Article

Journal of Marketing
1-20
Successfully Communicating ª American Marketing Association 2019
Article reuse guidelines:

a Cocreated Innovation sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022242919841039
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmx

Helen Si Wang, Charles H. Noble, Darren W. Dahl, and Sungho Park

Abstract
Despite the growing popularity of cocreation approaches to innovation, the bottom-line results of these efforts continue to
frustrate many firms. Marketing communications are one important tool in stimulating consumer adoption, yet marketers to date
have not taken advantage of a unique phenomenon associated with many cocreated innovations: the presence of a genesis story in
the words of the creator, which can be combined in different ways with traditional marketing messaging. Using mixed methods,
the authors demonstrate a crossover effect in which a “mismatch” of the fundamental motivations behind authentic creation
narratives and traditional persuasive messages enhances adoption of the cocreated innovation. This effect is mediated by potential
adopters’ self-referencing of their own stories about similar experiences or consumption episodes. Furthermore, the effect of a
motivation mismatch strategy is attenuated for expert consumers. Finally, this motivation mismatch strategy triggers “takeoff” of
cocreated innovations. This research offers substantial implications for research on cocreated innovation, narrative persuasion,
and firm-generated and user-generated communication. It provides managers specific guidance on enhancing the success of
cocreation programs through an integrated communications strategy.

Keywords
adoption, cocreated innovation, firm-generated content, narrative self-referencing, user-generated content
Online supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919841039

Innovation through cocreation, in which firms provide a plat-
form to harness customers’ creative ideas and then commercia-
lize the most promising ideas into finished products, has been
adopted as a key innovation strategy by nearly 78% of large
firms (Baldwin and Von Hippel 2011; Chesbrough and Bruns-
wicker 2014; Dahl, Fuchs, and Schreier 2014). However, the
majority of cocreated innovations have shown disappointing
consumer sales in the marketplace, demonstrating the chal-
lenge of stimulating consumer adoption and calling into ques-
tion the entire cocreation model. For example, from 2009 to
2014, Quirky, formerly one of the largest cocreation-based
consumer products firms, withdrew 70% of its 500-plus cocre-
ated innovations because of stagnant sales (Simon 2014). In
2015, Quirky filed for bankruptcy. At Apple’s App Store, the
world’s most vibrant user-design platform, 80% of apps do not
generate enough revenue to survive for more than a few months
(Adjust Report 2014; Apple 2014). In the absence of early
success, cocreating firms may also terminate potentially pro-
mising innovations too early (Golder and Tellis 1997, 2004),
which, in turn, may greatly dampen customer-inventors’ enthu-
siasm to participate in the future, putting the engine that fuels
the success and sustainability of the cocreation model at risk
(Shingles and Trichel 2014).
Marketing communication is often regarded as one of sev-
eral major influences on innovation adoption (Peres, Muller,
and Mahajan 2010). In the context of cocreated innovations,
both cocreating firms and customer-inventors recognize the
importance of marketing communication in driving adoption
(Apple 2014; Weissman 2013). In particular, marketing com-
munications are perceived to be fundamental in achieving new
product takeoff,1 a critical signal for early adoption success
Helen Si Wang is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Marketing Department,
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Hong Kong, China (email:
helensw@hku.hk). Charles H. Noble is Henry Professor of Business, Associate
Dean for Research and Faculty, Haslam College of Business, University of
Tennessee (email: cnoble@utk.edu). Darren W. Dahl is BC Innovation
Council Professor, Senior Associate Dean, and Director, Robert H. Lee
Graduate School, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia,
Canada (email: darren.dahl@sauder.ubc.ca). Sungho Park is Associate
Professor of Marketing, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State
University (email: sungho.park.1@asu.edu).
1
Takeoff refers to the first dramatic increase in adoption after the introduction
of an innovation (Agarwal and Bayus 2002; Golder and Tellis 1997; Peres,
Muller, and Mahajan 2010).
2 Journal of Marketing XX(X)
(Peres, Muller, and Mahajan 2010). Typically, cocreating firms
(e.g., Starbucks, Dell, Lego) take conventional approaches in
trying to understand potential adopters’ motivations; then they
craft appropriately matched persuasive messages (i.e., firm-
generated content [FGC]) to drive adoption (Avnet and Higgins
2006; Elliot 1999; Roskes, De Dreu, and Nijstad 2012). Challen-
ging this conventional approach, our research examines a unique
aspect of many cocreated goods, the presence of an authentic
creation narrative (i.e., a genesis story in the words of the creator).
These stories represent an understudied form of user-generated
content (UGC; McQuarrie, Miller, and Phillips 2013). This study
focuses on examining the interplay of these forms of FGC and
UGC to drive the adoption of cocreated innovation.
We contend that the communication of cocreated innova-
tions is interesting and unique for several reasons. First, it often
features the dual voices of both the customer-inventor and the
cocreating firm. The “customer-inventor” creates the product
concept, often with an initial quest to satisfy his or her personal
needs and a desire to share the solution with others. The
“cocreating firm” offers a platform for the innovation and
engages in marketing communication activities. This dual-
voice communication environment is different from the com-
munication environment associated with most products, in
which no distinction is made between inventor, manufacturer,
or other parties. More importantly, these two sources of com-
munication may work separately or interactively to influence
adoption of the cocreated innovation.
Second, customer-inventor-generated content, unlike more
common forms of UGC such as product/service reviews, often
records customer-inventors’ real-life stories about their crea-
tive motivations and experiences. For example, Thom Jensen,
the customer-inventor of a best-selling cocreated innovation,
Perfect Bacon Bowl, posted the following story on the online
cocreating platform, Edison Nation:
I was cooking breakfast one Saturday morning for my family and
was playing around trying to create a bacon turtle. I wove a basket
out of the bacon trying to make the body, and through the process, I
thought of the Bacon Bowl pan. I made a crude prototype (Dickson
2014).
For companies that have embraced the cocreation model
(e.g., Lego, Starbucks), their customer idea-generation plat-
forms hold a reservoir of creation stories. We suggest that these
stories can be grouped on the basis of their underlying motiva-
tion as either “approach-oriented” (i.e., achieving new or
desired outcomes) or “avoidance-oriented” (i.e., avoiding
unpleasant or undesirable outcomes) (see Web Appendix
W1). More formally, we define these narrative accounts of
customer-inventors’ approach- or avoidance-oriented creative
motivations and experiences as authentic creation narratives.
As a form of UGC, authentic creation narratives are published
content created outside of firms’ professional routines and
practices and allow consumers to express their creative experi-
ences. Distinct from firm-generated persuasive messages
(i.e., well-crafted messages with explicit persuasion intent to
promote innovation attributes and reasons for adoption),
authentic creation narratives are powerful customer-inventor-
generated stories providing a genuine account of consumers’
creative motivations and experiences.
Finally, the dual-voice communication environment and
the unique properties of authentic creation narratives call for
an integrated communication strategy to drive adoption of
cocreated innovations. Recent research has shown that firms
that strategically integrate UGC with FGC (i.e., more tradi-
tional persuasive messaging) produce better business out-
comes (Hewett et al. 2016; Kumar et al. 2016). However,
extant FGC–UGC research has mostly focused on how firms
respond to UGC that features customers’ consumption experi-
ences (e.g., online reviews, tweets; for a review, see Hewett
et al. [2016]), not the authentic creation narratives that we
consider here.
Therefore, in this research, we focus on examining the inter-
active effect of authentic creation narratives (UGC) and per-
suasive messages (FGC) on the adoption of cocreated
innovations. We develop and test a conceptual model (see Fig-
ure 1) to answer three important research questions: (1) What is
an optimal strategy to integrate firm-generated persuasive mes-
sages and customer-inventor-generated authentic creation nar-
ratives to drive adoption?; (2) What is the underlying
mechanism that explains the optimal strategy?; and (3) What
can we learn about any boundary condition(s) surrounding this
phenomenon?
Our research makes several important contributions to the
literature. First, drawing from motivation-creativity theory
(e.g., Elliot 1999; Hennessey 2010) and associative storage and
retrieval theory (Srull, Lichtenstein, and Rothbart 1985), we
posit that a motivation “mismatch” strategy utilizing an
approach- (avoidance-) oriented persuasive message and a
avoidance- (approach-) oriented authentic creation narrative
enhances adoption of cocreated innovations when compared
with a matching strategy (i.e., approach-approach or
avoidance-avoidance messages). This mismatching hypothesis
suggests a new approach to the marketing communications
strategy surrounding cocreated innovation and takes advantage
of the unique messaging opportunity arising in products created
primarily by consumers. We also extend the FGC–UGC liter-
ature from simply profiling user content derived from con-
sumption experiences (e.g., product/service reviews) to
incorporating UGC related to consumers’ creative experiences
in product and service development.
Second, we offer a theoretical rationale for the effectiveness
of this mismatch strategy by showing that potential adopters’
self-referencing of their own needs or wants to the narrative
(i.e., narrative self-referencing) mediates the proposed effect.
This adoption mechanism challenges the focus on inventor
characteristics in previous research (e.g., Dahl, Fuchs, and
Schreier 2014; Nishikawa et al. 2017; Schreier, Fuchs, and
Dahl 2012). We also extend previous work in narrative persua-
sion, which has focused on activating narrative processing
using single-source (firm-generated), single-form (narrative)
content. Instead, we demonstrate an activation of narrative
Wang et al.
Motivation Mismatch
(vs. Match) Strategy Consumer
Expertise
Authentic
Creation
Narratives H3
Narrative
Referencing
Persuasive
Messages
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
processing using multisource (FGC and UGC), multiform (per-
suasive message and authentic creation narrative) content.
Third, we show that consumer expertise attenuates the effect
of the motivation mismatch strategy on adoption. Indeed, we
find that expert consumers—who, by definition, have a high
level of domain-specific knowledge related to a cocreated inno-
vation—are less likely to respond to the motivation mismatch
strategy and adopt the innovation under consideration. This
important boundary condition offers managers actionable guide-
lines on when to use our proposed strategy and whom to target.
Finally, we explore adoption at the macro level, where the
motivational mismatch strategy leads to an earlier takeoff—the
first dramatic adoption sales increase of a cocreated innovation
after its introduction (Agarwal and Bayus 2002; Golder and Tellis
1997). This finding both validates the fundamental premise of our
work and demonstrates its effects with large-scale field data.
Conceptual Framework
Firm-Generated Persuasive Messages and Authentic
Creation Narratives
The proliferation of UGC has fundamentally changed the dom-
inance of FGC in the communication environment (Hewett
et al. 2016; McQuarrie, Miller, and Phillips 2013). A growing
body of literature in marketing suggests that FGC and UGC
often interact in influencing product/brand communication,
which increasingly requires firms to monitor and track UGC
and develop FGC–UGC strategies to achieve desired business
outcomes. For example, Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels (2009)
show that the volume (or number of messages) of online WOM
referrals and firm-sponsored marketing activities (events,
media coverage) interact to influence new customer acquisi-
tion. Hewett et al. (2016) find that in the banking industry,
firms that changed their FGC over time in response to the
volume and valence (positive or negative) of social media are
more able to drive deposit performance.
3
H2
Adoption of
Cocreated
Self- Innovation
(Individual
Takeoff)
H1
In the realm of cocreated innovations, social- and online-
based cocreation platforms have given rise to a unique type of
customer-inventor-generated narrative content: authentic cre-
ation narratives. More formally, we define authentic creation
narratives as customer-inventor-generated stories about how
their unmet needs or wants motivated their creative ideas.
We further reason that in the communication environment of
cocreated innovations, authentic creation narratives may inter-
act with persuasive messages—the most prevalent form of
firm-generated content in innovation communication—to
synergistically influence important adoption outcomes. We
define persuasive messages as firm-generated explicit persua-
sion statements to promote innovation attributes and reasons
for adoption.
Cross-disciplinary research offers strong support for our
supposition that integrating multisource, multiform communi-
cation content will enhance the effectiveness of innovation
communications. In linguistic and cognitive research, dual cod-
ing theory posits that multiple types of linguistic forms can be
used to communicate a concept, whether they are verbal (i.e.,
concrete words or sentences) or imaginal (i.e., stories that
evoke mental imaging) (Paivio 1991). Mixing verbal and ima-
ginal linguistic presentations is particularly constructive for
understanding novel concepts because it helps audiences make
easy references and connections between their own internal
information and the information presented (Sadoski and Paivio
2013). To identify an optimal FGC–UGC strategy involving
persuasive messages and authentic creation narratives, we first
draw from motivation-creativity theory (Elliot 1999; Hennes-
sey 2010) and narrative persuasion theory (Escalas 2007;
Green and Brock 2000) to understand the unique properties
of authentic creation narratives.
Unique Properties of Authentic Creation Narratives
Motivation-creativity theory (Elliot 1999; Hennessey 2010;
Roskes, De Dreu, and Nijstad 2012) posits that two types of
4 Journal of Marketing XX(X)
motivations underlie human creative engagement in innovation
and its adoption.2 Approach-oriented people engage in invent-
ing or adopting new products to achieve new possibilities and
desired outcomes, whereas avoidance-oriented people engage
in invention or adoption to avoid unpleasant experiences and
undesirable outcomes. Similarly, for cocreated innovations,
approach or avoidance can be fundamental motivations for
their creation (Schreier and Prügl 2008; Von Hippel 2005). For
example, lead-users’ invention of the integrated circuit, which
integrates large numbers of tiny transistors into a small chip,
was motivated by their desire to achieve better mass production
capability and reliability (approach oriented) (Urban and Von
Hippel 1988). In contrast, when a surgeon experiences a serious
problem during a specific operation, (s)he is motivated to
invent new processes or medical devices to avoid such undesir-
able situations and solve existing problems (avoidance
oriented) (Schreier and Prügl 2008). Therefore, authentic cre-
ation narratives that feature a customer-inventors’ approach- or
avoidance-oriented motivation may provide potential adopters
a familiar anchor to relate to their own approach- or avoidance-
oriented motivation for adoption. In other words, authentic
creation narratives have the potential to connect customer
invention and adoption at the motivational level.
The second unique property of authentic creation narratives
is their narrative linguistic form. Narrative persuasion theory
(for a review, see Van Laer et al. [2014]) posits that narratives
(stories) featuring a character achieving certain outcomes may
activate audiences’ narrative self-referencing, in which people
process incoming stories by relating them to their own life
experiences and episodes (Escalas 2007; Krishnamurthy and
Sujan 1999). Narrative self-referencing has been found to be
a powerful persuasion mechanism. It persuades by enhancing
the realism of audiences’ experiences and triggers strong affec-
tive responses (Escalas 2007; Green and Brock 2000). In con-
trast, firm-produced persuasive messages often trigger
analytical processing in which audiences produce logical argu-
ments and evaluate the merits of incoming messages (Escalas
2007; Nielsen and Escalas 2010). Importantly, activating nar-
rative self-referencing requires audiences’ focused attention on
the story (Nielsen and Escalas 2010; Van Laer et al. 2014).
Prior research has shown that when audiences are distracted
or less motivated to pay attention to a story, narrative self-
referencing fails to happen (Green and Brock 2000; Zwarun
and Hall 2012). Taken together, the second unique property of
authentic creation narratives appears to be that, if given enough
attention, they activate a powerful persuasive mechanism: nar-
rative self-referencing.
2
The approach-/avoidance-oriented motivations can be consumers’ chronic
traits or situation based (Elliot 1999; Hennessey 2010; Roskes, De Dreu, and
Nijstad 2012). In this article, we focus on examining these motivations as
situation-based message characteristics. Using randomized controlled
experiments, Studies 2 and 3 manipulate these motivations as
communication characteristics and explicitly control for consumers’
approach-/avoidance-oriented chronic traits.
The Motivation Mismatch Strategy
In light of the aforementioned unique properties of authentic
creation narratives, marketers’ intuition may suggest that firms
should simply design persuasive messages that align with the
approach- or avoidance-oriented creative motivation identified
in the authentic creation narrative in an effort to enhance the
adoption of a cocreated innovation. However, drawing from
associative storage and retrieval theory (e.g., Maheswaran and
Chaiken 1991; Srull, Lichtenstein, and Rothbart 1985), we
propose a communication strategy for cocreated innovations
that utilizes persuasive messaging and authentic creation nar-
ratives in a somewhat counterintuitive, mismatching fashion.
When an authentic creation narrative features an approach-
(avoidance-) oriented motivation for an invention, we contend
that firms should design persuasive messaging that promotes a
mismatched avoidance- (approach-) oriented motivation to
enhance the adoption of cocreated innovations.
In support of our proposed strategy, recent research on nar-
rative persuasion suggests that the activation of narrative pro-
cessing requires consumers to deploy sufficient cognitive
resources to process the story (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010;
Wentzel, Tomczak, and Herrmann 2010). Without sufficient
cognitive resources to support deliberate cognitive processing,
narrative ads are likely to fail in activating consumers’ narra-
tive self-referencing and would not be effective in producing
the desired persuasive effects (Green and Donahue 2009; Niel-
sen and Escalas 2010). We argue that in a cocreated innovation
context, a motivation match between persuasive messaging and
authentic creation narratives makes the communication much
easier to understand. As a result, potential adopters may reduce
their cognitive deliberation, which in turn inhibits their activa-
tion of narrative self-referencing (Hamilton, Sherman, and
Ruvolo 1990).
In contrast, associative storage and retrieval theory suggests
that mismatched or incongruent information increases audi-
ences’ engagement in information search and retrieval to better
comprehend the message (Maheswaran and Chaiken 1991).
When an information mismatch happens, people search and
retrieve information based on its relevancy (Hamilton, Sher-
man, and Ruvolo 1990; Srull, Lichtenstein, and Rothbart
1985). In other words, to make sense of a mismatched message,
people are more likely to pay attention to information that is
more personally relevant and subsequently retrieve similar per-
sonal information from their memory to establish an interepi-
sode associative link. The interepisode association is defined as
a direct connection between the event described in the incom-
ing message and the event the audience personally experienced
and stored in their long-term memory (Srull, Lichtenstein, and
Rothbart 1985). In contrast, less relevant information in the
mismatched message receives less attention and less elabora-
tion (Srull, Lichtenstein, and Rothbart 1985).
In our research context, we argue that compared with firm-
generated persuasive messages, authentic creation narratives
may be more personally relevant given their unique property
of connecting motivations of invention and adoption.
Wang et al.
Therefore, when a motivation mismatch occurs between per-
suasive messages and authentic creation narratives, potential
adopters are more likely to pay attention to the authentic cre-
ation narrative and retrieve a similar approach- or avoidance-
oriented personal experience from their memory. This process
provides a favorable condition for activating potential adop-
ters’ narrative self-referencing. In contrast, a motivation match
strategy is likely to reduce potential adopters’ overall cognitive
engagement–in particular, their attention to the authentic cre-
ation narrative (and related information search and retrieval),
which in turn fails to activate narrative self-referencing. Note
that a motivation mismatch (vs. match) will motivate potential
adopters to deploy more cognitive resources regardless of the
specific motivation orientation (approach or avoidance
oriented; Nielsen and Escalas 2010). Therefore, we do not
expect that different types of mismatch strategies will influence
narrative self-referencing differentially.
Finally, we believe that adopters’ narrative self-referencing
will enhance the adoption of cocreated innovations. Narrative
persuasion theory shows that the activation of narrative self-
referencing greatly reduces critical thoughts about incoming
messages (Escalas 2007). When audiences process and
immerse themselves into their own stories, they are more likely
to find the presented assertions convincing and persuasive
(Escalas 2007; Green and Brock 2000). In our research context,
when potential adopters activate narrative self-referencing
related to the authentic creation narrative, they retrieve similar
information about their own personal experiences or consump-
tion episodes that relate to their unmet wants or needs. This
process not only enhances the perceived value of the cocreated
innovation but also increases the perceived self-relevancy of
the innovation—the key determinant of adoption (Escalas
2007; Rogers 2010). Taken together, we hypothesize the
following:
H 1 : A motivation mismatch (vs. a motivation match)
between persuasive messages and authentic creation narra-
tives increases the adoption of cocreated innovations. Spe-
cifically, when authentic creation narratives feature an
approach- (avoidance-) oriented motivation for invention,
designing persuasive messages to promote a mismatched,
avoidance- (approach-) oriented motivation increases
adoption.
H2: Narrative self-referencing mediates the effect of the
motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy on the adoption
of cocreated innovations.
The Moderating Role of Consumer Expertise
Narrative persuasion theories suggest that when activating nar-
rative self-referencing (or narrative processing in general), con-
sumers tend to match incoming information to their existing
stories and experiences in memory (Wentzel, Tomczak, and
Herrmann 2010). In contrast, when activating analytical pro-
cessing, consumers often access both incoming information
and their own opinions or knowledge to conduct evaluations
5
and reach verifiable conclusions (Nielsen and Escalas 2010).
Because narrative self-referencing and analytical processing
involve two distinct forms of cognitive processing, we expect
that factors that promote analytical processing will suppress the
influence of a motivation mismatch strategy on the adoption of
a cocreated innovation. In particular, we examine a theoreti-
cally interesting and managerially relevant situational factor:
consumer expertise.
Consumer expertise refers to a consumer’s knowledge in
certain product domains or categories, which enables them to
perform critical product-related evaluations (Alba and Hutch-
inson 1987). Expert consumers often have well-defined,
domain-specific knowledge structures, whereas novice consu-
mers tend to lack them (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Peracchio
and Tybout 1996). Prior research has found that expert consu-
mers tend to use analytical processing, in which the goal is to
evaluate the attributes of the product/service and arrive at a
decision (Mattila 2000; Nielsen and Escalas 2010). In contrast,
novice consumers have limited and unstructured domain
knowledge, which constrains them from performing analytical
evaluations (Mattila 2000). In our research context, we expect
that expert consumers, who have a high level of domain-
specific knowledge related to the cocreated innovation, are less
likely to respond to the motivation mismatch strategy and acti-
vate their narrative self-referencing. In contrast, novice consu-
mers are more likely to respond to the motivation mismatch
strategy by activating their narrative referencing, making adop-
tion more likely. Formally:
H3: Consumer expertise moderates the effect of the motiva-
tion mismatch (vs. match) strategy on the adoption of cocre-
ated innovations, such that the effect of the motivation
mismatch strategy on adoption is attenuated for expert con-
sumers, but not for novice consumers.
Motivation Mismatch and the Takeoff of
Cocreated Innovations
The innovation diffusion literature suggests that consumer
expertise also determines the timing of adoption, allowing for
a simple distinction between experts and novices (Bass 2004;
Rogers 2010). Traditionally, FGC has dominated the commu-
nication environment, and expert consumers often adopt at the
introduction stage because they possess adequate domain-
specific knowledge to enable them to make adoption decisions
based entirely on their own private, analytical evaluations of
the innovation before technical information or customer feed-
back is prevalent (Golder and Tellis 2004; Rogers 2010). In
contrast, novice consumers follow or imitate other adopters
because they lack the necessary domain-specific knowledge
about an innovation to make adoption decisions on their own
(Bass 2004; Golder and Tellis 2004).
The different adoption timing among expert and novice con-
sumers should have a direct effect on the timing of takeoff—a
key metric of innovation diffusion. Takeoff is defined as the
first dramatic increase in adoption after the introduction of an
6 Journal of Marketing XX(X)
innovation (Agarwal and Bayus 2002; Golder and Tellis 1997;
Peres, Muller, and Mahajan 2010). Because expert consumers
represent only a small number of adopters in the market, their
initial adoption alone may not be adequate to trigger takeoff
(Golder and Tellis 2004); thus, persuading novice consumers to
adopt early helps secure a sizable initial adoption and drives
early takeoff. According to our theorizing, a motivation mis-
match strategy should be particularly effective in driving
novice consumers’ adoption, and thus we expect that in the
FGC–UGC communication environment, the motivation mis-
match (vs. match) strategy should lead to early takeoff of
cocreated innovations. Because, at the aggregate level, an early
takeoff is a critical indicator of innovation adoption success, an
identification of this pattern of effect would provide further
support for H1’s prediction that the mismatch (vs. match) strat-
egy leads to better adoption of cocreated innovations.
To test our hypotheses, we conducted five studies using
mixed methods of experiments and empirical modeling of
real-world, cocreated innovation adoption. In Studies 1a, 2, and
3, we use controlled experiments to validate the effect of the
motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy on the adoption of
cocreated innovation (H1), its underlying mechanism (narrative
self-referencing; H2), as well as the moderating role of con-
sumer expertise (H3). In Studies 1b and 4, we model the adop-
tion (actual sales) data of real-world cocreated innovations to
validate the effect of our proposed strategy and its effect on the
takeoff of these innovations.
Study 1a
In Study 1a, we use a field experiment to examine the effect of the
motivation mismatch strategy on the adoption of cocreated inno-
vation. This study was conducted outside a Starbucks coffee store
at a southwestern U.S. university from 11 A.M. to 5 P.M. for two
consecutive weeks. At the time of the study, Starbucks had just
launched a cocreated new coffee beverage called “Starbucks
Doubleshot Energy Coffee—Mexican Mocha.” The original
Starbucks online ad for this new coffee beverage contained per-
suasive messages only, which promoted an approach-oriented
motivation for adoption (e.g., “Starbucks Doubleshot Mexican
Mocha—what the world desires this winter,” “One sip makes you
embrace all the winter warmth and joy”). We accessed the Star-
bucks cocreation platform (see https://ideas.starbucks.com/) and
retrieved the customer-inventor’s original authentic creation nar-
rative (see Web Appendix W1), which also featured an approach-
oriented motivation for invention. Drawing on Starbucks’
original approach-oriented persuasive messages, we further
developed avoidance-oriented persuasive messages to promote
an avoidance-oriented motivation for adoption and to allow for
the creation of a motivation mismatch manipulation (to test H1).
Method
Eighty college students were intercepted by a research assistant
who was blind to the purpose of the research. We employed a
single-factor between-subjects design to manipulate the
motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy between an
avoidance-oriented or an approach- oriented persuasive mes-
sage and an approach-oriented authentic creation narrative as
follows (also see Web Appendix W1):
Persuasive message (approach/[avoidance])
Starbucks® Doubleshot® Energy Mexican Mocha Coffee
Drink
Match condition
 Starbucks Doubleshot Mexican Mocha—what the
world desires this winter
 It begins with the bold taste of Starbucks coffee
and a blend of ginseng, cinnamon and B vitamins.
Then, we top it all off with Mexican chocolate.
 One sip makes you embrace all the winter warmth
and joy
 15 oz can
Mismatch condition
 Starbucks Doubleshot Mexican Mocha—[what the
world can’t miss this winter]
 It begins with the bold taste of Starbucks coffee
and a blend of ginseng, cinnamon and B vitamins.
Then, we top it all off with Mexican chocolate.
 One sip makes you [say bye-bye to the winter chill
and blues]
 15 oz can
Authentic creation narrative (approach-only, same for
both conditions)
Starbucks Mexican Mocha Coffee is co-created by a real
customer like you.
Dale posted at MyStarbucksIdea.com
When I was little, my grandma told me that late night on those cold
and gloomy winter days, an ideal drink is some good Mexican hot
chocolate, made with creamy chocolate, fresh cinnamon sticks,
sugar, and steamy milk. It has the true cocoa flavor that makes
me embrace every winter . . . a bit sweeter than a regular chocolate
mocha yet not as sweet as a white mocha, but all delicious!!! One
sip fuels me with all the winter warmth and energy I want. Sud-
denly, I enjoy winter like never before. What if in honor of Mexican
Chocolate, we create a Starbucks Mexican Mocha Coffee?
Participants were asked to help review some online infor-
mation about a newly launched Starbucks beverage on a tablet
device and then provide their feedback for a compensation of
$1. After reviewing the ad, participants were asked: “Would
you like to try out this coffee or receive an equivalent value of
$2?” Participants then received the new coffee drink or $2 cash,
based on their actual choice. In addition, we collected informa-
tion about participants’ average consumption of coffee and
energy drinks (“How often do you drink coffee?,” “How often
do you drink an energy drink?”; 1 ¼ “not at all,” and 7 ¼
“always”) to control for their personal preferences with respect
to coffee and energy drinks.
Wang et al.
Results and Discussion
Manipulation check. Following Roskes, De Dreu, and Nijstad’s
(2012) procedures, we first conducted two separate pretests (n
¼ 143, n ¼ 71) to ensure the success of our manipulations. The
first pretest checked the manipulations of the approach- or
avoidance-oriented persuasive messages. As expected, partici-
pants in the approach (vs. avoidance) condition indicated that
“the ad message was promoting innovation adoption to gain
more benefits” and “to achieve ideal experiences” (M ¼ 5.25
vs. M ¼ 4.72; F(1, 141) ¼ 6.50, p < .05), whereas participants
in the avoidance (vs. approach) condition reported that “the ad
message was focused on promoting innovation adoption to
avoid frustrations” and “to prevent undesired experiences”
(M ¼ 4.30 vs. M ¼ 3.50; F(1, 141) ¼ 9.29, p < .01). Across
conditions, participants rated the messages as equally credible,
persuasive, interesting, and engaging (all ps > .35), and the
messages did not evoke different mood states (happy, pleased,
cheerful; all ps > .30). The second pretest checked the manip-
ulation of the approach-oriented authentic creation narrative.
Participants strongly agreed that “the message told a story
about a customer-inventor creating a new product with the goal
of gaining more benefits” and “achieving ideal experiences”
(M ¼ 5.17, SD ¼ 1.07), which were significantly different from
participants’ rating on “the message told a story about a
customer-inventor creating a new product with the goal of
avoiding frustrations” and “preventing undesired experiences”
(M ¼ 3.40, SD ¼ 1.40; F(1, 139) ¼ 27.19, p < .01). Partici-
pants rated the authentic creation narrative as “credible,”
“persuasive,” “interesting,” and “engaging” (all Ms > 5.28,
SDs < 1.50) and triggered a neutral mood (vs. happy, pleased,
or cheerful; M ¼ 4.86, SD ¼ 1.33).
Test of H1. We conducted a logistic regression to validate our
hypothesis that the motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy
increases adoption of cocreated innovations. We regressed
adoption choice (coffee ¼ 1, $2 ¼ 0) on the motivation mis-
match (vs. match) variable. Participants’ average coffee and
energy drink consumption were entered as control variables.
The results directly supported our hypothesis (H1) that the
mismatched (vs. matched) ad generated a higher level of adop-
tion (b ¼ 1.73, SE ¼ .58, p < .01; 56.1% vs. 26.3% chose
adoption option over cash). Participants’ average consumption
of coffee positively influenced their adoption (b ¼ .42, SE ¼
.14, p < .01), and participants’ average consumption of energy
drinks marginally increased their adoption (b ¼ .31, SE ¼ .17,
p ¼ .06) (see Figure 2, Panel A).
Study 1b
Study 1b analyzed 122 cocreated innovations’ sales records from
an international cocreation firm to further validate H1: that the
motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy leads to more adop-
tion. Founded in 2008, the firm was one of the first cocreation
online platforms. It not only provides an online crowdfunding
platform to enable customer-inventors to solicit funds for their
7
inventions but also provides a sales platform called
“marketplace” to provide marketing support and promote online
sales for those successfully funded customer inventions. At the
marketplace, each funded customer invention features a
customer-inventor-generated video about the invention as well
as a cocreating-firm-generated persuasive message about the
new product. This type of cocreation model provided an ideal
setting to examine the interactive effect of firm-generated per-
suasive messages and authentic creation narratives on adoption.
Sampling
To construct the data set for Study 1b, two trained coders
reviewed the comprehensive set of all successfully funded cus-
tomer inventions sold on the firm’s online sales platform market-
place over a four-month period from November 2017 through
February 2018. Given our research focus on cocreated new prod-
ucts, art projects (e.g., music and films) and social projects (e.g.,
human rights and environment protection) were excluded from
the sample. As a result, we obtained a total sample of 186 cocre-
ated new products covering five major categories (Fashion &
Wearables, Food & Beverages, Health & Fitness, Home
Improvement, and Travel & Outdoors) and “Others” (which
includes minor categories such as Energy & Green Tech, Phones
& Accessories, Photography, Spirituality, etc.).
For the dependent variable, we obtained information on the
sales revenue and the number of adopters for each new product
in the first 60 days after launch and used them as dependent
variables measuring the adoption of the cocreated innovation
(for descriptive statistics, see Web Appendix W2). A typical
online ad of the innovation features two sections: (1) a
customer-inventor-generated video about the invention and
(2) a firm-generated persuasive message about the product
along with some pictures. We trained two coders blind to our
hypotheses to code the narrative form and the motivation orien-
tation of the customer-inventor’s video as well as that of the
persuasive message, which served as the independent variable.
To identify the motivation of authentic creation narratives,
the two coders first reviewed all customer-generated videos
and evaluated whether the video was in a narrative form (nar-
rative ¼ 1, otherwise ¼ 0) by following the two-item scale
adapted from Escalas (2007; “The information has a beginning,
middle, and end” and “The information describes the character,
a customer-inventor, and the evolution of his/her creative ideas
or solutions”; kappa ¼ .80). The results showed that 122 out of
186 new products featured narrative stories about customer
invention, whereas the remaining videos were in either descrip-
tive or persuasive form. Given our focus, we excluded products
with nonnarrative customer-generated videos from the analy-
sis.3 Next, two coders coded the motivation of authentic
3
We interviewed executives of the cocreating platform to validate the
assumption that the motivation orientation of firm-generated persuasive
messages was independent of authentic creation narratives. Executives
reported that no thought was given to a potential relationship between
messages.
8 Journal of Marketing XX(X)

A: Study 1a: Adoption of Starbucks Coffee Drink B: Study 2: Adoption of Pivot Power
60% 56.10% 6.4

6.2 6.11
50%
6.0
40% 5.82

Adoption
5.8
Adoption

5.62
30% 26.30% 5.6

5.4 5.33
20%

5.2
10%
5. 0
Approach Oriented Avoidance Oriented
0%
Authentic Creation Narrative
Mismatch Match
Strategy
PM: avoidance oriented PM: approach oriented

C: Study 3: Adoption of Stem

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5
Adoption

5.0 4.70
4.74 4.67
4.5 4.62
4.35
4.0
3.85
3.5

3.0
3 4.47 5
Expertise

Mismatch Match

Figure 2. The effects of the motivation mismatch strategy on adoption.

Notes: PM ¼ persuasive message.

creation narratives as either approach or avoidance oriented by
following the cocreated innovation literature and motivation-
creativity theories (Roskes, De Dreu, and Nijstad 2012;
Schreier and Prügl 2008; Von Hippel 2005). When the video
narrative explicitly expressed the quest for an ideal experience,
the authentic creation narrative was coded as approach oriented
(e.g., “I will never forget the day that I saw clear ice for the first
time. It was a three-story tall ice cube that I saw on an expedi-
tion to climb Everest. I started to wonder how I can get my hand
on some crystal-clear ice cubes and put them into whisky”);
conversely, when the video narrative focused on solving exist-
ing problems or avoiding unwanted experiences, we coded it as
avoidance oriented (e.g., “I used to be a ballerina but now I’m
stuck in a chair for 15 hours a week. I bought expensive ergo-
nomic chairs and back support. I tried standing desk and laptop
stand but nothing works. Eventually I developed chronic back
pain. I had to do something for myself”).
To identify the motivation of firm-generated persuasive
messages, the two coders coded the persuasive message by
following motivation-creativity theories from psychology
Wang et al. 9

Table 1. Study 1b Results Using log Sales Revenue as the Dependent Variable.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Predictors Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate

Constant 10.699*** 11.540*** 8.656*** 8.645*** 8.514*** 8.421***

Persuasive message orientationa .277 .202 .210 .204 .188 .256
Authentic creation narrative orientationa .809* 1.569*** 1.531*** 1.529*** 1.466*** 1.407**
Matchb 1.307*** 1.088** 1.120** 1.065** .949*
Noveltyc .067 .045 .036 .013
Usefulnessc .537*** .542*** .561*** .538***
Unit price (continuous in US$) .001 .001 .000
Launch month: November .151 .147
Launch month: December .033 .073
Launch month: February .424 .372
Fashion & Wearables .327
Food & Beverages .656
Health & Fitness .383
Home .274
Travel & Outdoors .733
R-square .046 .099 .245 .257 .260 .282

*p < .10.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.
a
Dummy: 1 ¼ approach, 0 ¼ avoidance.
b
Dummy: 1 ¼ match, 0 ¼ mismatch.
c
Interval: 1 ¼ “not at all,” and 7 ¼ “very much.”
Notes: All variables are dummies (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no) unless otherwise noted.

(Roskes, De Dreu, and Nijstad 2012). When the persuasive
message promoted adopting the innovation to gain more pos-
itive benefits, better functions, or better performance, we coded
the persuasive message as approach oriented (e.g., “Unlock the
potential of your classic cocktails with crystal clear ice. Your
guests won’t believe it!”); conversely, when the persuasive
message promoted adopting the innovation to solve existing
problems or to avoid negative outcomes, we coded the per-
suasive messages as avoidance oriented (e.g., “Experience
weightless sitting with the most ergonomic cushion EVER”).
Finally, we constructed a binary variable, match (vs. mis-
match), by coding the persuasive message motivation and the
authentic creation narrative motivation, where match took the
value of 1 (31% of the innovations), and 0 otherwise (mis-
match). The two coders reached a high level of agreement
(kappa ¼ .81).
Control Variables
We controlled for a total of five important variables in our
model: (1) novelty, (2) usefulness, (3) unit price, (4) product
launch month, and (5) product category. To measure the
novelty and usefulness of each product, two research assis-
tants who were blind to our research hypotheses rated the
novelty (a ¼ .76) and usefulness (a ¼ .80) of each product
on a seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ “not at all,” and 7 ¼ “very
much”). Unit price (in USD) was obtained from the platform.
We found that the prices of all products were unchanged
during the four-month sample period. We controlled for
product launch month to rule out the potential effects of sea-
sonality or holiday shopping on adoption. Finally, to capture
unique category-specific effects on the adoption of innova-
tions, we constructed six category dummy variables: Fashion
& Wearables (13%), Food & Beverages (8%), Health & Fit-
ness (16%), Home Improvement (13%), Travel & Outdoors
(11%) and Others (38%).
Estimation and Results
To investigate the effect of the motivation mismatch strategy
on the adoption of cocreated innovations, we estimate a log-
linear model. Note that both of our dependent variables (sales
revenue and number of adopters) show large skewness. To
minimize the effect of this on our estimation, we specify log-
linear models and estimate them using the ordinary least
squares method. In incorporating launch month and product
category into the model, we use “January” and “Category:
Others” as baseline categories and do not include dummies for
these in the estimation. Table 1 reports the estimation results
using log sales revenue as a dependent variable. The estimated
coefficients of “match” are significantly negative in all speci-
fications considered, in support of H1’s prediction that the
cocreated innovations with a mismatched (vs. matched) moti-
vation strategy yield higher revenue. Specifically, in Model 6
(a full model with all explanatory variables), the estimated
coefficient of “match” is .949, indicating that the sales rev-
enue of cocreated innovations with a motivation mismatch
strategy generated 94.9% higher revenue than those using a
10
motivation match strategy.4 We also found that more useful
cocreated innovations and innovations with approach-
oriented authentic creation narratives generate higher revenue.
We observe highly consistent results by using the number of
adopters as the dependent variable (see Web Appendix W3).
The coefficient of match is significantly negative in all speci-
fications considered. Highly consistent results from two differ-
ent dependent variables add robustness in validating H1.
Study 2
The objectives of Study 2 are twofold. First, we aim to replicate
the findings of the effect of the motivation mismatch (vs.
match) strategy on adoption (H1) and to examine its underlying
mechanism (H2). Second, to enhance generalizability, we
examine another real-world cocreated innovation: Pivot Power.
Pivot Power originated from a customer-inventor’s avoidance-
oriented authentic creation narrative about the hassles of tradi-
tional electrical power strips. To better isolate the motivation
mismatch (vs. match) effect in our hypothesis testing, we
develop a full set of mismatch (vs. match) manipulations (see
Web Appendix W4).
Method
One hundred ninety participants (Mage ¼ 33 years; 51% male)
from Amazon Mechanical Turk took part in the study in
exchange for a small monetary compensation. We employ a
2 (persuasive messages: approach- vs. avoidance-oriented
motivation for adoption)  2 (authentic creation narratives:
approach- vs. avoidance-oriented motivation of invention)
between-subjects design. Participants were asked to review
some online information about a real-world cocreated innova-
tion, Pivot Power. Drawing on the original online ad for Pivot
Power, we designed two sets of persuasive messages, promot-
ing either an approach- or avoidance-oriented motivation for
adoption. Using the customer-inventor’s original avoidance-
oriented authentic creation narrative retrieved from his per-
sonal blog, we developed a new, approach-oriented authentic
creation narrative. To create a realistic scenario about the
newly launched innovation, we highlighted in the ad that the
cocreated innovation had been on the market for just “a week”
with no update on “units sold to date” (see also Web Appendix
W4 and Figure 3). Following prior research on innovation
adoption (Dahl, Fuchs, and Schreier 2014; Ma, Yang, and
Mourali 2014), we did not mention the price of the innovation.
The manipulation check in the main study shows that across
4
The estimated lift looks somewhat large. Therefore, we investigated the
model-free evidence and found that the motivation mismatch strategy
generated 58% higher sales revenue than the motivation match strategy.
Substantial difference in sales revenue associated with the motivation
mismatch strategy might be explained by the innovation takeoff. The
motivation mismatch strategy is associated with higher probability of early
takeoff. In the data set used in Study 4, we observed that three-month
adoption amount (units sold) after takeoff is greater by 688% than those
before takeoff.
Journal of Marketing XX(X)
conditions, our manipulations were equally believable (M ¼
5.55) and realistic (M ¼ 4.57) (all ps > .28):
Persuasive message (approach/[avoidance])
You know what makes your dream come true [You know
what makes your frustration go away]? This. Reclaim your
outlets with Pivot Power, a flexible surge protecting power
strip that bends to fit every sized plug or adapter.
With Pivot Power, you can fit as many plugs all at once as
you dream of. More economic, and more space saving. [no
more frustration over plug traffic jams, or blocked outlets —
even those big ol’ bricks are welcome.]
Authentic creation narrative (approach/[avoidance])
Pivot power was invented by real customers like you.
Chris had a dream of being able to use all the outlets on a
power strip, even if they are all giant power bricks (trans-
formers) adjacent to each other. [Chris often found himself
in a situation that he can’t use an outlet on a power strip
because a giant power brick (transformer) in the adjacent
outlet is blocking it.]
Dreaming of an ideal power strip [Sick of such a frustrating
problem], he considered how he might create something
new. Driving home, the idea for Pivot Power hit him.
Participants were asked to first review the online information
about Pivot Power and then rate their likelihood of adoption
(“How likely would you be to purchase this new product, if the
price were reasonable?”; 1 ¼ “very unlikely,” and 7 ¼ “very
likely”). On the next survey page, participants were asked to
“write down all aspects you have considered in making this
decision.” We followed Escalas’ (2007) procedure and measured
participants’ narrative self-referencing by inviting two research
assistants to code participants’ thoughts. Both research assistants
were blind to the purpose of the study. The research assistants
used a four-item scale of narrative self-referencing adapted from
Escalas (2007) based on the seven-point Likert scale: (1)
“participants’ thoughts were about how they themselves
engaged in activities to achieve desired outcomes or solve exist-
ing problems”; (2) “participants’ thoughts provided insights
about their personal life, stories, or situations”; (3) “participants’
thoughts had a well-delineated story with a beginning (initial
event), middle (problem or turning point), and end (con-
clusion)”; and (4) “participants’ thoughts reflected their thought
process of picturing themselves experiencing the same or a sim-
ilar event to that described by the customer inventor.” We aver-
aged the four items to form a narrative self-referencing score for
each participant. The two coders’ ratings were highly correlated
(r ¼ .76, p < .01; a ¼ .84). We averaged both of their ratings to
form an average score of narrative self-referencing. For exam-
ple, the assistants coded a high level of narrative self-referencing
when one participant wrote:
This product seems like something that would be quite helpful to
me. As I sit on my desktop computer in my evening study now, I
Wang et al.
Figure 3. Pictures of manipulations in Study 2 (Pivot Power) and Study 3 (Stem).
have to make a tough choice between turning on my lamp [and]
listening to music from my iPhone. I have enough plug-ins on the
surge-protecting strip; however, it doesn’t fit right to allow both
items to turn on. With Pivot Power, I am hopeful I can use both of
my belongings.
A low level of narrative self-referencing was coded when
participant wrote comments such as “style, design,
practicality.” In an unrelated study, we collected these same
participants’ chronic approach/avoidance motivation orienta-
tion using the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ; Förster,
Higgins, and Idson 1998). The RFQ, along with age, gender,
and household income, were collected and used as control
variables.
Results and Discussion
Test of H1. We first performed separate pretests as in Study 1 to
validate the success of our manipulations (for details, see Web
Appendix W5). To test H1, the mismatched ad effect on adop-
tion, we ran a 2  2 analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with
the likelihood of adoption as the dependent variable. We found
11
a significant interaction effect (F(1, 182) ¼ 6.87, p ¼ .01, Z 2p
¼.05) but no significant main effect of each factor. Follow-up
planned contrasts showed that when the authentic creation nar-
rative was approach-oriented, the motivation mismatch (vs.
match), in which persuasive messages promoted avoidance-
(vs. approach-) oriented motivation for adoption, led to a
higher likelihood of adoption (M ¼ 6.11 vs. M ¼ 5.62; F(1,
182) ¼ 4.51, p < .05). When the authentic creation narrative
featured an avoidance-oriented motivation of invention, the
motivation mismatch (vs. match), in which persuasive mes-
sages promoted an approach- (vs. avoidance-) oriented motiva-
tion for adoption, increased adoption (M ¼ 5.82 vs. M ¼ 5.33;
F(1, 182) ¼ 4.28, p < .05). These findings provide support for
H1. Specifically, the motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy
increases adoption of cocreated innovations (see Figure 2,
Panel B).5
Test of H2. We hypothesize that narrative self-referencing med-
iates the motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy on adoption.
5
The results follow the same pattern of effects without the covariates.
12
To test this underlying mechanism, we first ran a 2  2
ANCOVA with narrative self-referencing as the dependent
variable. We found a significant interaction effect (F(1, 182)
¼ 25.45, p < .01, Z2p ¼.12) but no other main effect of either
variable. Follow-up planned contrasts revealed that when the
authentic creation narrative was approach oriented, a motiva-
tion mismatch (vs. match) with an avoidance- (approach-)
oriented persuasive message evoked a greater level of narrative
self-referencing (M ¼ 4.89 vs. M ¼ 3.64; F(1, 182) ¼ 10.37, p
< .01). Similarly, when the inventor’s motivation was avoid-
ance oriented, the motivation mismatch (vs. match) with an
approach- (vs. avoidance-) oriented persuasive message
increased narrative self-referencing (M ¼ 4.67 vs. M ¼ 3.10;
F(1, 182) ¼ 15.41, p < .01).
To directly test the mediating role of narrative self-
referencing, we conducted a mediation analysis using the boot-
strapping method (Preacher and Hayes 2004). First, we created
a dummy variable for the motivation mismatch (vs. match;
mismatch ¼ 1, match ¼ 0) as the independent variable.6 We
specified narrative self-referencing as the mediator and the
likelihood of adoption as the dependent variable. We also spec-
ified the following variables as control variables in the model:
approach- (vs. avoidance-) oriented persuasive message;
approach- (vs. avoidance-) oriented authentic creation narra-
tive; and participants’ age, gender, income, and RFQ. The
results supported H 2 ’s prediction that narrative self-
referencing mediates the effect of mismatched (vs. matched)
ads on adoption (95% confidence interval [CI] ¼ [.03, .25]).
Consistent with prior research, we also found that RFQ promo-
tion- (vs. prevention-) focused participants are more likely to
adopt the product (b ¼ .34, t ¼ 3.14, p < .05). Moreover, men
are more likely to adopt this new electronic product (Pivot
Power) than women (b ¼ .42, t ¼ 2.57, p < .05).7
Ruling out alternative explanations. One may argue that the effect
of the motivation mismatch strategy on adoption is mediated by
motivation compatibility. That is, a motivation mismatch (vs.
match) strategy combines both avoidance and approach moti-
vations and therefore may have a greater chance of being com-
patible with potential adopters’ chronic approach- or avoidance
oriented regulatory focus (RFQ), and this motivation compat-
ibility subsequently influences adoption. To rule out this alter-
native explanation, we conducted a postanalysis (for details,
see Web Appendix W6). The results show that the motivation
mismatch strategy did not lead to motivation compatibility (b
¼ 21.92, Wald < .01, n.s.). Furthermore, controlling for the
motivation compatibility, the mediating effect of narrative self-
referring was still significant (95% CI ¼ [.05, .30]).
Poststudies. We also conducted two poststudies to better estab-
lish our underlying process in terms of whether it is the
6
The results follow the same pattern of effects using moderated mediation
(Model 7, Preacher and Hayes 2004).
7
The identified mediation effect held without the control variables in the
model.
Journal of Marketing XX(X)
customer as an inventor, the customer as the conveyor of the
message, or the content of the message itself that is driving our
results (for details, see Web Appendix W7). Poststudy 1
employed a 2 (persuasive messages: approach- vs. avoidance-
oriented)  2 (authentic creation narratives: approach- vs.
avoidance-oriented)  2 (inventor: employee vs. customer)
between-subjects design. The results show a significant three-
way interaction effect (F(1, 492) ¼ 3.95, p < .05, Z 2p ¼.01). In
particular, the motivation mismatch effect holds when a cus-
tomer is the inventor, but the effect is mitigated when the
inventor is a firm employee. This result indicates that customer
(vs. employee) as inventor, rather than the content of the mes-
sage, is fundamental to our effect.
Poststudy 2 employed a 2 (inventor: employee vs. customer)
 2 (communication channel: user-generated vs. firm-gener-
ated)  2 (ad strategy: motivation mismatch vs. match)
between-subjects design. The results replicate the finding of
Poststudy 1 that the motivation mismatch effect holds for
customer as inventor, but not employee as inventor. Further-
more, the motivation mismatch effects hold for both
user-generated (customer blog) or firm-generated (official
website) communication channels. Thus, the communication
channel is not key to our results. In summary, using a con-
trolled experimental design and a different real-world, cocre-
ated innovation (Pivot Power) as our key manipulations,
Study 2 provides convergent evidence that the motivation
mismatch drives the adoption of cocreated innovation,
because it activates narrative self-referencing of authentic
creation narratives (H1 and H2).
Study 3
Study 3 was an experiment designed to examine the moderat-
ing role of consumer expertise. To improve the external valid-
ity of the research, this study uses a different real-world,
cocreated innovation—Stem (a lemon spray) —as our key
manipulation. Stem originated from an approach-oriented
authentic creation narrative (see also Web Appendix W8).
We developed an avoidance-oriented authentic creation nar-
rative to test a full set of mismatched and matched ad condi-
tions. Separate pretests were conducted to validate the success
of the manipulations (for details, see Web Appendix W9 and
Figure 3):
Persuasive Message (approach/[avoidance])
This metal spray is an ideal [a must have] tool for your
kitchen. Stem sprays juice directly from any citrus fruit with
the press of a finger.
With stem, more fun, more convenience [no more fuss of
cutting and squeezing, no more mess].You can spray where
you desire [need]: on slices fruit, on salads, on meat, or even
on surfaces for cleaning.
Authentic Creation Narrative (approach/[avoidance])
Stem was invented by real customers like you.
Wang et al.
Pat noticed that the most common way to apply lemon juice
or any other citrus fruit, to a food product, is by cutting the
lemon and squeezing the juice over the dish.
Dreaming of more fun and the same job easily done [Tired
of all the mess in cutting and manually squeezing], Pat came
up with the idea for Stem.
Method
Four hundred seven participants (Mage ¼ 40 years; 46%
male) from Amazon Mechanical Turk took part in the study
in exchange for a small monetary compensation. Study 3
implemented a 2 (persuasive message: approach- vs.
avoidance-oriented motivation for adoption)  2 (authentic
creation narrative: approach- vs. avoidance-oriented motiva-
tion of invention) between-subjects design, with consumer
expertise as a measured variable. Participants first read
some online information about the lemon spray and then
rated their likelihood of adoption. Next, we asked partici-
pants to self-report their narrative self-referencing using the
same four-item scale as in Study 2, except changing
“participants” to “I” (a ¼ .71; Escalas 2007). We also col-
lected a measure of consumer expertise on a three-item
seven-point Likert scale (a ¼ .83; “I have a lot of knowl-
edge to evaluate this kind of product,” “I am very capable
of evaluating this kind of product,” and “I am an expert in
this kind of product”; Campbell and Keller 2003). Finally,
participants evaluated how “believable” and “realistic” the
online information was. We again collected RFQ scores
through a different study, along with demographic informa-
tion (i.e., age, gender, and household income) to use as
control variables. Because none of the control variables
were significant, we do not discuss them further. Across
conditions, participants rated that the online information
was equally believable (5.00 to 5.29) and realistic (5.04 to
5.37).
Results and Discussion
Test of H3. We ran a 2  2  continuous consumer expertise
ANCOVA on the likelihood of adoption dependent variable.
In support of H3, we found a significant three-way interac-
tion effect (F(16, 331) ¼ 3.90, p < .01, Z 2p ¼ .16). To
further explore the interaction effect, we conducted simple
slope analyses at one standard deviation unit above (high
expertise) and below (low expertise) the mean of consumer
expertise (Hayes 2012, Model 3). The results show that the
persuasive message  authentic creation narrative interac-
tion effect is significant and negative for low-expertise con-
sumers (1 SD below M ¼ 3.18; blow ¼ 2.15, t ¼ 4.22, p
< .01) but not for high-expertise consumers (1 SD above M
¼ 5.95; bhigh ¼.94, t ¼ 1.87, p ¼ . 06). By applying the
Johnson–Neyman technique, we found that based on a 95%
confidence band, the interaction effect is no longer signifi-
cant and negative when consumer expertise is above 4.47
13
(Johnson–Neyman point of significance ¼ 4.478; see Figure
2, Panel C).
Moderated mediation. We expected that consumer expertise
moderates the motivation mismatch strategy on adoption,
because high (vs. low) consumer expertise attenuates the effect
of the motivation mismatch on narrative self-referencing. To
validate this theorizing, we conducted a 2  2  continuous
consumer expertise ANCOVA on narrative self-referencing.
The results showed a significant three-way interaction effect
(F(16, 331) ¼ 1.85, p < .05, Z2p ¼.08). Simple slope analyses
show that the persuasion message  authentic creation narra-
tive interaction effect is significant and negative for low-
expertise consumers (1 SD below M ¼ 3.18; blow ¼ 1.61, t
¼ 4.73, p < .01), but not for high-expertise consumers (1 SD
above M ¼ 5.95; bhigh ¼ .30, t ¼ .90, p ¼ . 37). Analysis
using the Johnson–Neyman technique showed that based on a
95% confidence band, the interaction effect on narrative self-
referencing is no longer significant when consumer expertise is
above 5.43 (Johnson–Neyman point of significance ¼ 5.43).
Next, we tested moderated mediation by using bootstrap
analysis. First, we created a dummy variable for the motivation
mismatch (vs. match) ad (mismatch ¼ 1, match ¼ 0) as the
independent variable. We treated the motivation mismatch (vs.
match) as an independent variable, adoption as a dependent
variable, consumer expertise as a moderator, and narrative
self-referencing as a mediator (Hayes 2012, Model 7). The
results validated the moderated mediation effect. When con-
sumer expertise is low (1 SD below M ¼ 3.18), the effect of the
motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy on adoption was
significantly and positively mediated by narrative self-
referencing (95% CI ¼ [.25, .86]), but the mediation effect
went away when consumer expertise was high (1 SD above
M ¼ 5.95) (95% CI ¼ [.12, .29]).
To recap, in Study 3, we used a different real-world cocre-
ated innovation (lemon spray) to validate the moderating role
of consumer expertise. By measuring individual differences in
consumer expertise, we find convergent evidence that consu-
mers’ high expertise attenuates the effect of the motivation
mismatch strategy on adoption. Furthermore, the moderated
mediation test demonstrated that narrative self-referencing is
the underlying mechanism of the effect.
Study 4
Study 4 aims to validate the effect of the motivation mismatch
(vs. match) strategy on the early takeoff of cocreated innova-
tions. To do so, we obtained 112 cocreated innovations’ month-
to-month sales records from a U.S.-based cocreated innovation
firm. The firm was founded in 2009 and was one of the pioneers
in cocreated innovation. Following the typical cocreation
model, the firm operates an online platform to collect creative
ideas and prototypes from consumers around the world. After a
8
The results follow the same pattern of effects without the covariates.
14
series of screening processes, the firm codevelops the most
promising ideas and prototypes with the inventor and the com-
munity and brings them to market. By 2014, the firm had sold
more than 100 cocreated innovation products, with annual rev-
enues exceeding US$100 million. Most of the cocreated innova-
tions are consumer products that fall into four categories:
Electronics; Home and Garden Supply; Kitchen Supply; and
Health, Fitness, and Travel Accessories. Because the cocreated
innovations are mainly sold through the firm’s online website,
the sales records of each cocreated innovation provide reason-
able control of exogenous variation and can be used as valid data
sources to model innovation adoption (Kornish and Ulrich
2014). We obtained month-to-month sales records of 112 cocre-
ated innovations launched from December 2009 to June 2014.
Dependent Variable: Takeoff
Innovation takeoff is the transition point from the introductory
stage to the growth stage in the adoption life cycle (Golder and
Tellis 1997). Although prior research on durable consumer prod-
ucts and high-technology innovations has used yearly sales data as
the unit of analysis to model takeoff time, recent research has
shown that the product life cycle for consumer products has
decreased to two to three years (BPIR 2014). Thus, we use monthly
sales data to model time to takeoff for a more precise analysis.
We adopt Agarwal and Bayus’ (2002) discriminant
approach to measure time to takeoff because this method is
rigorous and does not require complete information about the
four life-cycle phases (Techatassanasoontorn and Kauffman
2014). Here, we briefly repeat the key steps in the discriminant
approach (for detailed procedures, see Agarwal and Bayus
[2002]). We first used a visual analysis by plotting the
month-to-month sales data to generate a graph of potential
adoption phases, particularly the introduction and growth
phases. Then, from the percentage change in the monthly sales
data, we partitioned the series of monthly sales data into three
categories. The first and third categories contain the months in
which the percentage change in sales clearly reflects the pre-
and posttakeoff periods, and the second category contains the
remaining “in-between phase” data. Finally, we followed Gort
and Klepper’s (1982) statistical procedure of a generalized
version of discriminant analysis based on mean values of the
pre- and posttakeoff period sales growth rates to further parti-
tion the in-between phase data and pinpoint the takeoff month
that reports a dramatic sales growth over the prior month (for
sample graphs, see Figure 4 and Web Appendix W10). We
excluded ten innovations with a sales period of less than five
months, because it is too early to define takeoff timing for
them.9 We also used an alternative method to measure the
takeoff time following Golder and Tellis (1997). The main
results are robust to the alternate measure of takeoff time (for
details, see Web Appendix W11).
9
In the data, the average time to takeoff is 4.38 months for cocreated
innovations that show clear takeoff patterns.
Journal of Marketing XX(X)
We apply our data to a discrete time hazard model. We
define our dependent variable Yit as:

0 if t<TOi
Yit ¼ ;
1 if t<TOi
where TOi denotes the takeoff month of the cocreated innova-
tion i. Yit is a binary variable with the number of observations
equal to TOi. We apply a linear probability model using Yit as a
dependent variable. The probability of takeoff is specified as10:
ProbðTOi ¼ tjTOi >t  1; Xit ; TLit Þ ¼ X it  b þ TLit  t1
1
þ TLit2  t2 þ  t3 ;
TLit
ð1Þ
where Xit is a vector of an intercept and explanatory variables
(e.g., price, category), and TLit denotes time (month) elapsed
since the launch of product i at t. Modeling duration data in this
manner can be regarded as a discrete time hazard model. Spe-
cifically, TLit  t1 þ TLit2  t2 þ ð1=TLit Þ  t3 flexibly cap-
tures the effect of time since launch on baseline hazard (or
takeoff probability). Note that this specification allows for a
wide range of different hazard shapes and has been successfully
used in discrete time hazard models (see, e.g., Singh, Hansen,
and Blattberg [2006], Equation 12, p. 467).
Independent Variables and Control Variables
The motivation mismatch versus match strategy. On the cocreating
firms’ website, typical information about a cocreated innovation
consists of three sections: (1) the persuasive message, (2) infor-
mation about the customer-inventors and their invention, and (3)
pictures of the product. We trained two research assistants who
were blind to our hypotheses to code the motivation orientations
in the first two sections of the actual ads of 102 cocreated inno-
vations. The coding method is consistent with Study 1b. We
found that for 15 of the 102 cocreated innovations, the inventor’s
story did not provide any information about his or her motivation
of invention (kappa ¼ .77, and intraclass correlation coefficient
¼ .87). Instead, the inventor’s story was about his or her hobbies
or identified demographic information. Given our research
focus, we excluded these innovations from our analysis. In the
remaining sample (n ¼ 87), 40% of the ads of cocreated innova-
tion utilized a match strategy, taking the value of 1 (kappa ¼ .75,
intraclass correlation coefficient ¼ .86).11
10
As a robustness check, we ran two additional models based on different
specifications and assumptions (see Web Appendix W12).
11
We have assumed that persuasive message and authentic creation narratives
are generated independently. In other words, the match and mismatch strategies
are exogenously determined. We further validated this assumption by
interviewing the chief executive officer of the company and adopting the
control function approach using an instrumental variable (Petrin and Train
2010). Specifically, we use the developer’s prior success as an instrumental
variable. After controlling for the effects of various independent variables (e.g.,
price, novelty, usefulness of the product), the prior success of the developer is
unlikely to be correlated with the takeoff timing of the focal innovation,
Wang et al. 15

A: Cargo B: Broom Groomer with Broom

18,000
60
16,000
Takeoff
14,000 50
Oct
12,000
Units Sold

Units Sold
40
10,000
8,000 30 Takeoff Aug
6,000 20
4,000
10
2,000
0 0
SepNov Jan MarMay Jul SepNov Jan MarMay Jul Sep Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Month Month

C: Core D: Fender Smart Cover

8
80 7
70 6
Takeoff

Units Sold
60
5 Jan
Units Sold

50
4
40
3
30
Takeoff Jun 2
20
10 1
0 0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Month Month

Figure 4. Study 4 takeoff month examples.

Control variables. We controlled for the following ten potentially
influential variables in our model:
1. We controlled for the selling price of each innovation
in the takeoff model. In our sample, the selling price of
the innovations range from $1.99 to $300, with a mean
of $26.50. Following Kornish and Ulrich (2014), we
take the natural log of price (Lnprice) for the estima-
tion (M ¼ 2.86, SD ¼.89).
2. We controlled for the potential influence of the prod-
uct category on time to takeoff. The company classi-
fies its products into four categories: (1) Electronics
(41%); (2) Home and Garden (29%); (3) Kitchen
(20%); and (4) Health, Fitness, and Travel (10%). Fol-
lowing this categorization, we constructed three cate-
gory dummy variables (Electronics, Home and
Garden, and Kitchen), while the Health, Fitness, and
Travel category serves as a baseline.
3. Lninfl is the log of the number of community members
who participated in the product development
satisfying the exclusion restriction. In addition, we confirmed that the prior
success of the developer (the independent variable) satisfies the inclusion
restriction (see Web Appendix W13).
(M ¼ 6.95, SD ¼.91). This control variable helps us
control for the influence of the participating custom-
ers/community on takeoff.
4. Lndvlp is the log of the duration (days) of product
development (M ¼ 4.24, SD ¼1.29). This variable,
as a proxy of innovation development cost, may also
potentially influence adoption takeoff (Kornish and
Ulrich 2014).
5. Lnbase is the log of the first month’s sales (Lnbase).
We include this variable to control for the influence of
the base level of sales on time to takeoff (Golder and
Tellis 1997). Adding the base level of sales may also
help us control for other potential explanatory vari-
ables (e.g., competition).
6. We control for novelty (avgnovel; a ¼ .94) as in Study 1b.
7. We control for usefulness (avguse; a ¼ .88) as in
Study 1b.
8. PriorSuccess (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no) indicates whether the
innovation comes from a customer-inventor who has
previously successfully launched an innovation in the
same platform.
9. DecJan (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no) indicates whether the inno-
vation were launched during December or January to
control for the effect of seasonality or holidays.
16 Journal of Marketing XX(X)

Table 2. Study 4 Results Using Log Total Units Sold as the Dependent Variable.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Predictors Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate

Constant .56*** .61*** .63*** .50*** .40*** .38*** .58***

TL (continuous; months elapsed since the launch of product) .62*** .62*** .61*** .60*** .57*** .58*** .59***
TL2 .19*** .19*** .18*** .18*** .17*** .18*** .18***
1/TL .05*** .05*** .05*** .05*** .05*** .05*** .05***
Authentic creation narrative orientationa .05 .03 .02 .04 .03 .03 .03
Persuasive message orientationa .04 .03 .03 .06 .05 .05 .06
Matchb .07*** .10*** .10*** .10*** .10*** .10***
Electronics .01 .03 .03 .03 .01
Home & Garden .03 .03 .01 .00 .01
Kitchen .07 .07 .10 .10 .09
Ln (sales price) (continuous in US$) .02 .02 .02 .02
Ln(development days) (continuous) .02 .03* .03* .03*
Ln(number of influencers) (continuous) .01 .02 .02 .02
Ln(units sold in 1st month) (continuous) .01 .00 .00 .00
Inventor prior success .11* .10 .10
Noveltyc .02 .03 .03
Usefulnessc .04*** .04*** .04***
Takeoff month: January .13***
Takeoff month: February .17***
Takeoff month: March .16***
Takeoff month: April .19***
Takeoff month: May .10
Takeoff month: June .10
Takeoff month: July .19***
Takeoff month: August .15***
Takeoff month: September .22***
Takeoff month: October .27***
Takeoff month: November .25***
Takeoff month: December .09
R-square .07 .08 .08 .10 .11 .13 .16
*p < .10.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.
a
Dummy: 1 ¼ approach, 0 ¼ avoidance.
b
Dummy: 1 ¼ match, 0 ¼ mismatch.
c
Interval: 1 ¼ “not at all,” and 7 ¼ “very much.”
Notes: All variables are dummies (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no) unless otherwise noted.

10. Takeoff Month (Month) indicates the takeoff month of
the innovation (for descriptive statistics, see Web
Appendix W14).
11. We also checked the correlations among these vari-
ables and found that the largest correlation coefficient
is .54, indicating that multicollinearity is not a signif-
icant concern.
Estimation and Results
We modeled the takeoff of 87 cocreated innovations using a
discrete time hazard model. In the data, 21 innovations (24% of
the total) never took off and 66 innovations (76% of the total)
show clear takeoff patterns (M ¼ 4.38 months, SD ¼ 3.00
months, Min ¼ 2 months, Max ¼ 14 months). We estimated
the linear probability model specified in Equation 1. Table 2
reports the estimation results. In all the models with Match
variable, the estimated coefficients were significant and nega-
tive, implying that the motivation match (vs. mismatch) strat-
egy decreases the hazard rate (i.e., probability of its takeoff).
The estimated coefficients ranged from .07 to .10, and this
indicates that the probability of takeoff decreases by 7% to 10%
with the motivation match strategy. This result provided sup-
port for the notion that the motivation mismatch (vs. match)
strategy is more likely to speed up time to takeoff. We also
found that usefulness is highly significant and positive in Mod-
els 5–7.
The estimates of t1, t2, and t3 were all significant and have
similar values in all models estimated. We illustrate the base-
line hazard of Model 7 (the best-fitting model) over the first 20-
month period since launch in Web Appendix W16, Figure A.
The baseline hazard rate or the baseline probability of takeoff
increases in the first 4 months from launch, then slightly
decreases until 16 months from launch. We also found that the
Wang et al.
.00
−.05
−.10
−.15
−.20
−.25
−.30
Figure 5. Study 4 monthly variation in probability of takeoff.
*p < .10.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.
Notes: Probability of takeoff in January is normalized to zero.
probability of takeoff shows significant variation over months.
Figure 5 graphically represents the estimated coefficients of
month dummies in Model 7. Note that the takeoff probability of
January is normalized to zero for the model identification. The
probability of takeoff is relatively high in January, December,
May, and June and is significantly lower in other months. How-
ever, after we control for this seasonality effect, our proposed
effect of the motivation mismatch (vs. match) strategy still holds.
In summary, our empirical analyses provide direct support
for our prediction that the motivation mismatch (vs. match)
between persuasive messages and authentic creation narratives
in ads of cocreation innovation is more likely to drive early
takeoff. Given that takeoff is an important turning point for
innovation adoption (Golder and Tellis 1997), this study pro-
vides convergent evidence for our proposed model at the aggre-
gate level.
General Discussion
Despite their unique value, the low adoption rates of many
cocreated innovations challenge both cocreating start-ups and
established firms, dampen customers’ enthusiastic participa-
tion, and threaten the sustainability of the cocreation model
(Adjust Report 2014; Apple 2014). In this research, we explore
a new communication strategy and adoption mechanism for
cocreated innovations involving an interactive FGC–UGC
strategy. Our supported conceptual framework has significant
implications for both academia and cocreation managers.
Theoretical Contributions
Our research contributes to the marketing literature in several
important ways. First, we contribute to the growing body of
17
literature on interactive FGC–UGC strategies and their impact
on business outcomes. Extant FGC–UGC literature has focused
mostly on UGC-based on retrospectives of consumers’ con-
sumption experiences (e.g., product/service reviews). Little is
known about how to leverage UGC that describes consumers’
creative experiences or how to strategically design FGC and
UGC at the content level to drive the adoption of cocreated
innovations. Our research shows that in the communication of
cocreated innovations, firms can leverage a unique type of
creation story that features the creative motivations and experi-
ences of the customer-inventor, in what we label authentic
creation narratives. Specifically, creating a motivation mis-
match (vs. match) between firm-generated persuasive mes-
sages (explicit persuasion statements designed to promote
innovation attributes and reasons for adoption) and customer-
inventor-generated authentic creation narratives drives the
adoption of cocreated innovation. This finding extends FGC-
UGC research by furthering our understanding of UGC and
developing interactive FGC-UGC strategies that are compel-
ling to consumers.
Second, we offer a novel explanation for the effect of the
motivation mismatch strategy by showing evidence that the
activation of narrative self-referencing is the underlying
mechanism at play in these situations. This finding contributes
to both the cocreated innovation literature and narrative persua-
sion theory. Extant research on cocreated innovation has pri-
marily examined the effect of a “user-designed” labeling
strategy (e.g., Dahl, Fuchs, and Schreier 2014; Nishikawa
et al. 2017; Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl 2012) and its adoption
mechanisms by influencing adopters’ identification or evalua-
tions of the customer-inventor or cocreating firm. Our work
extends research on cocreated innovation by offering a novel
and unique adoption mechanism that elicits adopters’ actual
needs or wants for the innovation itself. It also adds to narrative
persuasion theory, which is based mainly on firm-generated
narrative materials in isolation, by showing how to manage
multisource (FGC and UGC), multiform (persuasive messages
and authentic creation narratives) communication materials to
activate narrative processing.
Third, we delineate an important moderating factor in our
conceptual model. That is, we demonstrate that the effect of the
motivation mismatch strategy is attenuated for high (vs. low)
consumer expertise. Furthermore, we show that the motivation
mismatch (vs. match) strategy predicts takeoff of the cocreated
innovation. These findings outline effective boundary conditions
as to when and for whom the motivation mismatch strategy
should be used to drive the adoption of cocreated innovation.
Furthermore, we contribute to the innovation diffusion literature
by tying a micro-level marketing communication strategy to
innovation adoption at both the individual (adoption) and aggre-
gate (takeoff) levels (Peres, Muller, and Mahajan 2010).
Managerial Implications
This research offers important implications for managers and
companies aiming to leverage the creative power of the crowd
18
in their innovation development. First, by addressing the key
challenge of better managing the development of cocreated
innovations (Apple 2014), we shed light on new and better
ways to communicate cocreated innovations and drive adop-
tion. Although the common practice is to label cocreated inno-
vations as “user designed” and provide information about
customer-inventors’ demographics or social affiliations, we
show that firms can leverage authentic creation narratives—
stories about their real-life experiences that motivated their
creative ideas—to drive adoption of cocreated innovations.
More importantly, contrary to management intuition of pro-
moting an aligned motivation for adoption, our findings show
that a motivation mismatch between persuasive messages and
authentic creation narratives drives adoption. These findings
introduce a valuable new perspective to management thinking
that should enhance the success of cocreation programs.
Second, our proposed boundary condition offers firms
actionable guidelines on when and to whom to apply the moti-
vation mismatch strategy to influence the adoption of cocreated
innovation. Specifically, marketers can identify high- versus
low-expertise consumers through segmentation or by tracking
consumer behaviors (e.g., high-expertise consumers may work
in similar product industries or act as opinion leaders in pro-
viding product reviews/YouTube tutorials) and apply the moti-
vation mismatch strategy toward low-expertise consumers. For
example, when the authentic creation narrative is approach
oriented (e.g., it features a customer-inventor’s dream or
aspiration of achieving ideal consumption outcomes), and con-
sumers’ expertise is low, the cocreating firm should design an
avoidance-oriented persuasive message that highlights how the
cocreated innovation can help avoid undesired or unwanted
consumption outcomes. Marketers can also evaluate the
novelty of the cocreated innovation (continuous vs. discontin-
uous). The mismatched strategy is more likely be effective in
driving adoption of discontinuous cocreated innovations
because these extremely novel products will, by definition,
be unfamiliar to the majority of the market. That unfamiliarity
equates to low product category expertise related to the inno-
vation and, per our model, a receptive consumer base for the
mismatch approach. Finally, our proposed model is also highly
relevant for managing the diffusion of cocreated innovation.
Beyond using a pricing strategy or waiting for customer inter-
actions through word of mouth to trigger takeoff (Peres, Mul-
ler, and Mahajan 2010), managers of cocreated innovations can
apply the motivation mismatch strategy to follower-adopters
(e.g., consumers who often rely heavily on customer reviews
for adoption or are less willing to test new products) to drive
their early adoption and aggregate takeoff.
Limitations and Future Research
This work has limitations that call for further research atten-
tion. First, drawing from research on the motivation-creativity
model, we focus on examining motivation mismatch between
two distinct motivational orientations: approach and avoid-
ance. Although prior research has indicated that these two
Journal of Marketing XX(X)
distinct motivation systems provide fundamental explanations
for human creativity, further research could examine the effects
of other dimensions in creative motivation systems, such as
self-/social-oriented creative motivations. Furthermore, in our
work we have sought to highlight the role of self-referencing as
a focal mechanism that underlies the motivation mismatch (vs.
match) strategy on the adoption of cocreated innovations.
Indeed, we believe we have effectively established (empirically
and theoretically) that self-referencing is fundamental to the
effects we identify. However, we do not want to imply that
self-referencing is the sole driver of the phenomenon. We
believe that, like most consumption phenomena, this effect is
multiply determined by a synergy of elements, and additional
complexity surrounds our identification. For example, how
does analytical versus affective/emotional processing relate
to the mismatch (vs. match) strategy we identify? Does the
self-referencing mechanism center on how unmet needs are
identified for the consumer or simply motivate the decision
to adopt? We hope that future research will deepen our inves-
tigation by expanding on the initial conceptualization that we
proffer here.
Second, our empirical study on the adoption of newly cocre-
ated innovation focuses on cocreated consumer products. Study
4, which measures the takeoff of cocreated innovations, is
based on cocreated innovations developed by one firm.
Although our mixed methods of experiments and analytical
modeling of real-world adoption/sales data increase our confi-
dence in our conceptualization, future research could expand
the examination to industrial, cocreated innovations and diffu-
sion data covering multiple cocreation firms. In addition, in our
sampled data in Study 4, we observed that takeoff is followed
by only a brief period of growth. This effect may be due to data
at the monthly level, the type of sampled product categories, or
seasonal effects. Future research could ascertain which of these
explanations is the most robust.
Finally, an interesting extension of this research would be
the consideration of “inauthentic” creation narratives, or cre-
ation narratives that the potential adopter would likely know to
be fiction, such as those long offered by the J. Peterman Com-
pany. Here, elaborate narratives are offered for the creation of
clothing goods, often involving a trek through a dangerous
jungle or glamorous gatherings of high society. When com-
bined with traditional persuasive messages, would our mis-
match effects persist? If so, this opens great opportunities to
expand application of the concept to enhance adoption in
broader settings.
Through five studies, we have examined the effects of a
motivation mismatch strategy between inventors’ authentic
creation narratives and firms’ marketing messages for cocre-
ated innovations that are delivered in traditional product sales
settings, such as product descriptions on a website. Future
research could explore how presenting persuasive messages
and authentic creation narratives through different channels
(e.g., firms’ press conferences, customer-inventors’ YouTube
channels) and in distinctive formats (e.g., persuasive speeches,
Wang et al.
video stories) could moderate the effect of the motivation mis-
match strategy on adoption.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Lawryn Bevels and Gemma Pierce for their
coding assistance in executing one of these studies. They also greatly
appreciate the comments of Dr. Michael Wiles on an earlier version of
this manuscript.
Associate Editor
Praveen Kopalle served as associate editor for this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adjust Report (2014), “Birth, Life and Death of an App,” (accessed
August 1, 2014), https://www.adjust.com/assets/downloads/
AppleAppStore_Report2014.pdf.
Agarwal, Rajshree, and Barry L. Bayus (2002), “The Market Evolu-
tion and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations,” Management Sci-
ence, 48 (8), 1024–41.
Alba, Joseph W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of
Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4),
411–54.
Apple (2014), “App Store Sales Top $10 Billion in 2013,” press
release (January 7), http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/
07App-Store-Sales-Top-10-Billion-in-2013.html.
Avnet, Tamar, and E. Tory Higgins (2006), “How Regulatory Fit
Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 43 (1), 1–10.
Baldwin, Carliss, and Eric von Hippel (2011), “Modeling a Paradigm
Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative
Innovation,” Organization Science, 22 (6), 1399–1417.
Bass, Frank M. (2004) “Comments on ‘A New Product Growth for
Model Consumer Durables the Bass Model,’” Management Sci-
ence, 50 (12 Suppl), 1833–1840.
BPIR (2014), “Best Practice Report: Product Lifecycle Management
2,” blog post (July 30), http://blog.bpir.com/best-practice-reports/
product-lifecycle-management-2.
Campbell, Margaret C., and Kevin Lane Keller (2003), “Brand Famil-
iarity and Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 30 (2), 292–304.
Chesbrough, Henry, and Sabine Brunswicker (2014), “A Fad or a
Phenomenon?: The Adoption of Open Innovation Practices in
Large Firms,” Research-Technology Management, 57 (2), 16–25.
Dahl, Darren W., Christoph Fuchs, and Martin Schreier (2014), “Why
and When Consumers Prefer Products of User-Driven Firms: A
Social Identification Account,” Management Science, 61 (8),
1978–88.
19
Dickson, Mary (2014), “Meet Perfect Bacon Bowl Inventor, Thom
Jensen!” blog post (January 14), EdisonNation, http://blog.edison
nation.com/2014/01/meet-perfect-bacon-bowl-inventor-thom-
jensen/.
Elliot, Andrew J. (1999), “Approach and Avoidance Motivation and
Achievement Goals,” Educational Psychologist, 34 (3), 169–89.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2007), “Self-Referencing and Persuasion:
Narrative Transportation Versus Analytical Elaboration,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 33 (4), 421–29.
Förster, Jens, E.Tory Higgins, and Lorraine Chen Idson (1998),
“Approach and Avoidance Strength During Goal Attainment: Reg-
ulatory Focus and the ‘Goal Looms Larger’ Effect,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (5), 1115–31.
Golder, Peter N., and Gerard J. Tellis (1997), “Will It Ever Fly?
Modeling the Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables,” Mar-
keting Science, 16 (3), 256–70.
Golder, Peter N., and Gerard J. Tellis (2004), “Growing, Growing,
Gone: Cascades, Diffusion, and Turning Points in the Product Life
Cycle,” Marketing Science, 23 (2), 207–18.
Gort, Michael, and Steven Klepper (1982), “Time Paths in the Diffu-
sion of Product Innovations,” Economic Journal, 92 (367),
630–53.
Green, Melanie C., and Timothy C. Brock (2000), “The Role of Trans-
portation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701–21.
Green, Melanie C., and John K. Donahue (2009), “Simulated Worlds:
Transportation into Narratives,” in Handbook of Imagination and
Mental Simulation, Keith D. Markman, William M.P. Klein, and
Julie A. Suhr, eds. New York: Psychology Press, 241–56.
Hamilton, David L., Steven J. Sherman, and Catherine M. Ruvolo
(1990), “Stereotype-Based Expectancies: Effects on Information
Processing and Social Behavior,” Journal of Social Issues, 46
(2), 35–60.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), “PROCESS: A Versatile Computational
Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Condi-
tional Process Modeling,” white paper, www.afhayes.com/public/
process2012.pdf.
Hennessey, Beth A. (2010), “The Creativity-Motivation Connection,”
in The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, James C. Kaufman and
Robert J. Sternberg, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press,
342–65.
Hewett, Kelly, William Rand, Roland T. Rust, and Harald J. van
Heerde (2016), “Brand Buzz in the Echoverse,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 80 (3), 1–24.
Kornish, Laura J., and Karl T. Ulrich (2014), “The Importance of the
Raw Idea in Innovation: Testing the Sow’s Ear Hypothesis,” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 14–26.
Krishnamurthy, Parthasarathy, and Mita Sujan (1999), “Retrospection
Versus Anticipation: The Role of the Ad Under Retrospective and
Anticipatory Self-Referencing,” Journal of Consumer Research,
26 (1), 55–69.
Kumar, Ashish, Ram Bezawada, Ramkumar Janakiraman Rishika,
and P.K. Kannan (2016), “From Social to Sale: The Effects of
Firm-Generated Content in Social Media on Customer Behavior,”
Journal of Marketing, 80 (1), 7–25.
20
Ma, Zhenfeng, Zhiyong Yang, and Mehdi Mourali (2014), “Consumer
Adoption of New Products: Independent Versus Interdependent
Self-Perspectives,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (2), 101–17.
Maheswaran, Durairaj, and Shelly Chaiken (1991), “Promoting Sys-
tematic Processing in Low-Motivation Settings: Effect of Incon-
gruent Information on Processing and Judgment,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (1), 13–25.
Mattila, Anna S. (2000), “The Role of Narratives in the Advertising of
Experiential Services,” Journal of Service Research, 3 (1), 35–45.
McQuarrie, Edward F., Jessica Miller, and Barbara J. Phillips (2013),
“The Megaphone Effect: Taste and Audience in Fashion
Blogging,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 136–58.
Nielsen, Jesper H., and Jennifer Edson Escalas (2010), “Easier Is Not
Always Better: The Moderating Role of Processing Type on Pre-
ference Fluency,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (3),
295–305.
Nishikawa, Hidehiko, Martin Schreier, Christoph Fuchs, and Susumu
Ogawa (2017), “The Value of Marketing Crowdsourced New
Products as Such: Evidence from Two Randomized Field Experi-
ments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (4), 525–39.
Paivio, Allan (1991), “Dual Coding Theory: Retrospect and Current
Status,” Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45 (3), 255–87.
Peracchio, Laura A., and Alice M. Tybout (1996), “The Moderating
Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (3), 177–92.
Peres, Renana, Eitan Muller, and Vijay Mahajan (2010), “Innovation
Diffusion and New Product Growth Models: A Critical Review and
Research Directions,” International Journal of Research in Mar-
keting, 27 (2), 91–106.
Petrin, Amil, and Kenneth Train (2010), “A Control Function
Approach to Endogeneity in Consumer Choice Models,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 47 (1), 3–13.
Phillips, Barbara J., and Edward F. McQuarrie (2010), “Narrative and
Persuasion in Fashion Advertising,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 37 (3), 368–92.
Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes (2004), “SPSS and SAS
Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation
Models,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
36 (4), 717–31.
Rogers, Everett M. (2010), Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The
Free Press.
Roskes, Marieke, Carsten K.W. De Dreu, and Bernard A. Nijstad
(2012), “Necessity Is the Mother of Invention: Avoidance Motiva-
tion Stimulates Creativity Through Cognitive Effort,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (2), 242–56.
Sadoski, Mark, and Allan Paivio (2013), Imagery and Text: A Dual
Coding Theory of Reading and Writing. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Schreier, Martin, Christoph Fuchs, and Darren W. Dahl (2012), “The
Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers’
Journal of Marketing XX(X)
Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by
Users,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 18–32.
Schreier, Martin, and Reinhard Prügl (2008), “Extending Lead-User
Theory: Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers’ Lead
Userness,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (4),
331–46.
Shingles, Marcus, and Jonathan Trichel (2014), “Tech Trends 2014,
Industrialized Crowdsourcing,” (accessed February 21, 2014),
http://dupress.com/articles/2014-tech-trends-crowdsourcing/.
Simon, Ruth (2014), “One Week, 3,000 Product Ideas,” The Wall
Street Journal (July 3), http://www.wsj.com/articles/one-week-3-
000-product-ideas-1404332942.
Singh, Vishal P., Karsten T. Hansen, and Robert C. Blattberg (2006),
“Market Entry and Consumer Behavior: An Investigation of a Wal-
Mart Supercenter,” Marketing Science, 25 (5), 457–76.
Srull, Thomas K., Meryl Lichtenstein, and Myron Rothbart (1985),
“Associative Storage and Retrieval Processes in Person Memory,”
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cog-
nition, 11 (2), 316–45.
Techatassanasoontorn, Angsana A., and Robert J. Kauffman (2014),
“Examining the Growth of Digital Wireless Phone Technology: A
Take-Off Theory Analysis,” Decision Support Systems, 58 (Feb-
ruary), 53–67.
Trusov, Michael, Randolph E. Bucklin, and Koen Pauwels (2009),
“Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Find-
ings From an Internet Social Networking Site.” Journal of Mar-
keting, 73 (5), 90–102.
Urban, Glen L., and Eric von Hippel (1988), “Lead User Analyses for
the Development of New Industrial Products,” Management Sci-
ence, 34 (5), 569–82.
Von Hippel, Eric (2005), “Democratizing Innovation: The Evolving
Phenomenon of User Innovation,” Journal für Betriebswirtschaft,
55 (1), 63–78.
Van Laer, Tom, Ko De Ruyter, Luca M. Visconti, and Martin Wetzels
(2014), “The Extended Transportation-Imagery Model: A Meta-
Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers’
Narrative Transportation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40
(5), 797–817.
Wentzel, Daniel, Torsten Tomczak, and Andreas Herrmann (2010),
“The Moderating Effect of Manipulative Intent and Cognitive
Resources on the Evaluation of Narrative Ads,” Psychology &
Marketing, 27 (5), 510–30.
Weissman, Saya (2013), “Inside Quirky’s Communal Approach to
Marketing,” Digiday (December 18), https://digiday.com/market
ing/quirkys-community-approach-marketing/.
Zwarun, Lara, and Alice Hall (2012), “Narrative Persuasion, Trans-
portation, and the Role of Need for Cognition in Online Viewing of
Fantastical Films,” Media Psychology, 15 (3), 327–55.