How Customers’ Resources Influence Their Co-creation Experience

Abstract

This chapter intends to study which resources are most used by the consumer in an event context, as well as the influence they have on the outcome of the experience. Based on one qualitative (Study 1), which aimed to identify the resources used by consumers in an event context, and another quantitative (Study 2) for testing the relationship between event consumers’ resources on the outcomes of their co-creation experience, it was found out that physical, cultural, and social resources all have a positive and significant influence on consumer satisfaction and behavioural intentions.

1 Introduction

Consumer experience (CE) has been a focus of study in management, because creating memorable experiences for customers results in satisfaction, which is fundamental in achieving competitive advantage (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015; Mosavi et al., 2018). Experiences emerge throughout dynamic experiences, formed, and reformed through interactive cultural and social processes (Akaka & Vargo, 2015), and consequently, each consumer’s experience will be unique, based on a different combination of relations and resources as well as individual and shared knowledge (Vargo & Lusch, 2008, 2016). Each consumer’s experience is influenced by their resources, although these can be complemented by others existing in the market (Gummesson & Mele, 2010).

According to service-dominant logic (SDL), no individual actor possesses all the resources necessary to co-create value (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Rather, actors have access to and can operate on a wide range of resources to extract value during service-for-service exchanges. Through resource integration, actors can co-create value for themselves but also create new potential resources that they might exchange with other actors (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Value is co-created when an actor integrates and operates on own resources, such as knowledge, skills, and competences with other public, private, or market-faced resources in an effort to arrive at intended outcomes such as increased well-being for the focal actor and/or for other actors (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008, 2011). Each actor’s context, as well as their knowledge and skills, affects their ability to access and leverage resources, as well as their ability to indirectly access and leverage resources beyond the immediate context (Uzzi, 1997).

Albrecht et al. (2017) consider that resource integration (RI) provides a promising lens to explore how customers use service offers together with a variety of other resources in contexts of collective consumption, where various actors and consumers are also present, and how that creates value. However, creating value in these contexts is still little explored (Kelleher et al., 2019), highlighting the need for research in this field.

Research and narratives related to resource integration are conceptually rich, but predominantly theoretical. Among the few empirical studies, business-to-business research has shown the collective nature of RI in that context, emphasizing collaborative activities between organizations’ managers, customers, and suppliers (Macdonald et al., 2016). Also standing out are empirical studies exploring the consumer’s role in a business-to-consumer context (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012) and studies focusing on customers as resource integrators (Baron & Warnaby, 2011). All the studies/approaches have enhanced understanding of the resources individuals integrate, but this matter is not yet clear in a dynamic context of events.¹ Therefore, the intention here is to study resource integration in an event context.

The research combines the theoretical groundings of consumer experience (CE) with its value co-creation processes, according to service-dominant logic (SDL), giving particular importance to resource integration by event consumers. The intention is to understand the operant physical, cultural, and social resources essential for the consumer’s experience of global co-creation. The co-creation process will have repercussions in results of the experience—such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions—which will also be studied and analysed. The review of studies on consumption experience revealed this has been studied in relation to antecedents, consumers’ personal factors, physical structure, service quality, collaborators, access, and trust (Bueno et al., 2019). However, so far, no study has determined the influence of the various types of resources on the results of service experience.

To fulfil this objective, the influence of consumer resources in the event context will be studied. Events, whether cultural, sporting, political, or of another nature, are characterized by the absence of controllability and risks they present for operation and marketing management, as they are held in different contexts (of time, space, or consumers) (Tum et al., 2006; Berridge, 2007; Bowdin et al., 2012). Their mobility and irregularity present challenges to event management and the co-creation of experiences, due to the uncertainty regarding the value propositions that can be offered and the expectations that can be created (Lugosi et al., 2020).

So far, the literature on service and experience co-creation has been based on the ability to manage consumption experiences, in spaces and times outside the organization’s influence (Grönroos & Voima, 2013) and has therefore highlighted the need to develop propositions or strategies to manage or facilitate co-creation (Ellis et al., 2019). However, empirical evidence of what happens in consumption experiences in the event context is limited (Laing, 2018; Lugosi et al., 2020). Therefore, this research aims to study the resources most used by consumers in the context of cultural events, as well as the influence these have on the final result of the experience. To do so, two studies were carried out, one qualitative (Study 1), based on the Customer Journey Maps method, aiming to identify the resources used by consumers in the event context (first research objective); and another quantitative (Study 2), aiming to test the relationship between the resources of event consumers and the results of their co-creation experience (second research objective). The study hopes to contribute to the management of co-creation experiences in the context of cultural events. From a theoretical perspective, it intends to contribute to the literature on value co-creation, above all regarding integration of the consumer’s operant resources, in an event context, and their effect on the results of the experience.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 The Consumer Experience

For some authors, consumers’ experience is their personal interpretation of the service process and their interaction/involvement during the various contacts with the service (Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Ding et al., 2010; Johnston & Kong, 2011). Adhikari and Bhattacharya (2016) classify the consumer experience according to two visions: the prospective vision, which analyses CE as the expectation in relation to a sensory involvement with the product/service, and the reflective vision, which analyses CE during and after consumption of the experiential product/service or sensory interaction (Bos et al., 2015). Meyer and Schwager (2007) define consumer experience as the internal and subjective responses of consumers who have direct and indirect contact with organizations, which end up being a cumulative impact—both emotional and practical—of the customer’s encounters and interactions with the organization (Stangl, 2014). In the same connection, Klaus and Maklan (2013) highlight it as the affective and cognitive assessment of direct and indirect encounters with the organization. This assessment results from the interaction between the consumer and the organization, being moulded by the characteristics of both and by the influence of the surrounding environment (Same & Larimo, 2012). For Gentile et al. (2007), the consumer experience is the result of a series of interactions between the consumer and the experience, which causes reactions. Therefore, Brakus et al. (2009) state that the experience derives from behavioural and affective constructions of assessment.

Many researchers concentrate on a more wide-ranging perspective, where holistically the consumer experience incorporates all the cognitive, sensory, social, emotional, and spiritual responses from the consumer’s interaction with the organization (Schmitt, 1999, 2003; Gentile et al., 2007; Brakus et al., 2009; Verhoef et al., 2009; Lemke et al., 2011; Bolton et al., 2014; Keyser et al., 2015). For Walls et al. (2011), CE is also a multi-dimensional construction of a holistic nature, resulting from the interaction of internal factors, such as emotion and cognition, but also external factors, such as interactions, physical experiences, and situational factors. Therefore, when consumers consider or have a consumption experience, they are influenced by internal factors of a subjective situation, but also, be external factors produced by the organizations which will influence how consumers engage in the consumption experience. Here, Schmitt et al. (2015) defend the most wide-ranging view of the subject, suggesting that all service exchanges lead to consumer experience, irrespective or their form and nature.

Based on different epistemological and ontological origins, experience (of the customer, consumer, or service) has been characterized in the marketing and service literature in three ways: as a process, a result, or a phenomenon (Helkkula, 2011). Experience based on the process implies understanding of the different elements and phases that are interlinked with experiential learning (Edvardsson et al., 2005). Conception/management of the customer’s experience requires the existence of various elements that function holistically to meet or exceed their expectations, that is, delivering value to the customer requires an inter-functional perspective (Bitner et al., 2008). Network approaches facilitate the inclusion of stakeholders in creating experiences (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009).

Experiences have also been presented based on the results being considered as an antecedent/consequence of other constructions (Helkkula, 2011). This approach was used by many studies focusing on service management and marketing, seeking to understand how organizations could delineate and manage their experiences to create competitive advantage. Therefore, it became extremely important to identify the factors that affect experience (Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2009), as well as the creation of performance variables (Klaus & Maklan, 2012). Employees’ behaviour and attitudes, the environment, inter-personal relations, and technical quality emerge as elements with an influence and direct impact on CE (Bharwani & Jauhari, 2013). This field of research has analysed how experiences are co-created within encounters and relations between the organization and its consumers, which means the parties can directly influence each other’s experiences and value processes (Grönroos, 2008).

Finally, experiences can be based on a phenomenological perspective, highlighting service-dominant logic, service logic, and the theory of consumer culture. This phenomenological perspective is a very useful lens, since it intends to understand the consumer’s value creation experience, rather than focusing on organizations’ attempts to incorporate value in market offers or appropriating the values created by consumers (Kelleher & Peppard, 2011).

The discussion around service-dominant logic re-centred attention on the consumer experience, on the premise that the value is singular and phenomenologically determined by the consumer (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Here, authors were concerned about summarizing and characterizing what had been identified as an evolutionary change in marketing: (a) the focus changed to the beneficial processes, that is, the service; (b) the conceptualization of value changed from the value of the exchange to the use of the value, and (c) value came to be understood as something that is co-created, rather than produced and delivered. The experience is considered as subjective and specific to the context (Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Mukhtar et al., 2012; Helkkula et al., 2012). Instead of the value being assessed objectively in monetary terms, it is assessed subjectively in the social context (Edvardsson et al., 2011). This scenario highlights consumers’ active and pro-active role in creating value, which can influence individually and collectively where, when, and how value is created (Kelleher & Peppard, 2011; Grönroos, 2011). This approach is the one that recognizes best the co-creation experience in relation to actual encounters and services, considering direct and indirect interactions in forming value. As such, the experience is personal, relational, and social (Helkkula, 2011; Helkkula et al., 2012).

This research will be based on a phenomenological perspective, to understand the consumer’s resources and their influence on the experience. According to Bueno et al. (2019), studies on customer experience have identified satisfaction and behavioural intentions as outcomes of experience, with these two variables being most commonly used in studies to measure the results of the customer experience. These two outcomes of experience will also be adopted in this research.

2.2 Customers’ Resources and Experience

Becker and Jaakkola (2020) systematized studies on consumer experience from two perspectives: (1) the experience as a response to firms’ stimuli, or (2) the response to consumption processes. These authors also systematized the fields of marketing that have focused most on the consumer experience, namely service marketing, studying the experience as the response to the service environment, service personnel, and core service; experiential marketing, where the consumer experience has been studied as the response to cues, thematic content, events, and brand-related advertising; or SDL, where the experience has been studied as the result of eco-systems.

According to this last perspective, SDL, experience is seen as “a subjective phenomenon emerging through responses to the holistic service process. Experiences are co-created among many actors involved in resource integration, embedded in context, and connected with value” (Becker & Jaakkola, 2020, p. 635), which underlines the fundamental role of resources. According to SDL, all actors try to increase the viability of their systems through the exchange and integration of resources, whether market, public or private (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Therefore, a fundamental starting point is the actor’s own resources.

According to Kleinaltenkamp (2015), the resources integrated by actors are all the tangible and intangible elements characteristic of the actor or which are accessible at the moment of making the decision to incorporate resources, being used by the actors to achieve intended objectives with recourse to integration processes. Altinay et al. (2016) emphasize the existence of operant resources—which act on other resources—and operand resources—which are tangible resources attributed or put into practice.

A resource effectively becomes a resource according to the context of its use: useless for some actors in certain contexts, or crucial, with great value, for other actors in other contexts (Frery et al., 2015). Resources can be defined as something that has the potential to be produced or used by actors, allowing, and promoting resource integration, as well as effort to co-create value (Edvardsson & Tronvoll, 2013; Bharwani & Jauhari, 2013; Yi & Gong, 2013; Tommasetti et al., 2015; Aal et al., 2016, Iyanna, 2016; Troisi et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Xiao et al., 2020; Halbusi et al., 2020; Becker & Jaakkola, 2020). In this respect, the authors distance themselves from the narrow view of resources, as only being linked to offers, and concentrate on facilitators of the service eco-system, including information, knowledge, values, skills, physical products, brands, natural resources, and experience rooms. Chandler and Vargo (2011), Kleinaltenkamp (2015) and Plé (2016) qualify resources as valuable since they are central to SDL and directly related to the actors.

Rodie and Kleine (2000) divide resources into mental, emotional, and physical. In turn, Hobfoll (2002) underlines that an individual’s resources can include materials, conditions (social status), the self (self-esteem and self-efficacy), and social resources; also highlighting the existence of “energies” (time, money, and knowledge) as resources that do not have an intrinsic value but gain value in acquiring other resources. Then again, Arnould et al. (2006) classify operant resources in physical resources (physical and mental capacity such as energy, emotion, and strengths), social resources (family and commercial relations and brand, or consumer communities), and cultural resources (specialized aptitudes and knowledge, as well as life experiences, stories, and imagination).

3 Studies: Qualitative and Quantitative Approach

3.1 Study 1: Study of the Customer Journey Map at the Óbidos Christmas Town event (OCT)

Since there is little empirical evidence on what resources are integrated by consumers in the event context, a first study of a qualitative nature was carried out, based on the Customer Journey Maps method, to understand and identify what types of resources are used by consumers in the event context (first research objective).

3.1.1 Methodology

The customer journey maps (CJM) are a visual, process-oriented method that conceptualizes and structures consumers’ experiences (Nenonen et al., 2008). They are used to “reflect patterns of thought, processes, considerations, paths and experiences that individuals pass through in their daily lives” (Nenonen et al., 2008, p. 5), that is, they allow understanding of how customers behave, feel and what their motivations/attitudes are throughout the journey taken (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010), considering consumers’ mental models, the flow of interactions and touchpoints. Thus, consumer’s journey is a systematic and schematic approach that, through several contact episodes, facilitates the understanding of the experience and processes (Hagen & Bron, 2014).

CJM method was chosen to understand, describe, and schematize in detail the experience, as well as resource integration and co-creation processes (CP) of consumers at the OCT event. Adopting an exploratory, interpretative, and descriptive approach, the aim was to: (1) describe the CE throughout the purchase stages; and (2) identify the resources integrated by consumers and understand how and when the co-creation process occurs in an event context.

Considering the exploratory character of this qualitative study, it was decided to hold 12 semi-structured interviews with consumers (the interview script can be provided by the authors) who had attended the eleventh OCT event, that is, the one held in 2016/2017. The participants agreed to the interviews being recorded on an audio file (WAV). This solution allowed the conversation to flow better, capturing details, and facilitated transcription, coding, and analysis of each interview held. The interviews were held between 20 January and 25 February 2017, each one lasting 40 minutes on average. The interviewees were 5 men and 7 women, all national/Portuguese tourists aged between 25 and 64. Seven were married and five were single, with a level of education between secondary school and a master’s degree. Five had already visited the event previously, while seven were visiting for the first time. However, all the interviewees visited the event with someone (spouse, family, or friends). The data obtained were treated and analysed using NVIVO 11 PLUS software.

3.1.2 Results

The results of Study 1 will be presented briefly, and these will be the basis of Study 2. The results obtained demonstrate the existence of various processes of value co-creation and resource integration by consumers at the event. It was therefore possible to determine and understand what type of resources are integrated and in what circumstances, finding that during their experience consumers valorize, activate, and use all the operant (physical, social, and cultural) and operand resources (monetary and tangible goods). However, it is important to underline that their importance varied over the three phases of purchase. Table 1 presents the summary of the results obtained regarding resource integration and co-creation processes in the three stages of purchase. The Appendix 1 presents some excerpts from the interviews and additional observations.

Table 1 Resources and co-creation processes over the three phases of purchase

3.2 Study 2: Relation Between Consumers’ Resources and the Results of Their Experience

As previously mentioned, the researches related to resource integration are predominantly theoretical. Thus, this second study intends to fill this gap in the event context, proposing and testing a model that considers the consumer’s resources and the results of their co-creation experience (second research objective).

3.2.1 Research Hypotheses

Various studies on consumer participation have demonstrated that customers have personal resources that they use actively in co-creating value (Iyanna, 2016; Xiao et al., 2020). Chan et al. (2010) discovered that consumer satisfaction is increased through that active participation, concluding that consumer participation allows the organization and the actors involved to create various categories of value together (such as economic values or relational values). In this connection, Franke and Schreier (2010) say that if the experience evolves as expected and ends up being successful, confirming expectations, participation in co-creation activities will increase the customer’s satisfaction, also providing a sense of fulfilment. Similarly, Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) confirmed that the level of co-creation affects consumer satisfaction in relation to the service experience. The authors highlight that, in fact, as satisfaction results from the consumer’s assessment of the experience, the assessment itself will also depend on the customer’s contribution to the process. Therefore, when the final result of the co-created service is adjusted to the customer’s needs, the effort in the process is perceived as positive and complements the subjective value linked to the experience (Franke & Schreier, 2010). Chan et al. (2010) also mention that value co-creation is necessary for participation to have an effect, since customers are willing to cooperate only if they anticipate benefits in creating the service offer. As such, a hypothesis is established, emphasizing the relation between consumers’ physical resources and their satisfaction, expecting this to have a positive influence:

Hypothesis 1

Consumers’ physical resources have a positive influence on their satisfaction

Generally, consumers’ assessment of their inputs influences global satisfaction with the experience in the service organization (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012), but also the other possible contributions. Piller et al. (2011), Nysveen and Pedersen (2014) and Haro et al. (2014) highlight that consumers who participate in co-creation activities are more likely to engage in positive word-of-mouth strategies (word-of-mouth marketing), form stronger long-term relations with the organization and present higher levels of trust and loyalty. Consumer involvement in co-creation activities also influences consumers’ behavioural responses, such as the intention to purchase and willingness to pay (Payne et al., 2008; Cermark et al., 2011; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Xia & Suri, 2014; Alarcón et al., 2017). Here, Laurent and Kapferer (1985) underline that customers with a higher level of involvement are more loyal, spend more money, and have more favourable behavioural intentions towards the organization. This led to formulating the hypothesis highlighting the relation between consumers’ physical resources and their behavioural intentions, expecting this to be positive:

Hypothesis 2

Consumers’ physical resources have a positive influence on their behavioural intentions

Considering the importance of intangible factors in consumption processes, it can be stated that value-co-creation derives mainly from consumers’ mental attitudes towards their potential involvement in the service experience (Tommasetti et al., 2015). McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) reveal that individuals’ cerebral activities represent the series of aptitudes and expectations held psychologically by consumers to cooperate with service providers. According to the study by Luszczynska et al. (2005), individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy choose to perform more challenging tasks and demonstrate their skills by exploring challenges in the surrounding environment. In this way, they establish new objectives and find it easier to face the challenges that emerge. This is also accompanied by feelings of pride/honour regarding the co-creation performance (Franke & Schreier, 2010). According to Luszczynska et al. (2005), the perception of self-efficacy reflects consumers’ individual perception of their capacities to organize and implement specific actions leading to certain levels of results. Martínez and Martínez (2007) demonstrated that customer satisfaction is stimulated by cognitive and affective factors, highlighting the level of excitement as an even stronger influence on satisfaction. According to Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012), satisfaction with performance in the co-creation process is understood as customers’ satisfaction with participation in the service creation. Following this line of thought, various studies have revealed the customer’s clarity and capacity as factors helping consumers to participate constructively in processes of service creation and delivery, also affecting their experience of value co-creation and the results arising from the process (Chen et al., 2011; Grönroos & Ravald 2011; Hunt et al., 2012; Ranjan & Read, 2016). Therefore, a hypothesis was established, highlighting a positive relation between consumers’ cultural resources and their satisfaction:

Hypothesis 3

Consumers’ cultural resources have a positive influence on their satisfaction

As mentioned previously, various studies have shown that consumers’ participation in organizational activities has a direct increase in their personal satisfaction and perceptions of quality (Czepiel, 1990). Similarly, future behaviour is determined by consumers’ explanations of the results of their own behaviour (Martinko & Thomson, 1998). Applying this reasoning to the co-creation context, Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) find that the value customers derive from the process, and consequently their future behaviour, is determined by their assessment of how much of the success of the process can be attributed to them. Therefore, when the co-created service meets customers’ needs, the effort in the process is also perceived as positive and complements the subjective value attributed to the service, leading to consumers’ positive behaviour in the future. This is because efforts made in the co-creation process are understood as a gratifying and pleasurable experience that is transferred to assessment of the product’s value and future behaviour (Franke & Schreier, 2010). Xie et al. (2008) also demonstrated that positive thought can be considered an essential component of value continuation and co-creation processes, underlining consumers’ expectations as something fundamental, since they are intrinsic to the psychological assets at the basis of the consumption process (Tommasetti et al., 2015). These arguments lead to the hypothesis that consumers’ cultural resources have a positive influence on their behavioural intentions:

Hypothesis 4

Consumers’ cultural resources have a positive influence on their behavioural intentions

According to Walter et al. (2010), due to the nature of the service, consumers are actively involved in creating meanings through interactions in the physical and social environment. Gummesson and Mele (2010) mention that consumers must provide various resources, which leads to obtaining greater value. Through sharing information with other actors, customers may be able to meet their specific needs. On the other hand, if consumers fail to convey precise information, the quality of value co-creation may be low. However, Yi and Gong (2013) consider this information-sharing as a key to successful value co-creation. Customers’ assessment of their own information influences their assessment of general satisfaction with the service firm (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). Therefore, if consumers feel that value creation partners’ contribution is not distributed fairly, their satisfaction diminishes (Walter et al., 2010; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). Consumer satisfaction can also be associated with citizenship behaviour (Chen & Chen, 2010; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Bharwani & Jauhari, 2013; Yi & Gong, 2013; Halbusi et al., 2020). According to Yi and Gong (2013), consumers should fulfil their duties, that is, they should be cooperative and accept indications the organization and actors involved can provide. Therefore, the more obvious consumers’ responsible behaviour, the greater the likelihood of co-creation and their satisfaction with the process. Hedonic value, such as the wish to enjoy or the enjoyment derived, can also affect customer satisfaction, as it is a motivational force stimulating consumers to participate in co-production (Vargo et al., 2008; Yi & Gong, 2013; Halbusi et al., 2020), and if value co-creation occurs in a social environment, the more pleasant and positive it is, the greater the likelihood of becoming involved in the co-creation process (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2000; Yi & Gong, 2013), meaning added value and increased customer satisfaction (Halbusi et al., 2020). This suggests a hypothesis proposing a positive influence of consumers’ social resources on their satisfaction:

Hypothesis 5

Consumers’ social resources have a positive influence on their satisfaction

Based on social exchange theory, Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) say that customers who receive benefits or a satisfactory service in a relational exchange will find it easier to respond in favour of the service providers, engaging in active and voluntary behaviour such as recommendations or other support actions. McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) mention that a generally positive attitude by consumers concerning the relation with actors/suppliers will be more likely to achieve the desired results, together with customers’ capacity to tolerate possible failings in the service and increased trust in the capacities and skills of the actors involved. Then again, Füller (2010) and Verleye (2015) highlight the need for good functioning of the mutual help system in communities and demonstrate that higher levels of connectivity have a positive effect on consumers’ satisfaction and behavioural intention. Based on these arguments, the final hypothesis is proposed, that consumers’ social resources have a positive influence on their behavioural intentions:

Hypothesis 6

Consumers’ social resources have a positive influence on their behavioural intentions

Figure 1 presents the resulting conceptual model with the respective hypotheses.

Fig. 1

Conceptual model

3.2.2 Methodology

The primary data for this study were obtained through a questionnaire elaborated and structured for the purpose. The variables studied were adapted clearly and objectively to this research and placed in the questionnaire in five separate parts: (1) information about the event visited; (2) co-creation experience and resource integration; (3) results of the experience; and (4) socio-demographic information. Table 2 shows the constructs analysed and their origin. The variables analysed in the model were measured through 7-point Likert-type scales.

Table 2 Constructs, scales, and main authors with ordinal scales

To incorporate the first-order constructs and the respective indicators/variables, the literature review carried out and the results obtained in the qualitative study were considered. Therefore, the physical resources construct was sub-divided in two first-order constructs: (1) “physical involvement”, adapting part of the “physical engagement” scale by Geus et al. (2016), and (2) “affective/emotional involvement” adapting part of the “sense” and “feel” scale by Tsaur et al. (2007) and the “hedonic experience” scale by Verleye (2015). The cultural resources construct was sub-divided in five first-order constructs: (1) “searching for information” and (2) “consumer choices” with the variables of the model being adapted, respectively, from the “information seeking” scale by Yi and Gong (2013) and part of the “brand experience” scale by Klaus et al. (2013); (3) “consumer capacities” were adapted from the “skills” scale by Merz et al. (2018) and the “interaction” scale by Ranjan and Read (2016), while the variables of the model related to (4) “cognitive involvement” were adapted from the “knowledge” scale by Ranjan and Read (2016), “cognitive engagement” by Geus et al. (2016) and “knowledge” by Merz et al. (2018). Finally, the variables of the model related to (5) “consumer creativity” were adapted from the “think” scale by Tsaur et al. (2007) and the “creativity” scale by Merz et al. (2018). The social resources construct was sub-divided in two first-order constructs: (1) “consumer’s responsible behaviour” adapting to the event context the “responsible behaviour” scale by Yi and Gong (2013), and (2) “consumer connectivity” with adaptation of part of the “other customers” scale by Chang and Hong (2010) and joining part of the “connectedness” scale by Merz et al. (2018).

Concerning the results of the consumer’s experience, for the satisfaction construct, the “satisfaction” scale by Schmitt (1999) and Tsaur et al. (2007) was adapted. The behavioural intentions construct was divided in three first-order constructs. In this way, the variables of the model related to (1) “feedback” were adapted from the “feedback” scale by Yi and Gong (2013) and the variables referring to (2) “loyalty” and (3) “sharing” were adapted from the “behavioural intentions” scale by Schmitt (1999) and Tsaur et al. (2007).

Before applying the questionnaire, a pre-test was performed with ten people, who responded and noted their own suggestions and observations. The sample of participants was accidental non-probability of the general population aged 18 or above. Based on participants’ feedback, small alterations were made to the formulation and clarity of some questions, to help interpretation. The questionnaire was provided electronically through the SurveyMonkey platform. The link was announced on social networks, e-mails, and the databases of various Portuguese universities. The final sample is of 541 valid answers, distributed as follows: 58% from women and 42% from men; 47% are between 25 and 44 years old, 27.7% between 17 and 24, 24.2% between 45 and 64, and only 1.1% are over 65. 59.1% are single or divorced and 37% are married; 3.9% represent other situations.

Data analysis was based on assessing the structural equation model (SEM²), through SmartPLS 3.3. The model proposed demonstrates the existence of multi-dimensionality among its constructs, that is, presenting second-order constructs. As such, the two-step approach was used, moving on to assessment of the measurement and structural models. The first step involves adjusting the measurement model, and in the second step the structural model is adjusted (Marôco, 2010).

3.2.3 Results

3.2.3.1 Assessment of the Measurement Model: First Step

Since all the first-order constructs are determined and are reflective in the model (Fig. 2), it is necessary to examine and test the measurement model (Wright et al., 2012). The first step assesses: (1) individual reliability; (2) internal consistency; (3) convergent validity; and (4) discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014).

Fig. 2

Proposed model only with first-order constructs. (Source: Output SmartPLS 3.3)

To be able to analyse individual reliability, the simple correlations of each indicator with the respective construct are used, that is, the loadings of each indicator. According to Hair et al. (2014), loadings below 0.4 should be eliminated. Table 3 presents the simple correlation of the indicators and signals the need to eliminate ten indicators presenting loadings below the stipulated value: CHO2, CON4, CON5, CON6, CON7, CRE1, EMO3, EMO5, EMO8, and PHY2.

Table 3 Indicators’ simple correlations

After eliminating those indicators, the model was run again, and together with the internal consistency and convergent validity analysis, it was necessary to eliminate three more indicators (CHO1, COG2, and EMO6), and to run the model once more. The cross loadings criterion showed the need to eliminate four more indicators (COG1, COG3, LOY5, and PHY4). Therefore, the final measurement model contains a total of 42 indicators.

The reliability analysis is concluded after confirming the respective internal consistency. Table 3 demonstrates that elimination of the indicators meant improved composite reliability of the constructs (CHO = 0.742; CON = 0.791; EMO = 0.804; and PHY = 0.890). This coefficient of composite internal consistency assesses whether the set of indicators of a latent construct is considered homogenous, this being confirmed by a value above 0.7 (Vinzi et al., 2010). Average Variance Extracted (AVE) measures the amount of variance a construct is able to extract from its indicators, in relation to the variance associated with measurement errors. Values above 0.5 are considered reasonable, and thereby half the variance of the latent variable is explained through its indicators (Hair et al., 2011). The table confirms that elimination of the indicators led to improved convergent validity and that the various indicators converge/agree in representing the concept underlying the construct they are measuring (Chin, 2010). The last step concerns analysing discriminant validity. This analysis can check whether two latent constructs are measuring distinct concepts (Götz et al., 2010) and it is essential to analyse: (1) the Fornell-Larcker and (2) cross-loadings criterion. In the first criterion, the AVE of each latent construct must be greater that the variance of the other constructs of the model, that is, a comparison is made with the squared correlation of the latent constructs (Hair et al., 2011). As seen in Table 4, the square root of the AVE, appearing in bold in the diagonal in the table, is greater than the rest of the table to the left of the respective construct. Therefore, the correlations between the constructs are confirmed to be lower than the square root of the AVE.

Table 4 Discriminant validity of the constructs through the Fornell-Larcker criterion

According to the cross-loading criterion, the indicators associated with the latent construct must be above the indicators of the other constructs (Henseler et al., 2009). Table 5 demonstrates the discriminant validity of the model proposed. As the constructs do not present a greater contribution than that of the indicator itself, that is, the loading of each indicator is higher in its construct than any other (Chin & Dibbern, 2010), the model’s indicators are found to be reliable.

Table 5 Discriminant validity of the constructs through cross-loadings

3.2.3.2 Assessment of the Measurement Model: Second Step

At this stage, the model proposed has a different structure (Fig. 3) and it is necessary to assess it as a whole. Once again, the measurement model and the structural model are evaluated, underlining the fact that now the model combines reflective constructs (only SAT) and the second-order constructs are now formative (CPR, CSR, CCR, and CBI), calculated through the scores of the first-order dimensions. The measurement model results in two moments of assessment: reflective and formative.

Fig. 3

Proposed model with reflective and formative constructs. (Source: Output SmartPLS 3.3)

3.2.3.2.1 Second Step: Reflective Constructs

The construct relating to SAT continues to function as a reflective construct, and so it is necessary to test the measurement model once again (Hair et al., 2011). Table 6 presents loadings above 0.70 for individual reliability, a very good internal consistency value considering the reference value (0.60–0.70 for exploratory studies) and a value above 0.50 for convergent validity; thereby complying with all the parameters of reference.

Table 6 Assessment of individual reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity

To determine discriminant validity, the criterion of cross-loadings was used, finding they support validity through the reliability of the indicators. Table 7 also presents the square root of AVE on the diagonal of the correlation matrix through the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Here, the values on the diagonal are found to be above the correlations between other constructs and discriminant validity is confirmed.

Table 7 Assessment of discriminant validity: Fornell-Larcker and cross-loadings

3.2.3.2.2 Second Step: Formative Constructs

While criteria such as individual and composite reliability are commonly applied in assessing reflective measures, a perspective of reliability is unsuitable to evaluate formative measures (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). Hair et al. (2011) also emphasize it is not possible to assess formative measures by empirical means, that is, through convergent and discriminant validity. They stress that traditional statistical assessment criteria for reflective scales cannot be transferred directly to formative indicators and propose three fundamental steps: (1) analyse the possibility of multicollinearity, (2) assess indicator weights, and (3) study the significance of the weights. Analysis of multicollinearity concerns the possibility of the information provided by an indicator being redundant due to high levels of multicollinearity, which can make indicators unstable and non-significant (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer de 2001; Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009). As such, their analysis implies that the variance inflation factor (VIF) values should be under 5, otherwise this implies that 80% of the indicator’s variance is explained by the other indicators related by the same construct (Hair et al., 2011). Table 8 confirms the absence of multicollinearity problems among the formative indicators, since the VIF values presented are below the stipulated values.

Table 8 Analysis of multicollinearity

In order to assess the weights of each indicator and study their significance, Hair et al. (2011) recommend using the bootstrapping technique, with a minimum number of samples equal to 5000 and a number of cases equal to the relevant observations. The question raised is whether each indicator contributes to forming the variable according to its intended content, that is, aiming to determine whether the indicators are relevant. Table 9 demonstrates assessment of the weights of the formative indicators, thereby allowing understanding of the composition of each latent variable and each indicator’s contribution to the construct. The table also allows confirmation of the T Statistic. Therefore, with a 90% level of confidence (for CAP and SHA) and 99% confidence for the others, it can be stated that all the formative indicators are statistically significant, except for SEA.

Table 9 Weights and levels of significance of the formative indicators

3.2.3.2.3 Assessment of the Structural Model

Assessment of the structural model should consider non-parametric criteria based on the variance to estimate the quality of the internal model (Henseler et al., 2009). The criteria are centred on: (1) determination coefficient (R²) of the dependent constructs, (2) significance of the path (β) coefficient through the bootstrapping procedure, and (3) the Stone-Geisser test (Q2) which assesses the capacity of predictive relevance through the blindfolding procedure (Hair et al., 2011). Table 10 presents the effects of these criteria for the endogenous variables and the results of the structural model.

Table 10 Effects on the endogenous/dependent variables

Hair et al. (2011) describe endogenous latent variables as substantial, moderate, or weak, when the determination coefficient presents 0.75, 0.5, and 0.25 respectively. In this specific case, the determination coefficient (R²) describes all the endogenous variables as moderate, with it being important to note that both SAT and CBI are explained by the CPR, CCR, and CSR constructs in 60% and 57% respectively. Concerning the significance of the path coefficient (β), all the values presented are significant. The Stone-Geisser test (Q²) is a procedure that is only applied to endogenous constructs with a reflective measurement model, that is, in this specific case it is only applied to SAT and as the value presented is above zero, the construct has predictive relevance. To finalize assessment of the structural model and obtain the results, it is necessary to analyse the significance of the path coefficient and the T Statistic. As mentioned above, all the weights present positive values, and with observation of the T Statistic it can be stated that with a 99% level of confidence, all the relations and hypotheses are statistically significant and corroborated. Figure 4 presents a schematized summary of the assessment of the proposed model.

Fig. 4

Schematized summary of assessment of the proposed model. (Source: Output SmartPLS 3.3)

4 Analysis and Discussion of the Model’s Results

The results obtained reveal that consumers’ physical resources (CPR) have a positive and significant influence on satisfaction (β = 0.551; t = 13.943) and on consumers’ behavioural intentions (β = 0.388; t = 7.638), leading to confirmation of Hypotheses 1 and 2. Therefore, corroboration of Hypothesis 1 is consistent with the arguments of Chan et al. (2010), McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012), Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012), and Geus et al. (2016). Those studies agree that positive results, and naturally greater satisfaction, are obtained whenever the consumer engages more actively throughout the process. In the same line of thought, Franke and Schreier (2010) highlight that when the final result of the co-created service matches the consumer’s needs, the effort in the process is perceived as positive and complements the subjective value linked to the service. Similarly, Hypothesis 2 is accepted, in accordance with the conclusions of Payne et al. (2008), Cermark et al. (2011) and Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) when stating that customers’ involvement in co-creation activities influences their behavioural responses positively, for example, repurchase intention and willingness to pay more. It is therefore found that more active, participative consumers, that is, those who integrate most physical resources end up engaging in positive word-of-mouth strategies, share feedback, and develop stronger, long-term relations with the company.

The results obtained from the model also demonstrate a positive and significant effect of consumers’ cultural resources (CCR) on their satisfaction (β = 0.181; t = 4.444) and on their behavioural intentions (β = 0.279; t = 6.295), meaning corroboration of Hypotheses 3 and 4, respectively. Confirmation of Hypothesis 3 is consistent with the arguments of Martínez and Martínez (2007), Chen et al. (2011), Grönroos and Ravald (2011), and Hunt et al. (2012), who highlight that customer satisfaction is stimulated positively by cognitive factors. Those studies revealed customers’ knowledge, capacity and clarity as factors aiding constructive participation in service-creation processes, also affecting the results arising from the process; something that was also confirmed in this research. Similarly, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed and revealed a positive influence of cultural resource integration on the consumer’s behavioural intentions. This agrees with the arguments of Franke and Schreier (2010) and Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012). Those authors found that the value customers derive from the process, and consequently their future behaviour, is determined by their evaluation of how much they are responsible for the success of the process. Therefore, consumers’ cognitive and skilful participation is understood as a gratifying experience that will translate into favourable future behaviour.

As already mentioned, the results obtained demonstrate a significant and positive effect of social resources (CSR) on satisfaction (β = 0.193; t = 4.874), but also on consumers’ behavioural intentions (β = 0.277; t = 6.443), which allows confirmation of Hypotheses 5 and 6, respectively. Corroboration of Hypothesis 5 is consistent with the studies by Walter et al. (2010), Gummesson and Mele (2010), and Halbusi et al. (2020). The authors highlight the importance of customers being actively involved in creating meanings through interactions in the social sphere, resulting in added value and increased satisfaction. The same situation occurs with those involved complying with their duties. Therefore, and in agreement with Yi and Gong (2013), the more obvious the responsible behaviour of those involved, the greater the resource integration and satisfaction with the process. The results emphasize the volatility of the social environment and the positive consequences in terms of satisfaction with the factors and the process itself. Finally, Hypothesis 6 was confirmed, showing a positive influence of social resource integration on consumers’ behavioural intentions. This agrees with the arguments of Füller (2010), Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012), and Verleye (2015), who stress the need for good functioning of mutual help in communities, where higher levels of connectivity have a positive effect on customers’ behavioural intention. Similarly, consumers who receive benefits arising from a relational exchange will find it easier to return the favour, engaging in spontaneous behaviour that can correspond to sharing, recommendations, feedback, or support actions.

5 Limitations and Future Lines of Research

This study has some limitations, among them the decision to use in-depth interviews in the qualitative study. Although this gave detailed understanding of the phenomenon, it did not allow real observation of the consumer’s behaviour, or the event organizers’ efforts to influence their customers’ choices. Then in the empirical study, the fact of the context being cultural events and the responses being obtained online, mainly through social networks, e-mail, and university and polytechnic databases, can limit their generalization due to being more restricted to online communities. This agrees with the limitations presented regarding the adoption of a convenience approach. The questionnaire also required respondents’ collaboration/perception regarding the last event they attended, but some of the answers may have been given based on an event with a positive or negative impact on their memory, and not necessarily the latest one.

Some of the limitations mentioned can be overcome or used as a starting point for future research. Therefore, some future lines of study are suggested. This research dealt with events of a cultural nature, but it would be useful to extend to other types of events (e.g.: business events, educational events, political events, entertainment events, or even private events) and determine the distinct behaviours of the relations and hypotheses of the proposed model. It would be especially interesting to determine the differences, if any, in terms of consumers’ resource integration in the various typologies of events, as well as in the results of the experience. In addition, since consumers have different levels and access to resources depending on their cultural context (high-income contexts vs low-income contexts) it would be interesting to study how resources integration differ among these different contexts.

For better understanding of consumers’ resource integration, it is considered crucial to identify unsatisfied demand, and so studies should be made in this area, with detailed analysis of the factors that do not contribute to the co-creation experience, as well as factors that restrict and inhibit consumers’ resource integration. It would also be important to understand the impact on events’ success and future. That is, instead of considering only the demand side of cultural events, the supply side could also be considered, in order to determine whether organizations understand the market and consequently make efforts to adapt to current trends. As such, it would be interesting to assess how the adoption of service-dominant logic and value co-creation with the various actors and institutions will impact on organizations’ structure and process.

6 Conclusions

In the area of marketing and service, consumers’ value co-creation, through their resource integration, is topical, developing, and found to be extremely important for the majority of event organizations. Here, and as defended by Kotler et al. (2011), the structure of value creation is different, and organizations need consumers’ own commitment. This study focused on understanding the resources most used by the consumer at cultural events, and the influence of those resources on the results of the consumer’s co-creation experience.

Resource integration emerges here as a key mechanism in value creation which is exclusive to each actor. Value is linked to the meaning of value-in-use and the consumer can apply, but also use, resources that contribute to creating benefits and values. The studies made confirmed that consumers have a great variety of complex operant resources (characterized in physical, cultural, and social resources). Each consumer is known to be unique, with their own psychographic factors, and all those factors influence the degree of development of the value co-creation process. However, the studies revealed that consumers activate and use all their resources during the event, albeit with different intensities.

As contributions to theory, Study 1 clarified, described, and projected the experience and resource integration of consumers at the event. The results obtained demonstrated, over the three phases of purchase, the existence of various processes of value co-creation, and resource integration among event consumers, and it was possible to determine the type of integrated resources and in what circumstances. Consumers were found to activate, and use all their operant (physical, social, and cultural) and operand (monetary resources and tangible goods) resources. However, it should be underlined that their importance varies over the three phases of purchase, at various touchpoints.

Study 1 led to obtaining more detailed conclusions about consumers’ resource integration throughout their experience in a service eco-system, improving understanding of the nature and role of the resources consumers and actors integrate in a dynamic event context, resulting in value creation. The qualitative nature of this study also provided a complement and consolidation for the empirical approach of the study. Here, Study 2 proposed a model highlighting the influence and importance of resources in the final result of consumers’ experience, with a wide-ranging approach and new measuring of the event consumer’s co-creation experience.

The hypotheses formulated were all corroborated, finding that all resources (physical, cultural, and social) have a direct and positive influence on the results of the co-creation experience, specifically on event consumers’ satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Overall, the proposed model was found to represent the data suitably, and to be an acceptable model to present resource integration in the process of the co-creation experience and the respective results in the actual experience. The model proposed is of an exploratory nature and the endogenous variables incorporated are considered moderate with variances of 60% for satisfaction and 57% for behavioural intentions.

This study contributes to research in the field of the co-creation experience in marketing, according to SDL, giving special importance to resource integration (physical, cultural, and social) by consumers in the context of a cultural event. This implies that consumers contribute and use their operant resources to act on the resources of the organization and associated actors at the cultural event, this being an essential and explanatory component of the results and value for the consumer. The creation of value for the consumer (both value-in-use and value-in-context) needs operant and operand resources from all the actors involved, corresponding to joint implementation and integration. However, and as argued by Arnould et al. (2006), consumers’ operant resources are dynamic and flexible over time and context. Therefore, it is the very robustness of operant resources (physical, cultural, and social) that determines consumers’ satisfaction and behavioural intentions.

From a practical-professional perspective, the study also makes pertinent contributions to event organizations and knowledge of event management, principally if these are based on the consumer and their role in the process. The study aims to draw attention to dynamic and systematic professional practices so that organizations can achieve the differentiation necessary nowadays. Constructing value propositions that consider the value-in-context view and the relations of all actors involved will increase an organization’s pro-activeness and its own power, leading to increased viability of its whole eco-system and its results.

In a cultural event context, the inclusion of functions and processes that are not usual and traditional is a bonus. Therefore, event organizations concerned about projecting the service holistically, in a more complete and innovative way, will manage to hold on to their advantages. The results obtained also highlighted the relevance of event organizations becoming aware of the full extent of their consumers’ experience (pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase). Therefore, they should strive to form the ideal conditions at all stages of the service, to create more easily a positive impression in the consumer, leading to positive results from the experience. Event organizations should be aware of the opportunities and limitations of their action and should never ignore the role and central involvement of consumers in the event context, as confirmed in the results obtained. To be able to achieve those advantages more easily, organizations should focus effectively on consumers and on the whole relevant eco-system.

Considering consumers as a key part, organizations should potentialize value co-creation and the integration of physical, social, and cultural resources by consumers. By understanding the importance and essence of consumers’ operant resources, organizations will be able to re-adjust methods and allow improvements that contribute to substantial value co-creation practices. Knowledge and understanding of these practices are essential for organizations and the actors involved to be able to contribute value propositions that facilitate resource integration and mean positive results for the consumer. That is, today’s event organizations cannot study and analyse only consumers’ operand resources (such as their purchasing power). In particular, they need to understand the different types of operant resources the consumer can use in the exchange process, since those resources will allow firms to anticipate the values desired by consumers and help them to create value-in-use. Event organizations must know the importance of each component of the consumer’s physical, cultural, and social resources in the value co-creation process, and initiate measures to improve consumers’ operant resources, allowing interaction and resource integration to occur as efficiently as possible. Measures to improve consumers’ operant resources at cultural events can include, for example: a dynamic, attractive, and interactive context of collective consumption where customers can immerse, interact, and share a space in the consumption act, involving different social resources, but also physical and individual resources. Event organizers should also provide detailed information/instructions about the event, in order to increase and activate the consumer’s cultural resources more easily. In this connection, the organization should develop and take special care in communicating with the consumer (at all levels and using various channels), improving and activating operant resources as much as possible.

Summarizing, organizations must consider all actors, and particularly consumers, as co-creators, that is, they must take a positive attitude in all their actions to incorporate resources, and not as something negative or with uncalculated risks for the organization. Connecting this matter to the main role of the event organizer (i.e., providing in quantity the resources and elements most valued by consumers, so that on their side it is easier to engage in the process of resource integration), they will be able to strengthen relations, generate feelings of belonging and increase satisfaction and behavioural intentions in the long term; and consequently, achieve differentiation and retention of their advantages in relation to the competition.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Phase	Stage	Resources	Interview excerpts
Pre-purchase	Awareness and discovery of the event	Social	We were having coffee with friends when the OCT event came up in conversation. We had already participated for two years together, but immediately we decided that we wanted to relive the experience again	The statement indicates relationship and communication as fundamental resources in consumer discovery and decision-making. In this sense, the sharing of information and positive experiences are seen as the basis for learning for and during the value CP, confirming that the incorporation of resources from friends and family is crucial in the process of consumers. Some interviewees also reported that they had knowledge of the event through Facebook and social media, demonstrating that the event organization’s commitment to the customer creates emotional involvement and involves the consumer in a co-creation process
	Consideration, comparison, and seeking/gathering information	Cultural, physical, and operand	We also considered going to Santa Maria da Feira to visit the Perlim event, but after searching the internet we ended up giving up on the idea I was aware of the discounts that were advertised on the event page and got tickets with a 30% discount. But then I still got in touch with the organization to clarify another doubt	At this stage, the cultural and physical resources of consumers are highlighted because they depend on their abilities, skills, and knowledge, as well as the energy and will invested in the process. Respondents were concerned with obtaining up-to-date information, advantageous solutions, and opinions. In the search for information, they sought to clarify service requirements and satisfy other cognitive needs, directly with the organization of the event or with other customers (directly or indirectly). According to Yi and Gong (2013), the search for information is relevant for consumers for two reasons: (1) to reduce uncertainty, and thus be able to understand and control their environment/co-creation context and (2) master the role of value co-creators, and thus become more integrated in the value co-creation process
	Decision-making and online purchase	Cultural, physical, and operand	I bought tickets for half price on Black Friday. Super simple and fast process, just log in with Facebook, indicate the preferred date, the amount, and pay	At this stage, the cultural and physical resources of consumers gained more prominence. There’re also the greatest dissimilarities between respondents. Only five interviewees demonstrated skills with technologies and purchased the tickets online. These interviewees look for more beneficial solutions and for that they get involved in the process. In this case, respondents reduced costs (in time and energy) and achieved economic rewards (lower prices) and gained psychological benefits of satisfaction and confidence in their ability to co-create value for themselves. The opposite scenario occurred with the remaining respondents who purchased tickets on the day and without any kind of discount. Regarding operational resources, it was verified the existence of economic resources, through discount coupons and vouchers that consumers were able to take advantage of. But also, the need for tangible goods/materials for customers to actively play the roles of co-creators, using computers, mobile phones, or other electronic devices
Purchase during the event	Arrival/decision and local purchase	Social commercial	I don’t trust machines and technologies much, I like being in contact with people much more	The interviewees who demonstrated skills and abilities with the technologies and bought tickets online quickly entered the event without any constraints, but the remaining interviewees revealed a special interest in contextual elements and employee-consumer interaction. As such, they use commercial social resources to fulfil their goals. The co-creation of value in a service context takes place in a social environment, as such it is necessary that consumers use social resources and, above all, that there are relational aspects such as courtesy, kindness, and respect between employees and consumers (Yi & Gong, 2013); since these interpersonal relationships are necessary for successful co-creation of value. If consumers are faced with a more pleasant and positive social environment, it is natural that they are more easily involved in a value co-creation process
	Entry to the enclosure	Physical and social	The employees responsible for security and entry into the enclosure didn’t provide any information and were not very pleasant	The respondents mainly highlighted physical resources, in terms of their energy and emotions, but also social resources in terms of relationships with employees. Most interviewees said that entry into the venue was relatively quick especially for those who buy on online platforms. Allied to this factor, there is the service provided by employees, which seems not to have pleased all the interviewees. The interpretations of consumers about the behaviour of employees change their expectations and influence their co-creation experience. The organization’s ability to improve social and emotional bonds with consumers and other value network partners is seen as fundamental, since this dimension translates into actions aimed at establishing or improving a social and emotional connection between employees and consumers during the service interaction. Joint actions can explore similarities between the two actors, share mutual interests, take perspectives, or establish a personal bond that creates a mutual basis of understanding between the actors, translating into an important PC that generates social and emotional value during the event
	Use and choices during the event	Physical	It was very fun…we all walked on the ice rink, and lost count of the falls and laughter given. It was also funny to slide on the buoy…penalty is the time that is expected for the time that the descent lasts Even activities for children are very common… I haven’t seen any major differences over time… not to mention that they are very expensive There is magic and joy everywhere, and that they are magnified by all the scenarios and structures created. It’s all thought out in detail, and it goes through for people. It’s a very beautiful and welcoming event designed for pure fun	Consumers use their energies and strengths to enjoy the event. In this sense, respondents who visited the event with friends, but also with family with young children were the most active and participative throughout the event and the various attractions/activities. The active participation of consumers is possible due to the attractions existing in the venue, but they emphasize the process elements, such as waiting times as influencing elements of their experience throughout the event. In these circumstances, consumers who are willing to take advantage of activities activate and employ greater physical resources (especially at the level of effort) than consumers who do not expect; physical and mental differences of consumers are visible Other two important influencing elements in the choices and decisions of consumers are: the novelty factor and price factor. Several studies have suggested that the dynamic effects of the consumer experience occur due to the consumer himself, because the consumer eventually changes over time after repeated experiences with a specific service or experience. While some customers develop relationships with brands that have lasting effects, others constantly require extraordinary experiences. Consumer emotions also emerge as a very important and constantly mentioned physical resource. Environmental stimuli influence the emotional state of consumers, stimulating their participation and influence the attitudes and preferences of consumers and their RI
		Social	The first stop was for the typical group photo… we were approached by the photographers of the event, who happened to be very friendly, and we took advantage to leave our mark!! […] at least informed people right at the entrance that they have the possibility to leave and re-enter with the stamp, but no one gave that indication. […] I advise to pass the information to other clients There was a spectacle that took place in the mythical house where the whole true story took place, but as my family does not like supernatural tales very much, I ended up not going	These resources are popular with consumers, alerting to the importance of memories about the service, but mainly to the influence that the elements of employee-customer interaction have exerted on their purchasing decisions and experience. This situation also occurred throughout the event with the attendance of the various employees who, as a rule, were considered professional and friendly. Thus, the interpersonal nature of the interaction between employees and customers contributes to satisfaction in an event environment and for the development of consumer value CP Some interviewees cooperated with the organization of the event for the benefit of others. Thus, the creation of value by customers is intended to share positive/negative experiences to influence decisions and purchasing behaviour of other actors. Consumer involvement in co-creation is related to the sharing of consumer experiences which provides a source of information for the organization to reorganize its portfolio and allows other consumers to integrate a cognitive process where they make judgements based on these experiences. Consumer-consumer interaction also played a crucial role in the experience and RI of the interviewees. Testimony demonstrates the influence of other consumers’ resources on consumer decision and behaviour. Thus, the idea that consumers act on resources produced by the organization (conducted by the company itself or other customers) to realize, recover, or even create preferred cultural schemes (Arnould et al., 2006) does not always occur and in their absence, there is some dissatisfaction Continue
		Cultural	I interacted with all […] they’re very fun, friendly, and professional. They delight everyone. I felt I was living the tales of my childhood. We were approached by Puss in Boots and Tintin who had lost Milú. They were fantastic and instantly contributed to exceed the expectations of event. Excellent characterizations and interpretations!!	The staging of experiences in which the organization builds contexts, and the client is part of them, that is, the consumer is involved, but the context is oriented by the organization, is especially related to this stage. In this sense, specialized animation, through characters and extras, is an element that contributes to the creation of the atmosphere and the experience of consumers. The consumers with higher cultural resources (at the level of knowledge, stories, and imagination) obtain greater satisfaction from the lived experience, that is, a person who does not know the characters and the story/narrative will not understand the context of the event and will not be able to contribute to resources and co-creation processes that are favourable
		Operand	It would be great to pay for the entrance to the enclosure and then not pay anything else of the most captivating attractions for the children	At this stage consumers mainly use their economic resources to be able to enjoy products and services that the event has at their disposal. It’s important to highlight the link between the physical resources and the operational resources of the customers. This type of event requires analogy, since customer participation/involvement requires some sacrifices at the monetary level, and there is a proportionality relationship: the greater the participation, the greater the consumer’s monetary sacrifices. It’s also important to highlight that the amount of operational resources affects consumer exchange behaviours with organizations (Arnould et al., 2006).
Post-purchase	Feedback	Social	I will talk about the diversity of activities, but I will also have to mention how expensive it becomes… For people who have children this turns out to be a very significant factor that becomes even a financially penalizing aspect, the organization should review its pricing policy	In this stage interviewees use and value social resources when sharing the experience lived in conversations with family and friends, in a word-of-mouth context, but also in the sharing of recommendations/improvements to the organization of the event. Sharing information by consumers is essential so that they can convey details of their experience to other consumers, as well as to be able to transmit information to actors or employees about what they have most displeased throughout the experience. These shares will shape and offer a service that meets the unique and specific needs of customers (Yi & Gong, 2013).
		Cultural Physical Operand	I’ve shared photos on Facebook… and so I can dedicate a post to the event on my travel blog	Interviewees also valued cultural resources when sharing the experience experienced and their photos on social networks and virtual platforms, when you expose all your experience. In this stage interviewees also use and value their physical resources since they do not mind depositing energy and efforts in sharing information with other actors and dissemination of appreciations, which are generally favourable Results demonstrate that the operand resources that the consumer has are important for the dissemination of the experience. As in pre-purchase, consumers use computers or other electronic devices to share information

Appendix 2

Constructs	Concept	Author(s)	Item
Consumer Physical Resources (CPR)	Physical Involvement (PHY)	Geus et al. (2016)	I felt active and energetic throughout the event
			I was not involved physically in the event
			The efforts, strengths, and energies employed were worth
			I experienced things and situations that were unknown or new to me
	Emotional Involvement (EMO)	Tsaur et al. (2007) (Schmitt) Verleye (2015)	The event stimulated my senses (touch, sight, hearing, smell, and taste)
			The event was interesting and enjoyable
			The event did not please me sensorially
			The event made me react emotionally
			The event did not appeal to my feelings
			The event caused a certain mood in the consumer
			I felt a sense of adventure
			I felt bored at the event
Consumer Social Resources (CSR)	Consumer Connectivity (CON)	Merz et al. (2018) Chang and Hong (2010)	I am connected to other consumers of this event
			I belong to one or more brand communities that are related to this event
			I have socialized with the other consumers of the event
			I do not feel well when other consumers of the event behave inappropriately, for example, when they shout, laugh, or speak too loudly
			I do not like it when other customers at the event make me spend more time than I am supposed to buy or enjoy what I want
			I do not like when other customers interrupt my conversation with the event staff
			My emotion and experience at the event are negatively influenced when other consumers contribute to disorder or confusion
	Responsible Behaviour (RES)	Yi and Gong (2013)	During the event I followed the rules, orders, or directives of the employees and the organization of the event
			I performed all the tasks that are required by the organization of the event
			All my behaviours were adequate
			I fulfilled the responsibilities and laws stipulated by the society in which we live
Consumer Cultural Resources (CCR)	Information Search (SEA)	Yi and Gong (2013)	I have asked other people for information about what the event had to offer
			I have paid attention to other people’s opinions about the event
			I have searched for information about the event on the internet or media
	Consumer Choices (CHO)	Klaus et al. (2013)	I always consider different event options to ensure I get the best offer
			I do not choose an event based on experience only. There are other important factors such as time spent, effort, and price
			What matters to me is that event provides the best experiences
			Although there are many events of this type, I will always prefer this one
	Cognitive Involvement (COG)	Merz et al. (2018) Geus et al. (2016) Ranjan and Read (2016)	I consider myself informed about what the event has to offer
			I know this event very well
			I consider myself an expert at this event
			When attending this event, I got new knowledge
			The event made me reflect on a theme and share the subject with others
			I like to save some time and effort to share my ideas and suggestions with the event organizers to improve their processes, products, and services
	Consumer Capacity (CAP)	Ranjan and Read (2016) Merz et al. (2018)	During the process I was able to express my specific needs and requirements
			To get the maximum benefit from the process, I had to play a proactive role during the event (apply my skills, knowledge, time, and so on)
	Consumer Creativity (CRE)	Tsaur et al. (2007) (Schmitt) Merz et al. (2018)	The event intrigued me
			The event stimulated my curiosity
			The event appealed to my creative thinking
			When I attended the event, I felt creative
			When I attended the event, I felt imaginative
			When I attended the event, I felt curious
Satisfaction (SAT)	Satisfaction (SAT)	Tsaur et al. (2007)	The event met my expectations
			My satisfaction with the event was high
			My presence at the event made up for the effort and time spent
			The benefits and values I acquired at the event outweighed the price
			If an ideal event corresponded to 7, what number would you give to the one you mentioned?
Behavioural Intentions (CBI)	Feedback (FEE)	Yi and Gong (2013)	If I have a useful idea on how to improve the service, I let the organization know
			When I receive a good service/experience, I comment with interested parties
			When I have a problem, I let the organization of the event know about it
	Sharing (SHA)	Tsaur et al. (2007) (Schmitt)	I will share (or I have already shared) the experiences of the event
			I will share (or have already shared) the photos of the event on social networks or other virtual platforms
	Loyalty (LOY)	Tsaur et al. (2007)	I have spoken or will speak positively about the event to others
			I have already recommended or intend to recommend the event
			I intend to participate again in the event
			I will encourage friends and family to participate
			I will consider the same event as the first choice when I recreate myself again

*