{"title":"Value co-destruction: Problems and solutions","authors":"Matthew Alexander, Niklas Vallström","doi":"10.1007/s13162-023-00269-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The concept of value co-creation (VCC) is central to service-dominant logic (SDL) and forms its second axiom, namely that “Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary” (Vargo & Lusch, 2016, p.8). In parallel with the evolution of VCC in SDL, the term “value co-destruction” (VCD) has also emerged within the services and marketing literature (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010). Value co-destruction is pitched as a reverse concept to VCC—another side of the same coin (Plé, 2017)—capturing how interactions, practices, and resource integrations between actors might have negative impacts on value formation. Research on VCD has both expanded and fragmented (Echeverri & Skålén, 2021), but the concept has not been subject to the same scrutiny as VCC. In this article, we question the logic underpinning VCD conceptualization and problematize its use. We articulate three specific problems: first, the need to view VCC as a normative statement; second, a logical flaw in how VCD captures negative outcomes; and third, an issue with the “co” in co-destruction. We offer two solutions for researchers in this area: first, given that VCC is representative of a metatheory, we present mid-range theories as providing opportunities for exploring the role of valence in interactive service experiences; second, we identify literature that presents a continuum of contrasting negative and positive value outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7786,"journal":{"name":"AMS Review","volume":"13 3-4","pages":"200 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13162-023-00269-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMS Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-023-00269-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The concept of value co-creation (VCC) is central to service-dominant logic (SDL) and forms its second axiom, namely that “Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary” (Vargo & Lusch, 2016, p.8). In parallel with the evolution of VCC in SDL, the term “value co-destruction” (VCD) has also emerged within the services and marketing literature (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010). Value co-destruction is pitched as a reverse concept to VCC—another side of the same coin (Plé, 2017)—capturing how interactions, practices, and resource integrations between actors might have negative impacts on value formation. Research on VCD has both expanded and fragmented (Echeverri & Skålén, 2021), but the concept has not been subject to the same scrutiny as VCC. In this article, we question the logic underpinning VCD conceptualization and problematize its use. We articulate three specific problems: first, the need to view VCC as a normative statement; second, a logical flaw in how VCD captures negative outcomes; and third, an issue with the “co” in co-destruction. We offer two solutions for researchers in this area: first, given that VCC is representative of a metatheory, we present mid-range theories as providing opportunities for exploring the role of valence in interactive service experiences; second, we identify literature that presents a continuum of contrasting negative and positive value outcomes.
AMS ReviewBusiness, Management and Accounting-Marketing
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍:
The AMS Review is positioned to be the premier journal in marketing that focuses exclusively on conceptual contributions across all sub-disciplines of marketing. It publishes articles that advance the development of market and marketing theory.The AMS Review is receptive to different philosophical perspectives and levels of analysis that range from micro to macro. Especially welcome are manuscripts that integrate research and theory from non-marketing disciplines such as management, sociology, economics, psychology, geography, anthropology, or other social sciences. Examples of suitable manuscripts include those incorporating conceptual and organizing frameworks or models, those extending, comparing, or critically evaluating existing theories, and those suggesting new or innovative theories. Comprehensive and integrative syntheses of research literatures (including quantitative and qualitative meta-analyses) are encouraged, as are paradigm-shifting manuscripts.Manuscripts that focus on purely descriptive literature reviews, proselytize research methods or techniques, or report empirical research findings will not be considered for publication. The AMS Review does not publish manuscripts focusing on practitioner advice or marketing education.