Final thoughts on this research study

This study has offered a number of very interesting insights into the topic of Mass Customisation and people’s motivations to purchase these products. The last blogs provided some interesting findings and also suggestions for future research in this area. Most importantly the outcome for the experiential need to avoid a bad experience or bad word of mouth as it could have a big influence on potential customers. 

This study was quite exploratory as motivations had not yet been looked at so extensively in a Mass Customisation setting. The concept of Mass Customisation has been around for a few decades now, but there are not many companies that used the full potential of it. After the completion of this study I would say this is due to the lack of consumer research, particularly concerning consumer motivations as they may be unconscious.

Although the sample of my study was quite small, it was visible that consumers did not know much about Mass Customisation, in particular the pure form of customisation. So companies should not only carry out more consumer research, but they should also try to educate their customers more. 

The Phase 2 Interview Results - part 6

The outcome for the utilitarian need was quite low in the questionnaires, but this changed for the interviews where participants said that it was very important for them that the product would be to their preferences. However, this is also the nature of mass customised products and therefore people might expect the products to be the right fit. Some participants also concluded that if a product is unique and based on their preferences, it should be the right fit. Therefore, uniqueness was always ranked as very high. In connection to the willingness to pay research it should be added here that the results from this study also showed that the uniqueness of the product was the most important reason for people to pay for mass customised products, which confirmed Hunt’s (2006) and Schreier’s (2006) findings that people perceived mass customised products as greater in value.

However, on a more direct inquiry it was not the need for uniqueness that ranked as the most important motive. When people were asked whether uniqueness or the functional fit was most important to them, all participants ranked Utilitarianism first, followed by uniqueness. This finding confirmed Franke and Schreier’s results (2008) of the functional fit being most important in value creation for Mass Customisation, followed by the uniqueness of the product.

The Phase 2 Interview Results - part 5

The outcome of the experiential need was quite low in the questionnaires and it was not related to the experience of the production process but rather to the experience of the end-product. This outcome was supported by the interview answers on whether the product or the process was more important. However, it was found that the experience played an important role as well. In particular the Irish female group was more inclined to try out Mass Customisation for the experience. For non-Irish females the importance of the experience was indicated indirectly through the significance of the enjoyment of the process and the product.

Furthermore, it was found that a positive experience is very important for the success of a Mass Customisation strategy, as the results from questionnaires and interviews pointed out. The experience of customising a product from its design stage until after the delivery of the product seemed to be quite sensitive towards any form of bad word of mouth or a bad experience. It was deemed important to explore in the interviews people’s reasons to avoid customising in the future. And it was surprising that the price of the product was only the second most important reason and the availability only came third. Most participants found that a previous bad experience or bad word of mouth would significantly influence their decision to refrain from customising a product, which was supported by findings throughout the research.

It appeared that companies offering mass customised products are more prone to bad word of mouth than companies selling mass produced goods. This probably has to do with the high expectations that people have of mass customised products as they are produced to their preferences and directly for them. This result indicated that not only the affiliation motive but also the experiential need could work as a motivation to avoid Mass Customisation. Therefore, it is important for companies to prevent bad word of mouth and bad experiences through good quality products and customer service. It was also found in this study that the availability of Mass Customisation options needs to be emphasized more through advertisements; positive word of mouth could also help to sell these products. Therefore, a proactive rather than a reactive approach could be critical in achieving this.

This is the first study that found that a negative experience could have such a profound impact on a company offering mass customised products. This aspect was not addressed in any previous empirical research on Mass Customisation and people’s motivations. Therefore, previous papers on the importance of providing customers with an experience (Fiore et al. 2004; Gilmore and Pine 1999, 2007; Moser et al. 2006) have to be extended by including that a negative experience has to be avoided at all costs. Future research into the effect of the experience, whether for the creation process or the end-product, should be carried out. 

The results for the last motive, the utilitarian need, will be  presented in the next blog. 

The Phase 2 Interview Results - part 4

The questionnaire research on the power motive showed that only the Irish male group had a higher outcome in the power motive and it showed that male participants asserted power more directly compared to female participants who asserted power through gift-giving. Future research should also explore male participants’ relation to gift-giving and ultimately try to validate the way the gender groups assert power. Furthermore, the difference in the questionnaires on the power motive between the Irish male group and the non-Irish male group needs further investigation. Ego-enhancement ranked very high for the Irish male group, which gave the impression that they had a quite negative attitude towards the cartoon character. However, this could be a limitation of the cartoon itself.

            In the questionnaires gift-giving was mostly prominent in the female groups. Belk (1988) made a connection between McClelland’s power motive and Sartre’s idea of making an object a part of one’s self. Gift-giving was seen as a form of control over a possession, which is an extension of the self as the giver continues to be associated with the gift (Belk 1988). In the interview investigations the female groups showed a difference in their motives for the gift-giving. All participants said that they would give a mass customised product as a gift; some even said that they would only buy such a product as a present and not for their own use. The main reason for people to give customised products as presents was that it showed that they put more thought into it. However, Irish females were looking for appreciation from the receiver, whereas non-Irish females wished to be remembered by the receiver, which some emphasized would mostly be a family member. Future research should investigate this difference. Furthermore, it should be explored whether the results would be the same if a standardised product was used as it seemed that the nature of mass customised products, being co-created, had an influence on the answers concerning gift-giving. Future research should also include male participants, to explore whether there is a difference in gift giving between the gender groups and also different European nationalities.

The questionnaires showed a relatively high need for achievement in the form of self expression, which was based on Schreier’s categorisation (2006). This motive revealed a difference between the two female groups. Self expression ranked highest in the non-Irish female group and lowest in the Irish female group. However, further investigation in the interviews showed a different result. Self expression ranked higher in the Irish female group, which was connected to the higher outcome of non-commercial customisation here. However, self expression through non-commercially customised products was linked to teenagers, which meant that it mainly occurred at a certain age. This could possibly explain why self expression ranked lower in the non-Irish group as they had a lower outcome of non-commercial customisation. Nevertheless, one participant emphasized that a person incorporates a part of the self by creating a product, which implied that self expression could also happen unintentionally.

A more direct form of the achievement motive, which is “pride of authorship” (Schreier 2006) was not relevant in the questionnaires, but when asked in the interviews participants did say that they would feel proud of a co-created product. Satisfaction with that product was also an indication of this motive, which came up in the interviews. Whereas self expression was more important for Irish females in the interviews, pride and satisfaction were more significant for the non-Irish group. Future research should be undertaken to establish whether there really is a significant difference between the two groups.


The next blog will elaborate on the results for the experiential need, which includes a major finding of this researches study.