technology was inspired
by the computer science concept of “ubiquitous computing” (Cohen 2013).
The different pathways for incremental versus radical innovations are in line
with Lopez-Vega et al. (2016) who distinguish between “situational paths”,
i.e., searching for ideas in the vicinity of existing products (cf. the persistence
pathway), and “analogical paths”, i.e., drawing inspiration from distant fields
(cf. the flexibility pathway). Originality is arguably the most important
objective for radically new products (see Figure 3), but managers need to make
sure that the product also meets customer needs in order to be successful.
Promotion Decisions
Promotion decisions concern a marketing area that is most strongly as-

sociated with creativity, namely marketing communications. For marketing
communications to be effective, i.e., to get across a message, it is quintessential

to grab the consumers’ attention, hence the importance of originality (Al-
thuizen 2017; Pieters et al. 2002). However, the degree of originality depends
on the type of marketing communications.
Sales promotions, such as temporary price discounts, cash refunds, volume
plus, and samples, are action-focused campaigns that entice the consumers
to buy a product or service now in order to boost short-term sales. Hence
ideas for action-focused marketing communications should not only be original,
but also useful or effective. Creative ideas for sales promotion campaigns can
therefore be best obtained via the pathways of persistence or fluency (see
Figure 3. For example, Althuizen and Wierenga (2014) found that providing
previous sales promotion campaigns from domains closely related to the target
problem (cf. the persistence pathway) as a source of inspiration led to more
creative ideas than providing sales promotion campaigns from more remote
domains (cf. the flexibility pathway). A good example of the fluency pathway
is Dutch retailer AH’s long-standing tradition of original and highly effective
campaigns (see also Wierenga and Van Bruggen 2000) that are variations on
the idea of collecting items, such as stuffed animals, soccer player cards, and
kitchen gardening pots, for purchases that exceed a certain amount of money.
Advertising campaigns can serve to increase awareness, convey a message,
influence consumer perceptions and attitudes, and/or establish a desired brand
or product image. Transformational advertising typically provides more leeway
for creativity than informational advertising. Transformational advertising
conveys a message in an affective or experiential manner (e.g., for lifestyle-
related or hedonic products or services), whereas informational advertising
conveys a message via a predominantly cognitive path (e.g., for utility-related
or functional products or services). Creative ideas for transformational ads can
be best obtained via the flexibility pathway (see Figure 3). A famous example
is the “1984” Super Bowl commercial that introduced the Apple Macintosh
computer as a means to save humanity from conformity, drawing an analogy
with George Orwell’s book “1984” in which a televised “Big Brother” rules
a dystopian future (Maney 2004). Because the idea space for informational
advertising is confined by the product information that needs to be conveyed,
the persistence pathway is more suitable here (see Figure 3). To introduce
Nike+, which is a smart wristband that displays information such as running
speed, number of steps, and number of calories burnt, the company opted for
an informative, yet original commercial that explained the product’s features
in much detail and from various angles (comprising developers, users, and
usage situations) (Bergen 2015). DHL, for example, followed a fluency pathway
to convey its “coverage” by showing that they deliver parcels in a wide range
of locations, such as a rainforest, a dessert, and a glacier (Baar 2011). For
informational advertising, originality and usefulness should receive equal weight
(see Figure 3).
Conclusions and Discussion
Despite being one of the top priorities of CEO’s worldwide (IBM 2012),
the number of publications on creativity in marketing journals is relatively
modest, with most articles focusing on the domains of new product develop-
ment and advertising. As should be clear from our discussion of Figure 3,
the importance of creativity is not limited to these marketing domains only.
This article provides a comprehensive, although non-exhaustive, overview of
creativity research in marketing and related domains and offers a framework
for guiding managers in matching their creative needs with the individual and
organizational resources that they have at their disposal. In the following
sections, we discuss the most important implications of our framework and
identify a number of research priorities. In addition, Appendix A provides a
summary of the key managerial take-aways based on extant research.
Managerial Implications
A Differentiated Approach Towards Creativity
Most creativity research has focused on practices and techniques that aim
to support divergent thinking in the idea generation phase (see, for example,
Müller-Wienbergen et al. 2011). This type of support is particularly suitable for
marketing decisions in areas such as advertising and new product development
where originality is important. However, highly original ideas, which are most
likely obtained via the flexibility pathway, are not always needed and can
sometimes even be counter productive, as several studies have found that
increases in the originality of the generated ideas may come at the expense
of their usefulness (e.g., Moreau and Dahl 2005; Rietzschel et al. 2007). For
most marketing decision areas displayed in Figure 3, we therefore identified
persistence as the most suitable pathway to obtain creative ideas that are
both original and useful, with usefulness being more important for the decision
areas that are displayed at the bottom part of Figure 3. We characterized the
persistence pathway as within-the-box thinking, i.e., searching for ideas within
areas of one’s knowledge base that are closely related to the target problem,
but going beyond those ideas that come to mind easily. Digging deeper within
existing categories of ideas or solutions or forming “new combinations of existing
concepts” (Finke et al. 1992) is more likely to result in novel ideas that are
also useful and feasible than trying to generate and implement “out of the box”
ideas (Coyne et al. 2007).
The Strategic Assignment of Resources in Support of Creativity

Depending on the managerial objectives (novelty versus usefulness) and the
preferred pathway to creativity, different types of individual and organizational
resources may be required to facilitate the creative process. Earlier we argued

that existing knowledge is an important resource for generating creative ideas,
but the amount and type of knowledge needed as a basis for idea generation
depends on the nature and objectives of the creative task. Access to a large
amount of domain-specific knowledge will stimulate a deeper search within
that domain (i.e., the persistence pathway), while access to a more diverse
knowledge base will stimulate a broader search for ideas across domains (i.e.,
the flexibility pathway). The company’s marketing managers can be a valuable
source of domain-specific knowledge (e.g., for distribution or pricing decisions),
whereas bringing in external consultants or creatives from specialized agencies
can broaden the set of available knowledge and skills (e.g., for advertising or
new product development decisions). Cross-functional or mixed teams that,
for example, consist of both internal and external professionals, may be most
effective when the aim is to produce a large, diverse set of ideas (i.e., the
fluency pathway).
Putting in Place Effective Creativity-Enhancing Instruments
There are several instruments that managers can deploy to influence the
creative output of their employees (see also Appendix A). First, a creative
ability test could be included in the company’s recruitment and selection
procedures. If existing employees are found to lack specific creative skills
or abilities, creativity training programs or workshops can be organized to
strengthen these skills and abilities (Baruah and Paulus 2008; Burroughs
et al. 2011; Goldenberg et al. 1999a,b). In addition, domain-specific training
and exercises may be offered, such as familiarizing employees with the use
of Goldenberg et al.’s (1999a,b) “creativity templates” for developing new
products and advertisements.
When deploying feedback and monitoring instruments, managers should
keep in mind that close supervision may increase pressure and instill a fear
of leaving beaten tracks, which could prove counterproductive for enhancing
creativity. Although some companies allow employees to spend a limited
amount of their work time freely, research suggests that unlimited freedom
does not necessarily produce the most creative results. In certain situations,
setting input or time constraints may actually increase creativity by forcing
people to leave the path of least resistance (Burroughs and Mick 2004; Moreau
and Dahl 2005; Sellier and Dahl 2011). Providing incentives can also stimulate
creativity, i.e., if the reward scheme is thoughtfully designed and the evaluation
procedures and criteria are specified clearly (see the section “Assessing the
Creativity of the Outcomes”). Creativity awards of professional marketing
associations may also give a motivational boost to perform creatively.
Finally, managers can put in place (IT-enabled) creativity support systems
to aid employees in the creative process and stimulate them to explore the idea
space more thoroughly (Garfield 2008; Seidel et al. 2010). To be most effective,
these tools ideally should offer support for both knowledge activation (to
stimulate divergent thinking and originality) and idea production (to stimulate
convergent thinking and usefulness) (Müller-Wienbergen et al. 2011). Even
though creativity support systems in marketing are still rare, Figure 2 may
offer guidance for managers who are interested in deploying or developing
(marketing-oriented) creativity support systems. Further research is nonethe-
less needed on the working and effectiveness of such creativity support systems
(for example, who benefits most: creative or non-creative individuals?), as
well as for other creativity-enhancing management instruments, which leads
us to the discussion of the research priorities that we identified based on our
framework.
Priorities for Creativity Research in Marketing
Unraveling the Mechanisms That Underlie Creative Production in Marketing
Based on our current understanding of how creativity works, in Figure 3 we

presented a possible application of our framework for matching the demand and
supply side of creativity in marketing. However, an issue that warrants further
investigation is how exactly the indicated pathways for the specific marketing
decisions will influence the novelty and usefulness of the generated ideas. In
other words, to what extent do they lead to the desired outcomes? Given that
each domain has it is own dynamics and particularities, it is worthwhile to
conduct empirical research that also covers other marketing decision domains
than creative advertisements or really new products, which have received most
attention so far. Further research should also take stock of actual creative
strategies used by marketing managers in various areas and map these onto
the framework presented in this article to assess the extent to which our
theory is aligned with practice (and in case they do not match well: what
types of revisions are needed?). For testing the causal relationships implied by
our conceptual framework, field or laboratory experiments are needed. Prior
experimental work on creativity in marketing has been conducted mostly in a
consumer-oriented context. We call for an extension of this type of work to
managerial decision-making settings, such as the ones discussed in this article.
It should be possible to manipulate the different pathways to creativity and
the available individual or organizational resources (as presented in Figure 1)
in field or laboratory experiments. Such experimental work could, for example,
involve the generation of ideas for new brand names, web shop designs, or
sales promotion campaigns.
Return on Investment of Creative Marketing
Different from advertising, sales force, and sales promotion expenditures,

companies usually do not have a separate budget for creativity. Neither
are there models available to optimally allocate creativity expenditures over
marketing decision domains, human resources, and creativity-enhancing instru-
ments, such as training programs or creativity support systems. Creative ideas
or solutions typically come with a high price tag, for example due to the time
invested, the hiring of creative employees or specialized agencies, the provision
of creativity training programs, or the acquisition of a creativity support
system. Given the significant investments, it would be useful to calculate
the return on investment (ROI) of creative marketing. To be able to do so,
having a dedicated creativity budget would be a logical first step. As further
research sets out to unravel the mechanisms that underlie creative production
in marketing, assessing the effects of pathways, resources, and instruments on
the originality and usefulness of the generated ideas or solutions more precisely,
it should become possible in the future to relate creativity spending directly
to revenues. Meanwhile, researchers can work on the methods and procedures
for calculating the ROI for marketing spending on creativity.
Paying Attention to the Usefulness of Creative Ideas
Creativity research has not paid much attention to the actual production,
evaluation, and selection of ideas. These phases in the creative process require
convergent thinking and are important for the usefulness of the generated ideas
(see, for example, Müller-Wienbergen et al. 2011). As mentioned earlier, ideas
that are highly original also bring uncertainty, which may lead to substantial
resistance or even rejection within organizations (Mueller et al. 2012; Rubenson
and Runco 1995). Enhancing the perceived usefulness of highly original,
but risky ideas will facilitate their acceptance within organizations (cf. Baer
2012). Further research may focus on the development of creativity-enhancing
practices and techniques that are capable of stimulating divergent thinking as
well as convergent thinking (see Müller-Wienbergen et al. 2011), to enhance
both the novelty and usefulness of the generated ideas or solutions.
Soliciting Creative Input from Consumers
A trend nowadays is to involve consumers earlier in the creative process

and on a much larger scale than previously (e.g., Boudreau and Lakhani 2013;
Lilien et al. 2002; Von Hippel 2005). Crowdsourcing pioneers such as Dell and
Starbucks have established popular online platforms where consumers can post
their own ideas and solutions or comment on those generated by others (Di
Gangi and Wasko 2009). Research has recently begun to address the question
as to how to effectively solicit consumer creativity and how to optimally design
crowdsourcing platforms (e.g., Afuah and Tucci 2010; Hildebrand et al. 2013;
Huang et al. 2014; Luo and Toubia 2015; Stephen et al. 2016). This emerging
stream of research has shown, for example, that consumer-generated ideas can
be (1) more original, because consumers are less hampered by knowledge of
existing solutions and technical limitations than professionals (Kristensson
et al. 2004), and (2) more useful, because consumers know best their unfulfilled
needs and wants (Poetz and Schreier 2012).
Based on our framework, we believe that the following questions in par-
ticular deserve further attention. First, what kind of tools or techniques can
managers deploy to steer the idea-generation process of consumers or the
“crowd” in the right direction in terms of the pathways to creativity and the
level of originality and usefulness of the outcomes? The literature offers some
suggestions in terms of the type of stimuli that could be used for cognitive
stimulation, such as letting consumers build on ideas generated by others
(e.g., Leimeister et al. 2009; Paulus et al. 2013), enrich or modify a prototype
(Althuizen and Chen 2016), or use a designated set of input materials (Moreau
and Dahl 2005; Metha and Zhu 2015). On its crowdsourcing platform, LEGO,
for example, highlights a broad variety of consumer-generated designs, which
is likely to stimulate potential idea contributors to explore the idea space more
broadly (flexibility pathway) and, hence, could enhance the originality of the
generated ideas (Schlagwein and Bjørn-Andersen 2014). Another example is
Starbucks’ cup design contest, in which consumers were invited to redesign
the prototypical Starbucks cup which arguably stimulates an in-depth explo-
ration of existing Starbucks cup varieties (persistence pathway). Second, what
role do social interactions, including (peer) rating and feedback mechanisms,
play in idea generation and idea selection processes within crowdsourcing
communities? (see, for example, Goncalo and Duguid 2012; Huang et al.
2014; Stephen et al. 2016). Research on the effects of social interactions in
crowdsourcing communities has shown that evaluation, feedback, and support
from peers can enhance the creativity of the generated ideas, for example by
increasing the cognitive flexibility of the community members (e.g., Chan et al.
2015). However, there can also be detrimental effects, for example when peer
evaluations affect one’s intrinsic motivation and satisfaction with the process
(e.g., Hildebrand et al. 2013).
Appendix A
Table A.1: Managerial questions and guidelines for matching creative demand and supply.
Managerial questions Examples of

and guidelines empirical studies
Focus on the originality or usefulness dimension of
creative ideas?
Strategy: determine the degree of originality and usefulness Kilgour and Koslow (2009)
required, which may depend on the problem domain (e.g., Miron-Spektor and Beenen
advertising versus pricing) and the specifics, constraints, (2015)
and objectives of the task (e.g., advertising for utilitarian Moldovan et al. (2006)
versus hedonic goods). Originality helps to stand out in Pieters et al. (2002)
the market clutter, attracting attention, usefulness helps Sheinin et al. (2011)
to fulfill customer needs and wants, ensuring bottom-line
results.
Which pathways can lead to the desired creative
outcomes?
Fluency: focus on quantity, free-flowing idea generation, for Althuizen and Chen (2016)
identifying interesting areas of the idea space for further Althuizen and Reichel (2016)
exploration, e.g., in the early phases of a project. Baas et al. (2011)
Persistence: focus on depth, within-category idea genera- De Dreu et al. (2008)
tion, i.e., digging deeper within an area of the idea space for Coyne et al. (2007)
more original yet useful solutions, e.g., when incremental Lucas and Nordgren (2015)
innovations are sought. Nijstad et al. (2010)
Flexibility: focus on breadth, across-category idea genera- Rietzschel et al. (2007)
tion, i.e., roaming remote areas of the idea space for more Rossiter and Lilien (1994)
original ideas, e.g., when radical innovations are sought.
How to allocate individual resources to the task?
Main Strategy: Recruit and select creative, experienced, Althuizen (2012)
and motivated individuals outsource the task to special- Althuizen et al. (2010)
ized agencies or consultants, or solicit creative input from Althuizen and Wierenga
consumers. (2014)
Alternative: Boost the creative performance of employees Burroughs and Mick (2004)
who are not highly creative, experienced, or (intrinsically) Franke et al. (2014)
motivated with creative-enhancing practices or tools, such Goncalo and Duguid (2012)
as the ones listed in the second part of this table. Hirschmann (1980)
Method: Ask for a creative portfolio or administer tests of Huang et al. (2014)
creative ability (e.g., Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) Kabanoff and Rossiter (1994)
and personality traits (e.g., Big Five: openness to experi- Lilien et al. (2002)
ence). If needed for the task, administer tests of specific
abilities, such as analogical or metaphorical thinking.
(Continued)
Table A.1: (Continued)

How to tackle creative tasks with teams?
Homogeneous teams: when the focus is on the depth of explo- Dennis and Valacich
ration (persistence pathway), compose a team of individuals (1993)
with substantial experience and expertise with the target do- Diehl and Stroebe (1987)
main or analogous domains. Nijstad et al. (2002)
Heterogeneous teams: when the focus is on the number of Paulus and Yang (2000)
ideas (fluency pathway) or breadth of exploration (flexibil- Sethi et al. (2001)
ity pathway), compose a team of individuals with a diverse Singh and Fleming (2010)
set of backgrounds and experiences. Open communication is Sosa (2011)
important for the exchange and understanding of ideas. Taylor and Greve (2006)
Virtual teams: when the focus is on the number and diversity of Valacich et al. (1992)
ideas (fluency and flexibility pathways), use computer-mediated
(or anonymous) techniques to alleviate negative team effects,
such as production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and
fixation (or cognitive inertia) effects.
Putting in place which creativity-enhancing practices
and tools?
Training: Offer basic creativity training or workshops for em- Baruah and Paulus (2008)
ployees that want or need to strengthen their creative think- Burroughs et al. (2011)
ing and problem-solving skills. Depending on the task, more Goldenberg et al.
domain-specific training (and exercises) may be offered, such as (1999a,b)
the “template” training offered by Goldenberg and colleagues Scott et al. (2004)
in advertising and new product development.
Incentives: If individuals are not intrinsically motivated, then Eisenberger and Aselage
motivate them extrinsically with a reward system that recog- (2009)
nizes individual (and long-term) contributions. If desirable, Toubia (2006)
rewards could be given for the fluency, persistence (within-
category fluency), or flexibility of the idea contributor.
Constraints: If giving unlimited freedom is not feasible, care- Burroughs and Mick
fully chosen input constraints (time, money, materials, etc.) (2004)
can force individuals to leave a path of least resistance and, Metha & Zhu (2015)
hence, stimulate a deeper exploration within the constrained Moreau and Dahl (2005)
area of the idea space (persistence pathway). Rosso (2014)
Sellier and Dahl (2011)
Management: Employ a supportive and encouraging manage- Gong et al. (2009)
ment style without engaging in close monitoring, which may Shalley et al. (2004)
stifle employee creativity. Empower employees by tolerating Zhang and Bartol (2010)
failure, encouraging risk taking, and letting them do their job Zhou (2003)
in an autonomous manner. Feedback should be developmental
and creative coworkers may serve as role models.
(Continued)
Table A.1: (Continued)

IT-enabled tools: See Figure 2 for guidance on the selec- Althuizen and Wierenga
tion and development of IT-enabled tools that are capable (2014)
of cognitively stimulating individuals or teams to explore Althuizen and Reichel (2016)
the idea space more thoroughly, In general, the best tools Müller-Wienbergen et al.
would offer support for knowledge activation (to facilitate (2011)
idea generation/divergent thinking/originality) as well as Seidel et al. (2010)
idea production (to facilitate idea development/convergent
thinking/usefulness).
How to assess the outcome(s) of the creative task?
Strategy: Evaluate the creativity, originality, and usefulness Althuizen and Wierenga
of the generated ideas. If necessary, given the managerial (2014)
objectives, revise the generated ideas or adjust the pro- Althuizen and Reichel (2016)
cedure used to obtain the ideas. Assess the likelihood of Briggs and Reinig (2010)
success and potential resistance for highly original ideas. In Burroughs et al. (2011)
case of the implementation of ideas, document the results Dahl et al. (1999)
in terms of sales/profitability. Dahl and Moreau (2002)
Method: Ask 2–4 domain experts to assess the creativity, Dean et al. (2006)
originality, and/ or usefulness of the generated ideas or Girotra et al. (2010)
survey a sufficiently large sample of target consumers. Pilot Kornish and Ulrich (2014)
test the best idea(s) within the organization or within a Im and Workman Jr. (2004)
consumer focus group. If a creativity-enhancing technique Sellier and Dahl (2011)
has been used, assess its effectiveness in terms of idea
quantity and quality.
References
Afuah, Allan and Christopher L. Tucci (2010), “Crowdsourcing as a Solution

to Distant Search,” Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–75.
Althuizen, Niek (2012), “The Relative Performance of Different Methods for
Selecting Creative Marketing Personnel,” Marketing Letters, 23(4), 973–85.
Althuizen, Niek (2017), “Communicating a Key Benefit Claim Creatively and
Effectively Through Five Conveyor Properties,” Psychology & Marketing,
forthcoming.
Althuizen, Niek and Bo Chen (2016), “Soliciting Consumer Creativity: How
Prototype Exposure and Design Goal Jointly Influence the Search for Ideas
in Associative Memory,” Working paper.
Althuizen, Niek and A. Reichel (2016), “The Effects of IT-Enabled Cogni-
tive Stimulation Tools on Creative Problem Solving: A Dual Pathway to
Creativity,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 11–44.
Althuizen, Niek, A. Reichel, and Berend Wierenga (2012), “Help that is

not Recognized: Harmful Neglect of Decision Support Systems,” Decision
Support Systems, 54(1), 719–28.
Althuizen, Niek and Berend Wierenga (2014), “Supporting Creative Problem
Solving with a Case-Based Reasoning System,” Journal of Management
Information Systems, 31(1), 309–40.
Althuizen, Niek, Berend Wierenga, and John R. Rossiter (2010), “The Validity
of Two Brief Measures of Creative Ability,” Creativity Research Journal,
22(1), 53–61.
Amabile, Teresa M. (1983), The Social Psychology of Creativity, New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, Teresa M. (1988), “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organi-
zations,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. Barry M. Staw and
Larry L. Cummings, Vol. 10, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 123–67.
Amabile, Teresa M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Amabile, Teresa M. (1998), “How to Kill Creativity,” Harvard Business Review,
76(5), 77–87.
Andrews, Jonlee and Daniel C. Smith (1996), “In Search of the Marketing
Imagination: Factors Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs for
Mature Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33(2), 174–87.
Ausubel, David P. (1968), Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Baar, Aaron (2011), “DHL Launches ‘International Specialists’ Campaign,”
Marketing Daily, September 12, 2011.
Baas, Matthijs, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, and Bernard A. Nijstad (2011), “When
Prevention Promotes Creativity: The Role of Mood, Regulatory Focus and
Regulatory Closure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5),
794–809.
Baer, Markus (2010), “The Strength-of-Weak-Ties Perspective on Creativ-
ity: A Comprehensive Examination and Extension,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(3), 592–601.
Baer, Markus (2012), “Putting Creativity to Work: The Implementation of
Creative Ideas in Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, 55(5),
1102–19.
Baer, Markus and Greg R. Oldham (2006), “The Curvilinear Relation between
Experienced Creative Time Pressure and Creativity: Moderating Effects of
Openness to Experience and Support for Creativity,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 963–70.
Baruah, Jonali and Paulus B. Paulus (2008), “Effects of Training on Idea
Generation in Groups,” Small Group Research, 39(5), 523–41.
Benders, Jos and Masaya Morita (2004), “Changes in Toyota Motors’ Opera-
tions Management,” International Journal of Production Research, 42(3),
433–44.
Bergen, Mark (2015), “Nike +,” in Advertising Age: Top Ad Campaigns (E-
book), Crain Communications.
Boudreau, Kevin J. and Karim R. Lakhani (2013), “Using the Crowd as an
Innovation Partner,” Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 60–9.
Briggs, Robert O. and Bruce A. Reinig (2010), “Bounded Ideation Theory,”
Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 123–44.
Burnham, Thomas A., Judy K. Frels, and Vijay Mahajan (2003), “Consumer
Switching Costs: A Typology, Antecedents, and Consequences,” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109–26.
Burroughs, James E., Darren W. Dahl, C. Page Moreau, Amitava Chattopad-
hyay, and Gerald J. Gorn (2011), “Facilitating and Rewarding Creativity
During New Product Development,” Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 53–67.
Burroughs, James E. and David Glen Mick (2004), “Exploring Antecedents
and Consequences of Consumer Creativity in a Problem-Solving Context,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 402–11.
Cerne, Matej, Christina G. L. Nerstad, Anders Dysvik, and Miha Skerlavaj
(2014), “What Goes Around Comes Around: Knowledge Hiding, Perceived
Motivational Climate, and Creativity,” Academy of Management Journal,
57(1), 172–92.
Chan, Kimmy W., Stella Y. Li, and John J. Zhu (2015), “Fostering Customer
Ideation in Crowdsourcing Community: The Role of Peer-to-Peer and
Peer-To-Firm Interactions,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 31, 42–62.
Cheung, Pak-Keung, Patrick Y. K. Chau, and Anson K. K. Au (2008), “Does
Knowledge Reuse Make a Creative Person more Creative?” Decision Support
Systems, 45(2), 219–77.
Clancy, Kevin J. and Peter Krieg (2007), Your Gut is Still Not Smarter than
Your Head: How Fact-Based Marketing Can Drive Growth and Profits,
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, Reuven (2013), “Google Glass: The Next Step in Computer Evolution
and Maybe Even Human Evolution,” Forbes, April 30, 2013.
Costa, Paul T. and Robert R. McCrae (1992), “Four Ways Five Factors are
Basic,” Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–65.
Couger, J. Daniel, Lexis F. Higgins, and Scott C. McIntyre (1993), “(Un)structured
Creativity in Information Systems Organizations,” MIS Quarterly, 17(4),
375–97.
Coyne, Kevin P., Patricia G. Clifford, and Renée Dye (2007), “Breakthrough
Thinking From Inside the Box,” Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 70–8.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Dis-
covery and Invention, New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Dahl, Darren W., Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Gerald J. Gorn (1999), “The
Use of Visual Mental Imagery in New Product Design,” Journal of Market-
ing Research, 36(1), 18–28.
Dahl, Darren W. and C. Page Moreau (2002), “The Influence and Value of
Analogical Thinking During New Product Ideation,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 39(1), 47–60.
Dahl, Darren W. and C. Page Moreau (2007), “Thinking Inside the Box: Why
Consumers Enjoy Constrained Creative Experiences,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 44(3), 357–69.
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Matthijs Baas, and Bernard A. Nijstad (2008),
“Hedonic Tone and Activation Level in the Mood–Creativity Link: Toward
a Dual Pathway to Creativity Model,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94(5), 739–56.
Dean, Douglas L., Jillian M. Hender, Thomas L. Rodgers, and Eric L. Santanen
(2006), “Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and
Scales for Idea Evaluation,” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 7(10), 646–99.
Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and
Self-Determination in Human Behavior, New York, NY: Plenum.
Dennis, Alan R. and Joseph S. Valacich (1993), “Computer Brainstorms: More
Heads are Better than One,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531–7.
Di Gangi, Paul M. and Molly Wasko (2009), “Steal My Idea! Organizational
Adoption of User Innovations From a User Innovation Community: A Case
Study of Dell Ideastorm,” Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 303–12.
Diehl, Michael and Wolfgang Stroebe (1987), “Productivity Loss in Brain-
storming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.
Dyer, Jeffrey H., Hal B. Gregersen, and Clayton M. Christensen (2009), “The
Innovator’s DNA,” Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 61–7.
Easton, George K., Joey F. George, Jay F. Nunamaker Jr., and Mark O.
Pendergast (1990), “Using Two Different Electronic Meeting System Tools
for the Same Task: An Experimental Comparison,” Journal of Management
Information Systems, 7(1), 85–100.
Ederer, Florian and Gustavo Manso (2013), “Is Pay for Performance Detri-
mental to Innovation?” Management Science, 59(7), 1496–513.
Edvardsson, Bo, Bo Enquist, and Robert Johnston (2005), “Cocreating Cus-
tomer Value Through Hyperreality in the Prepurchase Service Experience,”
Journal of Service Research, 8(2), 149–61.
Eisenberger, Robert and Justin Aselage (2009), “Incremental Effects of Reward
on Experienced Performance Pressure: Positive Outcomes for Intrinsic
Interest and Creativity,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95–
117.
Eliashberg, Jehoshua, Quintus Hegie, Jason Ho, Dennis Huisman, Steven

J. Miller, Sanjeev Swami, Charles B. Weinberg, and Berend Wierenga
(2009), “Demand-Driven Scheduling of Movies in a Multiplex,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 75–88.
Epstein, Robert, Katrina Kaminaka, Victoria Phan, and Rachel Uda (2013),
“How is Creativity Best Managed? Some Empirical and Theoretical Guide-
lines,” Creativity & Innovation Management, 22(4), 359–74.
Finke, Ronald A., Thomas B. Ward, and Steven M. Smith (1992), Creative
Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ford, Henry and Samuel Crowther (1922), My Life and Work, Garden City,
NY: Garden City Publishing.
Franke, Nikolaus, Marion K. Poetz, and Martin Schreier (2014), “Integrating
Problem Solvers From Analogous Markets in New Product Ideation,”
Management Science, 60(4), 1063–81.
Garfield, Monica J. (2008), “Creativity Support Systems,” in Handbook on
Decision Support Systems 2: Variations, ed. Frada Burnstein and Clyde W.
Holsapple, Heidelberg: Springer, 745–58.
Garfield, Monica J., Nolan J. Taylor, Alan R. Dennis, and John W. Satzinger
(2001), “Research Report: Modifying Paradigms — Individual Differences,
Creativity Techniques, and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation,”
Information Systems Research, 12(3), 322–33.
George, Jennifer M. and Jing Zhou (2001), “When Openness to Experience
and Conscientiousness are Related to Creative Behavior: An Interactional
Approach,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–24.
Girotra, Karan, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl T. Ulrich (2010), “Idea Gen-
eration and the Quality of the Best Idea,” Management Science, 56(4),
591–605.
Goff, Kathy and E. Paul Torrance (2002), Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults
Manual, Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon (1999a), “The Fun-
damental Templates Of Quality Ads,” Marketing Science, 18(3), 333–51.
Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon (1999b), “Toward
Identifying the Inventive Templates of New Products: A Channeled Ideation
Approach,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 200–10.
Goncalo, Jack A. and Michelle M. Duguid (2012), “Follow the Crowd in a New
Direction: When Conformity Pressure Facilitates Group Creativity (And
When It Does Not),” Organizational Behavior and Human Development
Processes, 118(1), 14–23.
Gong, Yaping, Jia-Chi Huang, and Jiing-Lih Farh (2009), “Employee Learning
Orientation, Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The
Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-Efficacy,” Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 52(4), 765–78.
Gough, Harrison G. (1979), “A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective

Check List,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–405.
Grant, Adam M. and James W. Berry (2011), “The Necessity of Others is
the Mother of Invention: Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective-
Taking, and Creativity,” Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96.
Guilford, Joy Paul (1950), “Creativity,” American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–54.
Harrison, Yvonne and James A. Horne (1999), “One Night of Sleep Loss
Impairs Innovative Thinking and Flexible Decision-Making,” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(2), 128–45.
Hildebrand, Christian, Gerald Häubl, Andreas Herrmann, and Jan R. Landwehr
(2013), “When Social Media Can Be Bad For You: Community Feedback
Stifles Consumer Creativity and Reduces Satisfaction with Self-Designed
Products,” Information Systems Research, 24(1), 14–29.
Hirschmann, Elizabeth C. (1980), “Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Con-
sumer Creativity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 283–95.
Hirst, Giles, Daan Van Knippenberg, Jing Zhou, Eric Quintane, and Jiuhua
Zhu (2015), “Heard it Through the Grapevine: Indirect Networks and
Employee Creativity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 567–74.
Hoever, Inga J., Daan Van Knippenberg, Wendy P. Van Ginkel, and Harry G.
Barkema (2012), “Fostering Team Creativity: Perspective Taking as Key
to Unlocking Diversity’s Potential,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5),
982–96.
Homan, Astrid C., John R. Hollenbeck, Stephen E. Humphrey, Daan Van
Knippenberg, Daniel R. Ilgen, and Gerben A. Van Kleef (2008), “Facing
Differences with an Open Mind: Openness to Experience, Salience of
Intragroup Differences, and Performance of Diverse Work Groups,” Academy
of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204–22.
Huang, Yan, Param V. Singh, and Kannan Srinivasan (2014), “Crowdsourcing
New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning,” Management Science,
60(9), 2138–59.
IBM (2012), Leading Through Connections: Insights From the Global Chief
Executive Officer Study Somers, NY: IBM Global Business Services.
Im, Subin and John P. Workman Jr. (2004), “Market Orientation, Creativity,
and New Product Performance in High-Technology Firms,” Journal of
Marketing, 68(2), 114–32.
Jallat, Frédéric and Fabio Ancarani (2008), “Yield Management, Dynamic
Pricing and CRM in Telecommunications,” Journal of Services Marketing,
22(6), 465–78.
Kabanoff, Boris and John R. Rossiter (1994), “Recent Developments in Ap-
plied Creativity,” in International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, ed. Cary L. Cooper and Ivan T. Robertson, London: Wiley,
283–324.
Kilgour, Mark and Scott Koslow (2009), “Why and How Do Creative Thinking
Techniques Work?: Trading Off Originality and Appropriateness to Make
More Creative Advertising,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
37(3), 298–309.
Kirton, Michael (1976), “Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622–9.
Kleinberg, Adam (2013), “How Agencies Can Fend Off the Threat of Marketing
Services Moving In-House,” Advertising Age, published online September
13, 2013.
Knoll, Stefan W. and Graham Horton (2011), “Changing the Perspective:
Using a Cognitive Model to Improve Thinklets for Ideation,” Journal of
Management Information Systems, 28(1), 85–114.
Kolodner, Janet L. (1993), Case-Based Reasoning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Kornish, Laura J. and Karl T. Ulrich (2011), “Opportunity Spaces in Innovation:
Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas,” Management Science, 57(1),
107–28.
Kornish, Laura J. and Karl T. Ulrich (2014), “The Importance of the Raw Idea
in Innovation: Testing the Sow’s Ear Hypothesis,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 51(1), 14–26.
Koslow, Scott, Sheila L. Sasser, and Edward A. Riordan (2006), “Do Marketers
Get the Advertising they Need or the Advertising they Deserve? Agency
Views of How Clients Influence Creativity,” Journal of Advertising, 35(3),
81–101.
Kover, Arthur J., Stephen M. Goldberg, and William L. James (1995), “Cre-
ativity vs. Effectiveness? An Integrative Classification for Advertising,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 35(6), 29–38.
Kristensson, Per, Anders Gustafsson, and Trevor Archer (2004), “Harness-
ing the Creative Potential Among Users,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 21(1), 4–14.
Lamm, Helmut and Gisela Trommsdorff (1973), “Group versus Individual
Performance On Tasks Requiring Ideational Proficiency (Brainstorming):
A Review,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(4), 361–88.
Leimeister, Jan Marco, Michael Huber, Ulrich Bretschneider, and Helmut
Krcmar (2009), “Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Com-
ponents For IT-Based Ideas Competition,” Journal of Management Infor-
mation Systems, 26(1), 197–224.
Levitt, Theodore (1983), The Marketing Imagination, New York: The Free
Press.
Lilien, Gary L., Pamela D. Morrison, Kathleen Searls, Mary Sonnack, and
Eric von Hippel (2002), “Performance Assessment of the Lead User Idea-
Generation Process For New Product Development,” Management Science,
48(8), 1042–59.
Lopez-Vega, Henry, Fredrik Tell, and Wim Vanhaverbeke (2016), “Where and
How to Search? Search Paths in Open Innovation,” Research Policy, 45(1),
125–36.
Lucas, Brian J. and Loran F. Nordgren (2015), “People Underestimate the
Value of Persistence For Creative Performance,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 109(2), 232–43.
Luo, Lan and Olivier Toubia (2015), “Improving Online Idea Generation Plat-
forms and Customizing the Task Structure Based on Consumers’ Domain
Specific Knowledge,” Journal of Marketing, 79(5), 100–14.
Ma, Hsen-Hsing (2006), “A Synthetic Analysis of the Effectiveness of Single
Components and Packages in Creativity Training Programs,” Creativity
Research Journal, 18(4), 435–46.
MacCrimmon, Kenneth R. and Christian Wagner (1994), “Stimulating Ideas
Through Creative Software,” Management Science, 40(11), 1514–32.
Madjar, Nora, Greg R. Oldham, and Michael G. Pratt (2002), “There’s No
Place Like Home? The Contributions of Work and Nonwork Creativity
Support to Employees’ Creative Performance,” Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4), 757–67.
Maney, Kevin (2004), “Apple’s ‘1984’ Super Bowl Commercial Still Stands as
Watershed Event,” USA Today, January 28, 2004.
Mao, Huifang and H. Shanker Krishnan (2006), “Effects of Prototype and
Exemplar Fit on Brand Extension Evaluations: A Two-Process Contingency
Model,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 41–9.
Massetti, Brenda (1996), “An Empirical Examination of the Value of Creativity
Support Systems on Idea Generation,” MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 83–97.
Mednick, Sarnoff (1962), “The Associative Basis of the Creative Process,”
Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–32.
Miron-Spektor, Ella and Gerard Beenen (2015), “Motivating Creativity: The
Effects of Sequential and Simultaneous Learning and Performance Achieve-
ment Goals on Product Novelty and Usefulness,” Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65.
Moldovan, Sarit, Jacob Goldenberg, and Amitava Chattopadhyay (2006), “The
Different Roles of Product Originality and Usefulness in Generating Word-
of-Mouth,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 109–
19.
Monroe, Kent B. (2003), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Moorman, Christine and Anne S. Miner (1997), “The Impact of Organiza-
tional Memory On New Product Performance and Creativity,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 34(1), 91–106.
Moreau, C. Page and Darren W. Dahl (2005), “Designing the Solution: The
Impact of Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 32(1), 13–22.
Moreau, C. Page and Marit Gundersen Engeset (2016), “The Downstream

Consequences of Problem-Solving Mindsets: How Playing with LEGO
Influences Creativity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 18–30.
Mueller, Jennifer S., Shimul Melwani, and Jack A. Goncalo (2012), “The
Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas,”
Psychological Science, 21, 13–7.
Müller-Wienbergen, Felix, Oliver Müller, Stefan Seidel, and Jörg Becker (2011),
“Leaving the Beaten Tracks in Creative Work — A Design Theory for
Systems that Support Convergent and Divergent Thinking,” Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 12(11), 714–40.
Mumford, Michael D., Kimberly S. Hester, Issac C. Robledo, David R. Peterson,
Eric A. Day, Dean F. Hougen, and Jamie D. Barrett (2012), “Mental
Models and Creative Problem-Solving: The Relationship of Objective and
Subjective Model Attributes,” Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 311–30.
Nijstad, Bernard A., Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Eric F. Rietzschel, and Matthijs
Baas (2010), “The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model: Creative Ideation
as a Function of Flexibility and Persistence,” European Review of Social
Psychology, 21(1), 34–77.
Nijstad, Bernard A. and Wolfgang Stroebe (2006), “How the Group Affects
the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups,” Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186–213.
Nijstad, Bernard A., Wolfgang Stroebe, and Hein F. M. Lodewijkx (2002),
“Cognitive Stimulation and Interference In Groups: Exposure Effects in an
Idea Generation Task,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6),
535–44.
Oldham, Greg R. and Anne Cummings (1996), “Employee Creativity: Personal
and Contextual Factors At Work,” Academy of Management Journal, 39(3),
607–34.
Oppewal, Harmen and Kitty Koelemeijer (2005), “More Choice is Better:
Effects of Assortment Size and Composition on Assortment Evaluation,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(1), 45–60.
Osborn, Alex F. (1957), Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of
Creative Problem-Solving, New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Papier, Felix (2016), “The Supply Chain Technology Revolution?” ESSEC
Knowledge, March 22, 2016, accessed on August 19, 2016 from: http://
knowledge.essec.edu/en/innovation/supply-chain-technology-revolution.
html.
Parnes, Sidney J. (1961), “Effects of Extended Effort in Creative Problem
Solving,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(3), 117–22.
Paulus, Paul B., Nicholas W. Kohn, Lauren E. Arditti, and Runa M. Korde
(2013), “Understanding the Group Size Effect in Electronic Brainstorming,”
Small Group Research, 44(3), 332–52.
Paulus, Paul B. and Huei-Chuan Yang (2000), “Idea Generation in Groups:

A Basis For Creativity in Organizations,” Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.
Pieters, Rik, Luk Warlop, and Michel Wedel (2002), “Breaking Through the
Clutter: Benefits of Advertisement Originality and Familiarity For Brand
Attention and Memory,” Management Science, 48(6), 765–81.
Plucker, Jonathan A. and Joseph S. Renzulli (1999), “Psychometric Approaches
to the Study of Human Creativity,” in Handbook of Creativity, ed. Robert J.
Sternberg, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 35–52.
Poetz, Marion K. and Martin Schreier (2012), “The Value of Crowdsourcing:
Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product
Ideas?” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 235–56.
Rao, Hayagreeva, Robert Sutton, and Allen P. Webb (2008), “Innovation
Lessons from Pixar: An Interview with Oscar-Winning Director Brad
Bird,” McKinsey Quarterly, April, 2008, accessed on August 19, 2016 from:
http://www.mckinsey.it/storage/first/uploadfile/attach/140140/file/
inle08.pdf..
Reid, Leonard N., Karen Whitehill King, and Denise E. DeLorme (1998),
“Top-Level Agency Creatives Look at Advertising Creativity Then and
Now,” Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 1–16.
Reitman, Walter (1965), Cognition and Thought, New York, NY: Wiley.
Rietzschel, Eric F., Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe (2006), “Produc-
tivity is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorm-
ing Groups on Idea Generation and Selection,” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–51.
Rietzschel, Eric F., Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe (2007), “Rel-
ative Accessibility of Domain Knowledge and Creativity: The Effects of
Knowledge Activation on the Quantity and Originality of Generated Ideas,”
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 933–46.
Rossiter, John R. (2008), “Defining the Necessary Components of Creative,
Effective Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 139–44.
Rossiter, John R. and Gary L. Lilien (1994), “New “Brainstorming” Principles,”
Australian Journal of Management, 19(1), 61–72.
Rosso, Brent D. (2014), “Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of
Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams,”
Organizational Studies, 35(4), 551–85.
Rubenson, Daniel L. and Mark A. Runco (1995), “The Psychoeconomic View
of Creative Work in Groups and Organizations,” Creativity and Innovation
Management, 4(4), 232–41.
Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci (2000), “Self-Determination Theory
and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-
Being,” American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Santanen, Eric L., Robert O. Briggs, and Gert-Jan De Vreede (2004), “Causal
Relationships in Creative Problem Solving: Comparing Facilitation Inter-
ventions for Ideation,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4),
167–97.
Schlagwein, Daniel and Niels Bjørn-Andersen (2014), “Organizational Learn-
ing with Crowdsourcing: The Revelatory Case of LEGO,” Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 15(11), 754–78.
Schumpeter, Joseph (1942), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York,
NY: Harper.
Scott, Ginamarie, Lyle E. Leritz, and Michael D. Mumford (2004), “The
Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review,” Creativity
Research Journal, 16(4), 361–88.
Scott, Susanne G. and Reginald A. Bruce (1994), “Determinants of Innovative
Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace,”
Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
Seidel, Stefan, Felix Müller-Wienbergen, and Jörg Becker (2010), “The Concept
of Creativity in the Information Systems Discipline: Past, Present, and
Prospects,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
27(1), 218–42.
Sellier, Anne and Darren W. Dahl (2011), “Focus! Creative Success is Enjoyed
Through Restricted Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 996–
1007.
Sethi, Rajesh, Daniel C. Smith, and C. Whan Park (2001), “Cross-Functional
Product Development Teams, Creativity, and the Innovativeness of New
Consumer Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85.
Shalley, Christina E. and Jill E. Perry-Smith (2001), “Effects of Social-Psy-
chological Factors on Creative Performance: The Role of Informational and
Controlling Expected Evaluation and Modeling Experience,” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1), 1–22.
Shalley, Christina E., Jing Zhou, and Greg R. Oldham (2004), “The Effects of
Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We
Go From Here?” Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–58.
Sheinin, Daniel A., Sajeev Varki, and Christy Ashley (2011), “The Differential
Effect of Ad Novelty and Message Usefulness on Brand Judgments,” Journal
of Advertising, 40(3), 5–18.
Simonton, Dean K. (2003), “Scientific Creativity as Constrained Stochastic
Behavior: The Integration of Product, Person, and Process Perspectives,”
Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–94.
Simonton, Dean K. (2004), Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and
Zeitgeist, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Singh, Jasjit and Lee Fleming (2010), “Lone Inventors as Sources of Break-
throughs: Myth or Reality?” Management Science, 56(1), 41–56.
Smith, Barry C., John E. Leimkuhler, and Ross M. Darrow (1992), “Yield
Management at American Airlines,” Interfaces, 22(1), 8–31.
Smith, Gerald F. (1998), “Idea-Generation Techniques: A Formulary of Active
Ingredients,” Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(2), 107–33.
Smith, Ken G., Christopher J. Collins, and Kevin D. Clark (2005), “Existing
Knowledge, Knowledge Creation Capability, and the Rate of New Product
Introduction in High-Technology Firms,” Academy of Management Journal,
48(2), 346–57.
Smith, Robert E., Scott B. MacKenzie, Xiaojing Yang, Laura M. Buchholz,
and William K. Darley (2007), “Modeling the Determinants and Effects of
Creativity in Advertising,” Marketing Science, 26(6), 819–33.
Sosa, Manuel E. (2011), “Where Do Creative Interactions Come From? The
Role of Tie Content and Social Networks,” Organization Science, 22(1),
1–21.
Stephen, Andrew T., Peter Pal Zubcsek, and Jacob Goldenberg (2016), “Lower
Connectivity Is Better: The Effects of Network Structure on Redundancy
of Ideas and Customer Innovativeness in Interdependent Ideation Tasks,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 53(2), 263–79.
Sternberg, Robert J. (1999), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Sternberg, Robert J. and Todd I. Lubart (1999), “The Concept of Creativ-
ity: Prospects and Paradigms,” in Handbook of Creativity, ed. Robert J.
Sternberg, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 3–15.
Stremersch, Stefan and Gerard J. Tellis (2002), “Strategic Bundling of Products
and Prices: A New Synthesis for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 66(1),
55–72.
Taylor, Alva and Henrich R. Greve (2006), “Superman or the Fantastic Four?
Knowledge Combination and Experience in Innovative Teams,” Academy
Tierney, Pamela and Steven M. Farmer (2002), “Creative Self-Efficacy: Its
Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance,” Academy
Till, Brian D. and Daniel W. Baack (2005), “Recall and Persuasion: Does
Creative Advertising Matter?” Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 47–57.
Torrance, E. Paul (1974), The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-
Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural
Tests, Forms A and B, Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. Paul and Orlow E. Ball (1984), Torrance Test of Creative Thinking:
Streamlined (Revised) Manual, Figural A and B, Bensenville, IL: Scholastic
Testing Services.
Toubia, Olivier (2006), “Idea Generation, Creativity, and Incentives,” Marketing
Science, 25(5), 411–25.
Valacich, Joseph S., Alan R. Dennis, and Jay F. Nunamaker Jr. (1992), “Group
Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation,”
Small Group Research, 23(1), 49–73.
Von Hippel, Eric (2005), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Voss, James F. and Timothy A. Post (1988), “On the Solving of Ill-Structured
Problems,” in The Nature of Expertise, ed. Michelene T. H. Chi, Robert
Glaser, and Marshall J. Farr, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 261–85.
Ward, Thomas B. (1994), “Structured Imagination: The Role of Category
Structure in Exemplar Generation,” Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 1–40.
Ward, Thomas B. (1998), “Analogical Distance and Purpose in Creative
Thought: Mental Leaps versus Mental Hops,” in Advances in Analogy
Research, ed. Keith J. Holyoak, Dedre Gentner, and Boicho N. Kokinov,
Sofia: New Bulgarian University Press, 221–30.
Ward, Thomas B. (2004), “Cognition, Creativity and Entrepreneurship,” Jour-
nal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 173–88.
Weisberg, Robert W. (1999), “Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to
Theories,” in Handbook of Creativity, ed. Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 226–50.
Weisberg, Robert W. (2006), Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem
Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Welch, Livingston (1946), “Recombination of Ideas in Creative Thinking,”
Wierenga, Berend and Gerrit H. Van Bruggen (1998), “The Dependent Variable
in Research into the Effects of Creativity Support Systems: Quality and
Quantity of Ideas,” MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 81–7.
Wierenga, Berend and Gerrit H. Van Bruggen (2000), Marketing Management
Support Systems: Principles, Tools, and Implementation, Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Wisniewska, Aleksandra (2014), “Timeline: The Virgin Empire,” Financial
Times, November 5, 2014.
Woodman, Richard W., John E. Sawyer, and Ricky W. Griffin (1993), “Toward
a Theory of Organizational Creativity,” Academy of Management Review,
18(2), 293–321.
Yang, Xiaojing and Robert E. Smith (2009), “Beyond Attention Effects: Mod-
eling the Persuasive and Emotional Effects of Advertising Creativity,”
Marketing Science, 28(5), 935–49.
Zhang, Xiaomeng and Kathryn M. Bartol (2010), “Linking Empowering Lead-
ership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empower-
ment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement,” Academy
Zhou, Jing (1998), “Feedback Valence, Feedback Style, Task Autonomy, and
Achievement Orientation: Interactive Effects on Creative Performance,”
Zhou, Jing (2003), “When the Presence of Creative Coworkers is Related to
Creativity: Role of Supervisor Close Monitoring, Developmental Feedback,
and Creative Personality,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–22.

Managerial Decision-Making in Marketing: Matching The Demand and Supply Side of Creativity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managerial Decision-Making in Marketing: Matching The Demand and Supply Side of Creativity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing Behavior, 2016, 2: 129–176

Keywords: Marketing, Decision-making, Creativity, Demand, Supply

ISSN 2326-568X; DOI 10.1561/107.00000033

Association, most scholars nowadays agree that creativity is not limited to

The Demand Side of Creativity

Marketing Problem Domains

Marketing problem domains greatly vary in terms of their structuredness.

Furthermore, the degree of creativity required may depend on the nature of

The Need for Creativity: Originality versus Usefulness

mouth (positive or negative) and eventually market success (Moldovan et al.

The Supply Side of Creativity

The core ability for creative production is divergent thinking (Guilford

Next to creative abilities and domain knowledge, some personality traits

Motivation is often key to creative achievements (Amabile 1983, 1996;

A substantial body of research has been devoted to the question of how

Despite its reputation of being elusive, evidence suggests that creativity

Creativity Support Systems

The Confluence of Individual and Organizational Resources

Matching the Demand and Supply Side of Creativity

The Creative Process

Cognitive Pathways to Creativity: Fluency, Persistence, or Flexibility?

Aim for Persistence (Directed, “within the Box” Idea Generation)

Nijstad et al. (2002, p. 44) describe the persistence pathway as a systematic

Aim for Flexibility (Directed, “Outside the Box” Idea Generation)

The flexibility pathway involves “switching among [idea] categories, ap-

The Deployment of Individual Resources

Assigning Individuals to Teams

Creative tasks are often tackled in team settings, such as brainstorming

The Deployment of Organizational Resources

and training programs could teach participants how to switch perspectives to

accessible, more remote knowledge; (2a) “developmental” tools (lower-right

Assessing the Creativity of the Outcomes

The Framework for Matching Creative Demand and Supply in Marketing

Figure 3: The demand side and pathways to creativity.

Distribution decisions concern the selection and design of the channels

Technological advances, such as Quick Response (QR) codes and augmented

Product decisions involve the development, design, and production of

Brands need to be carefully loaded with meaning and affect to positively

Promotion decisions concern a marketing area that is most strongly as-

communications to be effective, i.e., to get across a message, it is quintessential

Conclusions and Discussion

The Strategic Assignment of Resources in Support of Creativity

resources may be required to facilitate the creative process. Earlier we argued

Putting in Place Effective Creativity-Enhancing Instruments

Priorities for Creativity Research in Marketing

Unraveling the Mechanisms That Underlie Creative Production in Marketing

Based on our current understanding of how creativity works, in Figure 3 we

Return on Investment of Creative Marketing

Different from advertising, sales force, and sales promotion expenditures,

Paying Attention to the Usefulness of Creative Ideas

Soliciting Creative Input from Consumers

A trend nowadays is to involve consumers earlier in the creative process

Managerial questions Examples of

Table A.1: (Continued)

Managerial questions Examples of

Table A.1: (Continued)

Managerial questions Examples of

Afuah, Allan and Christopher L. Tucci (2010), “Crowdsourcing as a Solution

Althuizen, Niek, A. Reichel, and Berend Wierenga (2012), “Help that is

Eliashberg, Jehoshua, Quintus Hegie, Jason Ho, Dennis Huisman, Steven

Gough, Harrison G. (1979), “A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective

Moreau, C. Page and Marit Gundersen Engeset (2016), “The Downstream

Paulus, Paul B. and Huei-Chuan Yang (2000), “Idea Generation in Groups: