Prosumption is similar to other co-creative practices such as co-production and co-creation.
All of these practices involve a degree of participation on the part of the consumer (Humphreys and Grayson, 2008) as an integrator of resources who can produces value alone or through participation with other players (i.e. companies or/and other consumers) (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Nonetheless, one of the key arguments in this thesis is that prosumption is different from other practices since it revolves around consumers’ ability to produce products for their own use, rather than the use of others. There are critical differences between prosumption, and other consumer co-creative practices (Alhashem et al., 2013). Such distinction may help to clarify the potential areas of participation among and between consumers and producers in terms of how co-creators and prosumers integrate resources and produce value.
37 Few researchers have explicitly referred to prosumption in line with the theoretical suggestion by Toffler (1980) and Kotler (1986) or referred to recent recognition by Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010). Xie et al. (2008) attempted to examine prosumption in line with the theoretical suggestion by Toffler (1980). They have attempted to explain why prosumers assume the role, risk, and responsibilities as producers of their products within the context of food. Xie et al. (2008) refer to some of the physical activities involved in prosumption (e.g. purchase of raw materials, moving, assorting and combining materials required for prosumers’ projects) in addition to other mental activities (e.g. planning, evaluating and monitoring progress of the process) and outcome of prosumers’ experiences in relation to others who benefit from them (e.g. family and friends). On this basis, prosumers, unlike consumers, can be viewed as value producers through the use of their resources, rather than co-creating value within the production resources of firms as suggested by Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010).
The term prosumer is used by Humphreys and Grayson (2008) as a direct link between production and consumption where the prosumer is producing exchange value (Marx, 1867).
This suggests that consumers, through the production of exchange value, can be a source of free labour for companies. Examples of companies such as Threadless and Proctor and Gamble are frequently used in Humphreys and Grayson’s (2008) discussion to emphasise that the consumer is engaged in producing exchange value for a commercial organisation.
For Marx, exchange value is the worth of the commodity in relation to some other commodity, which in the west is usually money. This distinguishes exchange value from use value, which is the utility of the good to the person consuming it. Ritzer (2013, p.5) makes the point that Marx had been well aware that to create ‘use value’ some consumption must take place: “to be produced, a commodity must have a use value; a commodity will be
38 consumed only if it is useful”. Yet Ritzer (2013) also reiterates that in Marx’s labour theory of value, it is the production (i.e. the work or labour) that gives commodities their value.
Whether this is done with a commercial organisation or not, the fact that a person is helping to create value is essential to an understanding of both prosumption and co-creation of value.
Modern consumers (or prosumers in Ritzer’s terms) are engaged in creating value for companies every day, as Ritzer suggests, from clearing their own tables to putting furniture together. Ritzer (2013) notes that generally people are paid nothing by commercial organisations who profit from their unpaid work, but he suggests that few people would consider themselves exploited. While Ritzer (2013) acknowledges that a Marxist view would suggest such people are suffering a false consciousness, he is not sympathetic to this view and yet perhaps people should take a more critical stance on where and when they are required to be prosumers by companies. Certainly some companies have suggested that such ‘self-service’ prosumption impacts exchange value to the benefit of the consumer (e.g.
Ryanair), but equally people should consider whether this also impacts the use value for some consumers.
Similar to Ritzer (2013), Scholz (2012) argues that Marx’s ideas regarding the production of value and exploitation of labour may still be relevant to the digital economy, given the tensions that arise around issues of intellectual property, privacy, mediated culture and media literacy (Scholz, 2012). It is argued that such tensions emerge as people freely socialise, play and engage in poorly remunerated as well as unremunerated (immaterial) work under constant commercial surveillance on the internet, where what is seen is an intensified continuation, rather than a transformation, of the power and social relations of the traditional workplace (Scholz, 2012).
39 The discussion above also resonates with Beckett and Nayak (2008) who suggest that the rise of new technologies and methods for knowing and making the consumer visible (i.e.
CRM) have enabled firms to govern consumers in a Foucauldian way; through a rationality which assumes that consumers want to participate to create value with companies. This is done not through the creation of an evil form of manipulation, but through normalised preferences and incentives for consumers to become manageable and behave according to the objectives of firms as proposed by Zwick et al. (2008). This in turn results in consumers who exercise their freedom in ways that are potentially beneficial to several market agents including consumers (Beckett and Nayak, 2008; Moraes et al., 2011).
Humphreys and Grayson (2008) suggest an important distinction, not made by other authors, in the value debate between collective and company-consumer production.
Essentially they view consumers who participate with companies, whether paid or not, as being involved in company-consumer production and this produces exchange value as there is a commercial output. In contrast, collective production is about producing use value for a group of people. This is an important distinction in two ways. Firstly, up until their conclusion Humphreys and Grayson (2008) has emphasised that use value lay in the value in use by an individual, whereas their conclusion asserts it can be value for the group. Secondly, their distinction between collective and company-consumer production enables us to clearly understand the distinction between co-creation of value and prosumption, which is developed below.
Prosumption is characterised in this thesis as a production of use value by individuals alone or through co-production activities (i.e. peer-to-peer and collective group of consumers).
Although Cova and Cova (2012) recognise that productive consumers can increase the value of a brand, their discussion does not focus on the distinctions between use and
40 exchange value and thus their conceptualisation of prosumption is different from the one adopted by other authors. Rather, and in line with Beckett and Nayak (2008), Cova and Cova (2012) focus on the idea of prosumers as supposed agents controlling their consumer destinies, but agents who are actually moulded by their very involvement in a commercial system of co-production. Their analysis implies the prosumer is a willing participant with business where the emphasis is on the satisfaction gained from creative consumption rather than production, reflecting Humphreys and Grayson’s (2008) company-consumer production.
Ritzer’s (2013) latest definition of prosumption is more all-encompassing than some previous others. He now refers to it as the “interrelated process of production and consumption” and eschews a production/consumption binary for a prosumption continuum where there is no pure consumption or production, as every act of production involves some consumption and vice-versa (Ritzer, 2013, p.1). Although it is semantically acceptable, Ritzer’s (2013) emphasis is on how consumers are increasingly involved in the production process of companies. However, this thesis focuses on individual and collective prosumption by consumers. Thus the use of prosumption in this research builds on the definition proposed by Xie et al. (2008, p.110), who describe prosumption as “value creation activities undertaken by the consumer that result in the production of products they eventually consume and that become their consumption experiences”. Nonetheless, such definition of prosumption by Xie et al. (2008) overlook some key elements in terms of our understanding of prosumption in light of the present consumer and marketing literature. Firstly, Xie et al.
(2008) assume that prosumption is only an individualistic practice which neglect the potential of collective prosumption. Secondly, Xie et al. (2008) does not highlight the productive aspect of prosumption, and does not highlight the use of alternative products produced by
41 prosumers for their own consumption. Therefore, prosumption is refuted in this thesis and defined as value production activities carried out by an individual or a group of co-prosumers that result in the production of their own products and services rather than the use of final or customized products from the marketplace.
All the discussions above imply that prosumers rather than firms become proposers and receivers of their own goods and value in contrast to co-creative practices where consumers are essentially perceived as receivers of value propositions from firms. This definition of prosumption also aligns with Humphreys and Grayson’s (2008) concluding conceptualisation of the term as peer-to-peer and collective production activity among individuals. While prosumers’ focus is centred mainly on use value, it is asserted that this distinction is still important, reflects the original meaning of prosumption and acts as a useful distinction between prosumption and co-creation of value as practices in marketing terms.
While exchange and use value are still relevant in discussions of co-creation, the focus is on the creation of value with the firm (e.g., Fyrberg, 2013; Grönroos, 2012; Hilton et al., 2012). Developed from Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) theory of S-D logic, and Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004) theory of value co-creation, the emphasis of co-creation is on the consumer’s role in the creation of value in production. Critical to S-D logic is the idea that goods are used by consumers as provisions of services rather than being valued as end products per se. Customers are co-creators and participants with commercial suppliers, consuming goods as mechanisms for service provision. Co-creation, therefore, lies, in Humphrey and Grayson’s (2008) terms, in the area of company-consumer partnership.
Similarly, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) view consumers as active producers of value, who co-create their unique experiences with commercial suppliers. This stream of research places the consumer clearly in the context of company-consumer production and this is seen
42 as a critical distinction between prosumption (peer-to-peer among individuals) and co-creation (company-to-consumer).