Co-creating the tourist’s experience with a French touch: the case of a perfume museum in Paris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study aims to explain co-creation by exploring the relationships between people, processes, connection points, and artifacts within a museum context. Design/methodology/approach Data were gathered through in situ participant observations and semi-structured interviews. This research involved an international cohort of tourists, exploring their experiences at a Parisian destination service provider – a perfume museum. Findings The findings show an increasing willingness of museum visitors to be involved in all stages of the co-creation experience. They also highlight the key role played by service providers in facilitating the visitors’ involvement in the co-creation of their personal fragrance, allowing both parties to enhance their knowledge through interactions, which are likely to generate shared values. Nurturing this exchange promotes novelty and uniqueness of museum visiting experiences. Research limitations/implications This study offers several contributions to the existing body of knowledge on co-creating memorable museum visiting experiences. It highlights the importance of incorporating both human (i.e. visitors and museum staff) and non-human elements, such as processes, points of connection and artifacts, for successful co-creation. Also, this study argues that, in addition to organizational learning, visitors’ experienced outcomes can be categorized into three types: cognition-oriented, emotion-oriented and action-oriented outcomes. Practical implications Achieving success requires museums to adopt a fresh perspective toward visitors, engaging them in the co-creation process rather than merely regarding them as transient observers. Managers play a crucial role in fostering social connections by establishing channels of interaction to facilitate the exchange of knowledge between visitors and museums in both directions. Originality/value This study sheds light on how co-creation in a museum context can be achieved. In contrast to the model proposed by Payne et al. (2009), this study examines experienced outcomes through the viewpoints of both visitors and instructors/facilitators. In addition, most previous studies in the museum context focus on experience co-creation, highlighting its intangible and hedonic aspects such as entertainment and esthetics. This study expands this by incorporating a tangible element – creating a customized product (i.e. a perfume). Furthermore, it reveals that the emotions experienced extend beyond customer engagement, brand advocacy and pleasure to include pride, accomplishment and a sense of brand ownership.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".