快报:营销创意众包竞赛何时创造股东价值?竞赛设计与营销资源因素的影响

IF 11.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Marketing Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI:10.1177/00222429231191446
Zixia Cao, Hui Feng, Michael A. Wiles
{"title":"快报:营销创意众包竞赛何时创造股东价值?竞赛设计与营销资源因素的影响","authors":"Zixia Cao, Hui Feng, Michael A. Wiles","doi":"10.1177/00222429231191446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Firms often use crowdsourcing contests to develop marketing ideas and solutions. Despite this prevalence—and unique aspects—of marketing ideation crowdsourcing contests (MICC), there has been little examination of these contests’ shareholder wealth implications. Adopting a signaling perspective, we conduct an event study of 508 MICC announcements and find that they are associated with higher returns, but also higher idiosyncratic risk—indicating investors hold a mixed view of such contests. Further, we consider how contest design factors and firm marketing resources may signal the cultivation of intellectual and relational market-based assets to shape their stock market impact—providing firms guidance to better design their MICCs. Specifically, we find returns are enhanced when using professional (vs. general public) contests, specifically scoped contests, contests using crowd judging (vs. expert panels), and for firms with stronger marketing capabilities. However, brand factors have mixed effects on returns with a brand’s relevant stature having a positive effect and its energized differentiation having a negative effect on returns. Product MICCs and generally scoped contests heighten the negative effects on risk while marketing resources have no impact. Results offer implications for practitioners, including the finding that many MICC design choices commonly used in practice (i.e., general public contests and expert panels) are viewed less favorably by investors.","PeriodicalId":16152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marketing","volume":"699 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EXPRESS: When Do Marketing Ideation Crowdsourcing Contests Create Shareholder Value? The Effect of Contest Design and Marketing Resource Factors\",\"authors\":\"Zixia Cao, Hui Feng, Michael A. Wiles\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00222429231191446\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Firms often use crowdsourcing contests to develop marketing ideas and solutions. Despite this prevalence—and unique aspects—of marketing ideation crowdsourcing contests (MICC), there has been little examination of these contests’ shareholder wealth implications. Adopting a signaling perspective, we conduct an event study of 508 MICC announcements and find that they are associated with higher returns, but also higher idiosyncratic risk—indicating investors hold a mixed view of such contests. Further, we consider how contest design factors and firm marketing resources may signal the cultivation of intellectual and relational market-based assets to shape their stock market impact—providing firms guidance to better design their MICCs. Specifically, we find returns are enhanced when using professional (vs. general public) contests, specifically scoped contests, contests using crowd judging (vs. expert panels), and for firms with stronger marketing capabilities. However, brand factors have mixed effects on returns with a brand’s relevant stature having a positive effect and its energized differentiation having a negative effect on returns. Product MICCs and generally scoped contests heighten the negative effects on risk while marketing resources have no impact. Results offer implications for practitioners, including the finding that many MICC design choices commonly used in practice (i.e., general public contests and expert panels) are viewed less favorably by investors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Marketing\",\"volume\":\"699 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429231191446\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429231191446","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公司经常利用众包竞赛来发展营销理念和解决方案。尽管营销创意众包竞赛(MICC)很流行,而且有其独特之处,但很少有人研究这些竞赛对股东财富的影响。采用信号传导的观点,我们对508家中等收入公司的公告进行了事件研究,发现它们与更高的回报有关,但也与更高的特殊风险有关,投资者对这种竞争持有不同的看法。此外,我们还考虑了竞赛设计因素和企业营销资源如何暗示智力和关系市场资产的培养,从而塑造其股票市场影响,从而为企业更好地设计其MICCs提供指导。具体来说,我们发现当使用专业(与一般公众)竞赛,特别是范围竞赛,使用人群评判(与专家小组)的竞赛以及具有更强营销能力的公司时,回报会增加。然而,品牌因素对回报的影响是混合的,品牌的相关地位有积极的影响,而其充满活力的差异化对回报有消极的影响。产品MICCs和一般范围的竞赛加剧了对风险的负面影响,而营销资源没有影响。结果为从业者提供了启示,包括发现许多在实践中常用的MICC设计选择(即一般公众竞赛和专家小组)不太受投资者的欢迎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
EXPRESS: When Do Marketing Ideation Crowdsourcing Contests Create Shareholder Value? The Effect of Contest Design and Marketing Resource Factors
Firms often use crowdsourcing contests to develop marketing ideas and solutions. Despite this prevalence—and unique aspects—of marketing ideation crowdsourcing contests (MICC), there has been little examination of these contests’ shareholder wealth implications. Adopting a signaling perspective, we conduct an event study of 508 MICC announcements and find that they are associated with higher returns, but also higher idiosyncratic risk—indicating investors hold a mixed view of such contests. Further, we consider how contest design factors and firm marketing resources may signal the cultivation of intellectual and relational market-based assets to shape their stock market impact—providing firms guidance to better design their MICCs. Specifically, we find returns are enhanced when using professional (vs. general public) contests, specifically scoped contests, contests using crowd judging (vs. expert panels), and for firms with stronger marketing capabilities. However, brand factors have mixed effects on returns with a brand’s relevant stature having a positive effect and its energized differentiation having a negative effect on returns. Product MICCs and generally scoped contests heighten the negative effects on risk while marketing resources have no impact. Results offer implications for practitioners, including the finding that many MICC design choices commonly used in practice (i.e., general public contests and expert panels) are viewed less favorably by investors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
5.40%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Founded in 1936,the Journal of Marketing (JM) serves as a premier outlet for substantive research in marketing. JM is dedicated to developing and disseminating knowledge about real-world marketing questions, catering to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other global societal stakeholders. Over the years,JM has played a crucial role in shaping the content and boundaries of the marketing discipline.
期刊最新文献
EXPRESS: Beyond the Pair: Media Archetypes and Complex Channel Synergies in Advertising EXPRESS: Conceptual Research: Multidisciplinary Insights for Marketing EXPRESS: Racial Inequity in Donation-based Crowdfunding Platforms: the Role of Facial Emotional Expressiveness Becoming More Socially Profit Oriented EXPRESS: To Dispose or Eat? the Impact of Perceived Healthiness on Consumption Decisions for About-to-Expire Foods
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1