Holbrook (1999) identifies three discourses of value (i.e., extrinsic/intrinsic, self- oriented/other-oriented, and active/reactive values) which are consequently used to establish the further eight types of customer value framework. They are efficiency, excellence (quality), status (fashion), esteem (materialism), play (fun), aesthetics (beauty), ethics (justice, virtue, morality), and spirituality (rapture) (Holbrook, 1999).
Alternatively, Sheth, Newman, Gross (1991) suggest five types of customer value:
functional, social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional. Based on previously discussed literature in customer value (Holbrook, 1999; 2006; Lapierre, 2000; Richins, 1994; Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991; Ulaga, 2003; Woodruff, 1997; Woodall, 2003), a more
comprehensive and modified value framework is conceptualized by Smith and Colgate (2007), which includes cost value, experiential value, functional value, and symbolic value. Since its introduction, this customer value framework has been frequently adapted and validated in service and experience contexts (e.g., Choo, Moon, Kim, & Yoon, 2012;
Rintamọki, Kuusela, & Mitronen, 2007; Zainuddin, Previte, & Russell-Bennett, 2011;
Zainuddin, 2011), and are used to explain what types of value is co-created under the S-D logic (Biggemann, Williams, Kro, 2009; Piligrimiene, Dovaliene, & Virvilaite, 2015;
Tynan, McKechine, & Chhuon, 2010; Tynan, McKechnie, & Hartley, 2014; Zainuddin, 2011). For example, based on Smith and Colgate’s work (2007), Tynan, McKechine, and Chhuon’s (2010) study develops five types of co-created value with luxury brands. Their classification includes (1) hedonic value related to aesthetic and pleasurable experience raised from engaging in co-creative consumptions of luxury products; (2) experiential-
relational value due to the positive effect extracted from customer-firm interaction during the co-creation process (Fournier, 1998; Grửnroos, 2006 ; Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009); (3) others-directed and self-directed expressive values with relation to both social and personal identity (Vickers & Renand, 2003); (4) functional value represented by quality excellence and craftsmanship; and (5) cost value. Biggemann, Williams, and Kro (2014) find that sustainability is achieved through increased stakeholder participation and value co-creation. Whereas the value manifestations from their qualitative results are found to be consistent with the Smith and Colgate’s framework (2007) including functional, hedonic, symbolic, and cost values. Furthermore, co-created values are interpreted in how individual customers make sense of their participation in a car driving experience in terms of the categories of value proposed by Smith and Colgate (Tynan, McKechnie, & Hartley, 2014). Based on a thorough review of customer values in SE, particularly in peer-to-peer accommodation, it is commonly accepted that cost,
experiential, and functional values are three most prominently perceived values among tourists who use peer-to-peer accommodation (Guttentag, 2015; Henning-Thurau, Henning, & Sattler, 2007; Hamari et al., 2015; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016;
Javaid, 2016; Mửhlmann, 2015; Tussyadiah & Pesonen, 2016; Zervas, Proserpio, &
Byers, 2014). Therefore, the following discussion provides such details about existing literatures on customer values in peer-to-peer accommodation.
2.8.2 Customer Values in Peer-to-Peer Accommodation
While being empirically tested in exploring co-created values, the “cost – experiential – functional – expressive” value framework also conceptually relates to customer values being discussed in both literatures of general SE and peer-to-peer
accommodation. First of all, cost is considered to be a major factor in accommodation choices (Chu & Choi, 2000; Dolnicar & Otter, 2003; Lockyer, 2005a, 2005b). Indeed, Nicolau (2011a) states that price is one of the most influential factors for customers to make travel-related decisions. Therefore, one of the dominant driving force for people to choose peer-to-peer accommodation over hotels is its relatively low costs (Guttentag, 2015; Javaid, 2016). The competitive price of peer-to-peer accommodation can be
attributed to its covered fixed costs, no or minimal labor costs, non-regulated/no tax costs and partially dependent owners (i.e., hosts do not fully depend on revenues from renting out their properties) (Lieber, 2011). Similarly, Hamari, Sjửklint, and Ukkonen (2015) indicate that economic benefits, interpreted as “saving money”, are a strong motivator of customers’ intentions to participate in SE. Likewise, cost saving is found to be an
important determinant of customer satisfaction and likelihood of engaging in SE again in both contexts of car sharing services and peer-to-peer accommodation (Forno &
Garibaldi, 2015; Mửhlmann, 2015). The economic value described in SE literature corresponds to cost/sacrifice value demonstrated in Smith and Colgate’s framework (2007). As Smith and Colgate (2007, p. 13) indicate, “to try to maximize, or at least realize value benefits, consumers and customers try to minimize the costs and other sacrifices that may be involved in the purchase, ownership, and use of a product”, and economic costs are one of the most concerned sacrifice value by consumers (Ulaga, 2003;
Walter, Müller, Helfert, & Ritter, 2003; Woodall, 2003). Therefore, the first proposed customer value in peer-to-peer accommodation is cost value.
Secondly, experiential value refers to the extent to which a product or service creates appropriate experiences, feelings, and emotions for the customer (Smith &
Colgate, 2007; Tynan et al., 2010). Experiential value is considered to be a multi-facets value construct which may consist of sensory value, emotional value, social-relational value, and epistemic value (Smith & Colgate, 2007). Based on previous applications of experiential value in co-creation literature discussed above (Biggemann et al., 2009;
Piligrimiene et al., 015; Tynan et al., 2010; Tynan et al., 2014; Zainuddin, 2011) as well as customer values in SE/peer-to-peer accommodation, the most relevant values used in the current research are the perceived benefits of enjoyment or pleasant feelings and social benefits. In the current study, the former value is called experiential value and latter one is called social value.
On one hand, customers may participate in collaborative consumption simply because it is pleasurable and can provide fun and meaningful experiences (Hamari et al., 2015; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016). Therefore, enjoyment plays an essential role in forming positive attitudes and use intentions toward SE (Hamari et al., 2015).
Pleasant emotions have also been regarded as an important evaluative factor for customer satisfaction in other sharing-related activities, such as information system use (Van der Heijden, 2004), and online information sharing (Nov, 2007; Nov et al., 2010).
Furthermore, Satama (2014) finds that adopter of Airbnb are willing to exchange regulation and safety concerns for increased price value as well as increased perceived fun.
On the other hand, social values are well demonstrated by researchers in investigating SE and peer-to-peer accommodation. Social benefits include community belongingness, familiarity, and trust, which positively affect customer satisfaction with a sharing option and likelihood of choosing a sharing option again in future (Mửhlmann,
2015). Particularly, level of trust towards strangers among people who had used shared accommodations is found to be higher than that of general population, as one is expected to trust and feel connected to a “generalized other” in order to be comfortable to share spaces together (Forno & Garibaldi, 2015). Social benefits also include opportunities to experience authentic local life and to interact with local residents (Forno & Garibaldi, 2015). Participating in collaborative consumption allows people to develop and keep social relationships (Tussyadiah & Pesonen, 2016). Particularly, by choosing peer-to-peer accommodation, tourists can get access to opportunities of directly interacting with hosts (i.e., local residents) and connecting with local communities (Guttentag, 2013). Thus, peer-to-peer accommodation attracts tourists with its social benefits as it provides unique local experiences. Jung and colleagues (2016) find that human relationship, rather than accommodation, acts as the primary shared asset and the primary satisfaction feature for Couchsurfing users (Jung, Yoon, Kim, Park, Lee, & Lee, 2016). Javaid’s (2016) study reveals that guests with different levels of expectation on their sharing accommodation experience hold different values. Low expectation guests view Airbnb mainly as an opportunity to save costs (i.e., costs), whereas high expectation guests go beyond the financial aspect towards social oriented benefits.
Thirdly, functional benefits also have positive effects on use intention of sharing service (Mửhlmann, 2015; Henning-Thurau et al., 2007), as human beings are self- interested individuals who are always seeking to maximize utility (Olson, 1965; Hardin, 1968; Rapoport & Chammah, 1970). Functional value, as described by Smith and
Colgate (2007, p. 10), is “concerned with the extent to which a product (good or service) has desired characteristics, is useful, or performs a desired function”. According to
Mansfeld (1992), potential tourists are always influenced by both utilitarian and
emotional elements. In SE, Mửhlmann’s study (2015) reveals that the satisfaction and the likelihood of choosing a sharing option again are predominantly explained by users’ self- benefit such as utility, trust, cost savings, and familiarity. Likewise, Henning-Thurau et al. (2007) find utility to be a significant factor for customers to share information online.
Additionally, tourists tend to book on Airbnb because of its website’s easy navigation and rich functions which allow guests to analyze and find their accommodation by using the comprehensive filter options (Airbnb, 2015b; Javaid, 2016). Furthermore, vacation rental homes have functional features over hotels such as a wider range of home facilities, or larger spaces if an entire property is rented, thus providing superior utilitarian value for guests (Zervas et al., 2014). Therefore, the third proposed customer value in peer-to-peer accommodation is functional value. Details are presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Summary of Customer Values in Peer-to-peer Accommodation
Customers values Definition by Smith & Colgate (2007)
Rationale to use them in the context of peer-to-peer accommodation
Cost value
The degree to which customers are able to minimize
transactional costs involved in the purchase, ownership, and use of a product or service.
One of the dominant reasons for people to choose peer-to-peer accommodation over hotels is its “cost saving” benefit.
Experiential value
The extent to which a product or service creates appropriate experiences, feelings, and emotions for the customer.
Enjoyment and social experience are most valued outcomes of choosing peer-to-peer accommodation, as living in a shared space and interacting with locals are both fun and socially rewarding.
Social Value
The extent to which a product a service creates social
belongingness and community connectedness
Functional value
The degree to which a product or service has desired
characteristics, is useful, or performs a desired function.
People choose peer-to-peer
accommodation because its functional benefits such as comprehensive website filter options to meet personal needs, larger space, and a complete set of home facilities.