Successfully Communicating a Cocreated Innovation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing popularity of cocreation approaches to innovation, the bottom-line results of these efforts continue to frustrate many firms. Marketing communications are one important tool in stimulating consumer adoption, yet marketers to date have not taken advantage of a unique phenomenon associated with many cocreated innovations: the presence of a genesis story in the words of the creator, which can be combined in different ways with traditional marketing messaging. Using mixed methods, the authors demonstrate a crossover effect in which a “mismatch” of the fundamental motivations behind authentic creation narratives and traditional persuasive messages enhances adoption of the cocreated innovation. This effect is mediated by potential adopters’ self-referencing of their own stories about similar experiences or consumption episodes. Furthermore, the effect of a motivation mismatch strategy is attenuated for expert consumers. Finally, this motivation mismatch strategy triggers “takeoff” of cocreated innovations. This research offers substantial implications for research on cocreated innovation, narrative persuasion, and firm-generated and user-generated communication. It provides managers specific guidance on enhancing the success of cocreation programs through an integrated communications strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it