The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

Customer value
Identifying competitive customer propositions
value propositions in retailing
Timo Rintamäki and Hannu Kuusela
Department of Management Studies, University of Tampere, Tampere, 621
Finland, and
Lasse Mitronen
Kesko Corporation, Kesko, Finland

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for identifying competitive customer
value propositions in retailing.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on existing literature on customer value and
competitive advantage in order to form an understanding of the key dimensions of customer value,
developing a hierarchical model of value propositions and establishing a link between customer value
and competitive advantage.
Findings – The work suggests a framework for identifying competitive customer value propositions
(CVPs) where four hierarchical key dimensions of customer value – economic, functional, emotional,
and symbolic – are first identified. In the second stage, a CVP is developed on the basis of these value
dimensions. In the third stage, the CVP is evaluated for competitive advantage. It is proposed that
economic and also functional CVPs are more likely to represent points of parity, whereas emotional
and social CVPs represent points of difference for retail companies seeking differentiation from their
competition and gaining of competitive advantage.
Originality/value – Identifying competitive CVPs, the paper combines a hierarchical perspective on
customer value and the concept of competitive advantage in a manner that offers managers a strategic
positioning tool that links the customer’s value needs to company resources and capabilities.
Keywords Customers, Competitive advantage, Product positioning, Retailing
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
The competitive advantage of successful service providers and retailers is often
explained with a logic wherein service quality contributes to customer value, resulting
in increased satisfaction and behavioral intentions, eventually creating loyalty that
manifests itself in enhanced profitability (see, for example, Cronin et al., 2000; Slater
and Narver, 1994; Wang et al., 2004; Webster, 1994a). Of these concepts, customer value
is by definition customer-centric, but it also can be formulated as a proposition
capturing the essentials of the company’s offering. From the customer’s perspective,
customer value can be seen as a more personal and holistic view on quality: it is a
subjective assessment of both positive and negative consequences of using a product
or a service, the ultimate reason that people buy what they buy (Sheth et al., 1991;
Woodruff, 1997). From the company’s perspective, these buying motives should be
captured in a customer value proposition (CVP), making it a strategic priority issue in
areas such as segmentation, service development, and marketing communications. Managing Service Quality
Vol. 17 No. 6, 2007
Hence, customer value links the customer and the company in a way that makes the pp. 621-634
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
concept especially appealing in the context of understanding the success of 0960-4529
best-practice companies. DOI 10.1108/09604520710834975
MSQ Browsing the recent journal articles and bestsellers reveals that much of customer
value results from well-designed customer experiences (see, for example, Berry et al.,
17,6 2002; Carbone, 2004; Meyer and Schwager, 2007; Morgan and Rao, 2003; Schmitt, 2003).
Carbone and Haeckel (1994, p. 9) define customer experience as “the ‘takeaway’
impression formed by people’s encounters with products, services, and businesses – a
perception produced when humans consolidate sensory information”. Customer
622 experience – pleasant or unpleasant – inevitably takes place every time customers
interact with companies and their offerings. This means that the best companies are
able to orchestrate customer experiences that provide customer value complementing
their core offering.
It is always the customer who defines what is valuable and what is not. Because
customers define value, firms can only make value propositions intended to support
customers in their value-creating consumption activities (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). For
retailers, decisions on what to sell and at what price have lost much of their strategic
resonance, because the same or similar products and services can be obtained from
competitors at prices that leave little or no room for adjustments. Hence, the decision of
how to sell – what kind of customer experience is offered – becomes a relevant
strategic question from the competitive advantage point of view.
The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for identifying competitive
customer value propositions. This is done by understanding the key dimensions of
customer value, developing a hierarchical model of value propositions, and
establishing a link between customer value and competitive advantage.

Customer value propositions

There is no single widely approved definition for a customer value proposition
(Anderson et al., 2006). However, many authors agree on two issues: a customer value
proposition should be defined from the customer perspective, and it has a key strategic
role within the organization in pursuit of competitive advantage (e.g. Anderson et al.,
2006; Webster, 1994a). Customer value and competitive advantage are two interrelated
but independent streams of literature that can be used in identifying successful
customer value propositions. For example, Webster (1994a, p. 25) defines a value
proposition as:
. . . the verbal statement that matches up the firm’s distinctive competencies with the needs
and preferences of a carefully defined set of potential customers. It’s a communication device
that links the people in an organization with its customers, concentrating employee efforts
and customer expectations on things that the company does best in a system for delivering
superior value. The value proposition creates a shared understanding needed to form a
long-term relationship that meets the goals of both the company and its customers.
Definitions of customer value vary from simply identifying product attributes to
understanding the consequences of consumption experiences: for one customer, “value
is low price” and for another “what I get vs what I give” (Zeithaml, 1988).
Attribute-based definitions are the first step. From the value proposition perspective,
definitions based on the consequences of the attributes are more efficient, because they
reveal how customers make use of the offering in real life (the value-in-use perspective)
(Woodruff, 1997).
The positive consequences are the benefits that the customer derives from the
offering. Conversely, negative consequences are the sacrifices (monetary and
non-monetary costs) to the customer of obtaining the benefits. When customers Customer value
perceive greater benefits than sacrifices, customer value is created. It follows that a propositions
generic definition of customer value is that of a tradeoff between benefits and sacrifices
(Gale, 1994; Zeithaml, 1988).
The perception of customer value is interactive, between customer and offering, as
well as relativistic between people and situations, preferential, and based on a holistic
experience (Holbrook, 1999). Recently, others (e.g. Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; 623
Vargo and Lusch, 2004) have emphasized the interactive, relativistic, and experiential
nature of customer value under the topic of value co-creation. From the value
proposition perspective, Ballantyne and Varey (2006) note that “value propositions are
reciprocal promises of value, operating to and from suppliers and customers seeking an
equitable exchange”. It follows that a good value proposition is specific enough to
recognize the unique nature of subjective and interactive consumption experiences but
general enough to attract adequate customer segments with homogenous value needs.
For Webster (1994b, pp. 107-108), value proposition equates to a positioning statement
because it defines “who is the target customer?” as well as “why should the customer
buy it?” and “what are we selling?” but is not limited to communication purposes only.
Anderson et al. (2006) define three kinds of customer value propositions: all benefits,
favorable points of difference, and resonating focus. “All benefits” value propositions
are based simply on listing the positive features and outcomes of buying and using the
product or service. The other two (of which resonating focus is considered the more
advanced) are more sophisticated and are based on points of parity with and points of
difference from the competitive offerings. In order to deliver the value that is taken for
granted by the market, the company needs to have points of parity in its value
proposition. “Points of parity are elements with essentially the same performance or
functionality as those of the next best alternative,” according to Anderson et al. (2006,
p. 94). In order to differentiate itself from its competition, the company needs to have
points of difference in its value proposition. Anderson et al. (2006, p. 94) explain,
“Points of difference are elements that make the supplier’s offering either superior or
inferior to the next best alternative”. Points of parity and points of difference refer to
different customer value dimensions that aim at competitive advantage.
Competitive advantage and customer value are linked through value delivery (or
value creation), which should be reflected in the value proposition:
To achieve superior performance, a business must develop and sustain competitive
advantage. But where competitive advantage was once based on structural characteristics
such as market power, economies of scale, or a broad product line, the emphasis today has
shifted to capabilities that enable a business to consistently deliver superior value to its
customers. This, after all, is the meaning of competitive advantage. (Slater and Narver, 1994,
p. 22)
For example, Porter’s (1985) cost leadership and product differentiation are generic
strategies that address “positions of advantage”, whereas the resource-based view of
competitive advantage focuses on the assets and skills that are the “sources of
advantage” (Walley and Thwaites, 1996). Numerous typologies and categories of
resources have been proposed, and the term “resource” often has been replaced with
“capability” or “competence”, indicating the emphasis on knowledge and skills (e.g.
Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). For our purposes, it is sufficient to conclude that usually a
distinction is drawn between tangible resources (assets, operand resources) and
MSQ intangible resources (knowledge and skills, operant resources) (Vargo and Lusch,
17,6 2004). Also, customers are seen as a relational, market-based asset (e.g. in the notion of
customer relationship), and their management as an intellectual capability that
contributes significantly to competitive advantage: “a firm can be said to have a
customer-based advantage when (some segment of) customers prefer and choose its
offering over that of one or more rivals” (Srivastava et al., 2001, p. 783).
624 Whereas customer value is always defined by customers’ subjective perceptions
and evaluations of the total customer experience, competitive advantage is defined by
the company’s use of resources and capabilities to create customer value. Customer
value proposition hence is an encapsulation of a strategic management decision on
what the company believes its customers value the most and what it is able to deliver
in a way that gives it competitive advantage. To summarize the above discussion, we
conclude that a customer value proposition should:
.
increase the benefits and/or decrease the sacrifices that the customer perceives as
relevant;
.
build on competencies and resources that the company is able to utilize more
effectively than its competitors;
.
be recognizably different (unique) from competition; and
.
result in competitive advantage.

A framework for identifying customer value propositions

We propose a framework for identifying customer value propositions:
(1) identify the key dimensions of customer value;
(2) develop the value proposition; and
(3) evaluate the value proposition for its ability to create competitive advantage.
This process is presented in Figure 1, “A framework for identifying customer value
propositions.” To illustrate the resulting customer value propositions, we have
included examples of selected retailers in Figure 2.
In the framework, the value dimensions are hierarchically organized and combined
to form a customer value matrix. The value dimensions range hierarchically from more
objective to more subjective, from more concrete to more abstract, from more utilitarian
to more hedonic/psychic, and from more transaction-based to more interaction-based
(compare Babin et al., 1994; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Holbrook, 1999; Khalifa,
2004; Smith and Colgate, 2007).
Customer value propositions that reflect utilitarian value are created mainly by
cutting down on sacrifices: reducing prices, saving customers’ time and effort, and
helping customers to make the right decisions. We call these dimensions “economic
value” (see, for example, Gale, 1994) and “functional value” (see, for example, Sheth
et al., 1991; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Propositions that reflect more subjective and
abstract realms of customer value provide customers with atmospheres that stimulate
their senses, and with stores and brands they can use to express their personality.
These dimensions are called “emotional value” (see, for example, Sheth et al., 1991;
Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) and “symbolic value” (see, for example, Flint, 2006; Smith
and Colgate, 2007).
 Customer value
propositions

625

Figure 1.
A framework for
identifying customer value
propositions
MSQ
17,6

626

Figure 2.
A framework for
identifying customer value
propositions, with
illustrative examples from
retailing
As the value progresses in Figure 1, the consumer’s role as a value co-creator increases. Customer value
This is important from the business perspective, because utilitarian value propositions
tend to be more directly related to the core offering, whereas more abstract and
propositions
personal value propositions increase the value of the core offering by differentiating
and complementing it.

Economic customer value propositions 627

Price remains one of the most important and “hard-to-beat” drivers of customer value.
Smith and Nagle (2005, p. 41) define economic value as a “product’s objective monetary
worth to a customer adjusted for the availability of competitive substitute products”.
Alternatively, economic value can be defined as the lowest price or the best tradeoff
between quality and price (Gale, 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). There are customers who buy
on the basis of price only and are not able or willing to make the monetary sacrifice
required for higher quality. They might devote a great deal of time and effort to finding
the best bargain. Customers who assess the economic value in relation to the quality of
the offering might upgrade to a more expensive product if they perceive the increase in
quality to be greater than the increase in price.
An economic value proposition usually requires resources and competencies based
on economies of scale. Wal-Mart is a commonly cited example of a company whose
competitive advantage is based on, e.g. purchasing volume, an efficient distribution
system, and the use of information technology to streamline the supply chain (Tong
and Tong, 2006). Utilizing these resources, Wal-Mart is able to promise its customers
“Always low prices”, indicating a clear economic value proposition through EDLP
(everyday low price).

Functional customer value propositions

Customers who are motivated primarily by convenient solutions search for functional
value. Sheth et al. (1991, p. 160) define functional value as the “perceived utility derived
from an alternative’s capacity for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance.” For
a retail shopper, functional value can be defined as finding the right products with as
little time and as little physical and cognitive effort as possible. The value is perceived
when these utilitarian-level sacrifices are minimized (Babin et al., 1994).
Creating functional value is often associated with products that meet the target
customers’ needs, and processes that increase convenience at different stages of the
shopping experience (see, for example, Seiders et al., 2000). Tesco is a British retailer
that has gained competitive advantage by creating superior functional value for its
customers. This goal of providing functional value is based on, e.g. purchasing the
right merchandize, training the personnel, and designing convenient shopping
experiences. Tesco’s customer-focused commitment to provide functional value is
summarized in the company’s value proposition “Every little helps,” which is
successfully communicated to customers as well as the employees. For customers:
Every Little Helps is summarized by five promises: the aisles are clear; I can get what I want;
the prices are good; I don’t queue; and the staff are great (Seth and Randall, 2005, p. 66).
As shown in Figure 2, economic and functional value propositions can be combined to
offer customers convenience with a fair price tag. For example, Dollar General’s slogan
“Save Time. Save Money” illustrates an attempt to create value by minimizing
customer sacrifice. With more than 8,000 stores and effective logistics, the chain can
MSQ benefit from economies of scale and offer customers low prices plus the convenience of
a neighborhood store (Boyle, 2005). Compared to, for example, that of Wal-Mart, Dollar
17,6 General’s value proposition and competitive advantage is based on being situated near
the customer but still being able to provide low-cost solutions for most weekly
shopping needs.

628 Emotional customer value propositions

Customers who are motivated by the experiential aspects of shopping appreciate
retailers who create emotional value. Emotional value can be defined as the “perceived
utility derived from an alternative’s capacity to arouse feelings or affective states”
(Sheth et al., 1991, p. 161). Arnold and Reynolds (2003) conceptualize different
dimensions of the experiential needs and wants of retail shoppers, or “hedonic
shopping motivations.” These include enjoying shopping with friends and family,
bargain-hunting, and seeking adventure or relaxation. Besides being an instrumental
occasion for getting the needed products, the shopping experience becomes an end
valued for its own sake (Babin et al., 1994; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). This
emphasizes the role of store environment and personal service (Turley and Milliman,
2000).
The use of visual, auditory, olfactory, sensory, and even gustatory clues may be an
effective way to create emotional customer value. As Carbone (2004, p. 165) states, the
“discipline of designing experiences blends creativity with strategic rigor, enabling
experiences to connect on a customer-defined value in a manageable and sustainable
system. Clues are the heart of the system that manages experience, and creating and
integrating clues are at the heart of designing experiences.” He cites Disney as an
example of a company that is able to orchestrate the “humanic clues” (clues provided
by people) and “mechanic clues” (clues provided by the environment) to create a
customer experience that creates value in its own right.
In retailing, there are many recent examples of using atmospherics and themes (e.g.
flagship stores like NikeTown), as well as additional services (e.g. Wi-Fi, in-store cafés,
etc.), to encourage customers to spend time and enjoy shopping. Barnes & Noble, a
Fortune 500 company and the world’s largest bookseller, provides a classic example of
a company that differentiated itself with an emotional value proposition. It was among
the first book retailers to pay attention to providing a comfortable ambiance. By
introducing in-store cafés, the company encouraged shoppers to relax and spend their
leisure time browsing the books.
Emotional value propositions can be combined with economic and functional value.
Trader Joe’s is an example of a grocery store that combines economic and emotional
value in its value proposition. It is a place where many customers go with rational and
emotional motives: to save money, to seek novelty, and to enjoy the thrill of
bargain-hunting. The economic value is based on direct buying and extensive use of
own brands. The emotional value results from exotic products; friendly service
provided by the staff in their Hawaiian shirts; and a laid-back in-store experience
featuring, e.g. a nautical theme. Byrne (2004) describes the emotional value derived
from shopping at Trader Joe’s:
The quality and variety of the food certainly draw me to my nearby Trader Joe’s. But what
really matters is the experience: the friendly and helpful staff, the smart product selection, the
sense of discovery you get from finding something new on the shelf, the tasty samples that
 inevitably make you buy the stuffed salmon or the creme brulée. In short, Trader Joe’s makes Customer value
shopping fun.
propositions
A shopping experience that creates functional and emotional value aims to be efficient
and pleasurable at the same time. For example, the Ahold-owned Stop & Shop
Supermarket Company has experimented with portable product-scanning systems to
help customers find the products and offers easily, update and differentiate the
shopping experience, and potentially make it more pleasant as well (Duff, 2006). In 629
addition to this approach with the “personal food shopper” called the Shopping Buddy,
Stop & Shop has collaborated with Starbucks and opened in-store cafés in its stores.

Symbolic customer value propositions

Customers who are motivated by self-expressive aspects of consumption appreciate
retailers who create symbolic value. The symbolic value of a product or customer
experience can be defined as positive consumption meanings that are attached to self
and/or communicated to others (see, for example, Belk, 1988; Smith and Colgate, 2007;
Solomon, 1983). According to Flint (2006, p. 352), “symbols are special kinds of social
objects that stand for something; they have meaning and when used are intended to
convey a shared meaning to a receiver, who incidentally can be oneself (i.e. self
communication).” Symbolic value is created from representing something other than
the obvious function of the product. As Sheth et al. (1991) note, “even products
generally thought to be functional or utilitarian are frequently selected on the basis of
their social value.” A similar logic may apply to patronizing a retailer (Sirgy et al.,
2000). The sacrifices related to symbolic value include a risk of choosing a brand or
patronizing a retailer that would result in negative consumption meanings.
As a value proposition, symbolic value emphasizes self-expression through socially
interpreted codes embedded in consumption. For example, The Body Shop value
proposition “Made with passion” is based on five company values: “against animal
testing, support community trade, activate self esteem, defend human rights, protect
our planet” (Body Shop, 2007). These symbolic meanings are important and
self-expressive for The Body Shop customers.
Symbolic value may be combined with all other value propositions. The fourth
largest (in terms of revenue) US retailer, Target, has differentiated itself successfully
from the competition via profiling as “an upscale discounter” (Berman and Evans,
2007). Target creates economic and symbolic value by providing branded products in a
distinctively designed store environment at attractive prices. Upscale positioning and
affordable prices are communicated in the company slogan “Expect more. Pay less.”
Safeway’s “Lifestyle” stores illustrate a combination of functional and symbolic
value propositions. These stores focus on “selling complete meal solutions to shoppers”
(Wilson, 2005). In addition to this functional proposition, the in-store experience and
the product presentation contribute to the symbolic value of the shopping experience.
Signage and graphics, as well as cross-merchandising and lifestyle merchandise
presentations with fixtures, are used in creating a branded shopping experience that
appeals to the targeted customer segment.
Finally, Nordstrom emphasizes emotional and symbolic dimensions in its value
proposition. Nordstrom relies on the upscale store atmosphere, branded products, and
exclusive service in making shopping more pleasurable and meaningful. A recent
marketing campaign (although it was also criticized) addressed the symbolic value
proposition in particular with the slogan “Reinvent yourself” (Baar, 2000).
MSQ Conclusions
A competitive customer value proposition is more than a brand slogan; it is a strategic
17,6 concept that ties the customer and company perspectives together for value creation
and competitive advantage. Customer value propositions should represent the
complete customer experience (Selden and MacMillan, 2006), and reduce customer
perceived risk by guaranteeing the service promise (Kandampully and Butler, 2001).
630 We believe the orientation based on customer value propositions that is presented in
this paper tackles important issues related to service management and marketing and
contributes to their resolution by concentrating focus on customer-defined needs and
desires and hence orchestrating the company around delivering on its promises. On the
basis of our framework, we conclude that:
.
identifying customer value propositions begins with understanding the key
dimensions of customer value that motivate the targeted customers;
. development of customer value propositions benefits from hierarchical
evaluation and combining of economic, functional, emotional, and symbolic
customer value dimensions; and
.
evaluation of the competitiveness of customer value proposition is based on the
suitability of the company resources and competencies required for delivering on
the proposition to gain competitive advantage.
Although the customers might not consciously perceive value as being hierarchically
constructed, from a retailer’s perspective it is often easier to identify a competitive
value proposition when the utilitarian dimensions of value are considered first. For
example, when we use Tesco to illustrate functional value, or Stop & Shop’s pilot store
experiments with technology and in-store cafés to illustrate a combination of emotional
and functional value, we understand that neither of these companies is untouchable in
terms of price competition. In fact, both companies have competitive pricing as well.
However, for them, pricing is more likely a point of parity than a point of difference.
From the competitive advantage point of view, an economic value proposition is
based on economies of scale, and the role of customers often is seen through isolated
transactions. A service-centered logic applies to value propositions based on more fully
developed dimensions of customer value: the benefits of specialized competencies or
services are exchanged, in a contrast to traditional goods-centered logic, where the
exchange is based on the goods themselves (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
In creation of functional value, much of customer needs can still be anticipated by
concentrating on the right products and on effective and innovative shopping process
design. But emotional and symbolic value propositions require diverse capabilities and
deeper understanding of customers (Khalifa, 2004). Creating utilitarian value is a
prerequisite for many retailers, to get customers to visit their store in the first place, but
the more abstract dimensions of value might keep them coming back again and again
(Berry, 2001; Carbone, 2004).

Managerial implications
The competitiveness and managerial relevance of a customer value proposition is
measured in its ability to attract and serve targeted customer segments and guide the
organization towards a common goal. We believe that a hierarchical perspective on
customer value propositions – like the one presented in Figure 1 – helps managers to:
 .
identify, design, crystallize, and implement competitive customer value Customer value
propositions;
propositions
.
align operations, human resources, marketing communications, and the whole
business model around creation of real customer value;
.
sense and respond to the changes in consumer behavior through deeper
understanding of relativistic customer value needs; and
.
differentiate between a “ticket to play” and a real source of differentiation and
631
competitive advantage: because economic and even functional value
propositions tend to change from points of difference into points of parity over
time, points of difference nowadays are found more often in the emotional and
symbolic dimensions of customer value.
An efficient customer value proposition taps into what customers experience and
consider relevant – what creates real value for them. From the retailer’s perspective,
this takes place during the customer experience, in direct and indirect contacts and
encounters with a company (Meyer and Schwager, 2007). Only rarely are customers
able to break down their needs and desires (of which some are unconscious), let alone
compare all competing options objectively. They need something that helps them to
categorize the offerings into those they like and those they do not. That is why
companies should concentrate on one or two points of difference that best create value
for the targeted customer segments and differentiate the company from its competition
(Anderson et al., 2006).
Future research
This conceptual paper is based on established literature on customer value and
competitive advantage. Although much of the research cited here (e.g. Slater and
Narver, 1994; Webster, 1994a; and Woodruff, 1997) recognizes the link between the two
streams of literature (customer value is a key source of competitive advantage), the
framework presented in this paper contributes to the literature by emphasizing the
hierarchical nature of customer value dimensions in assessing the competitiveness of
CVPs.
Besides extending the retailing context and using empirical data to measure and
model the conceptual relationships depicted in the framework, there are other avenues
for future research. Recently, emotional and symbolic dimensions of customer value
have aroused interest in consumer behavior and marketing management. However,
conceptual and empirical research concerning the resources and competencies on
which these value dimensions are based is still scarce.
Measuring the gap between expected and received service quality is a well
established field of research. Similar logic could be applied in researching the gap
between customer and company perceptions of economic, functional, emotional, and
symbolic value propositions.
Connecting customers with the company is a topical challenge, especially for many
B2C companies. Research comparing the level of commitment or customer loyalty
created by companies with different types of value propositions might aid in
evaluating the effectiveness of economic, functional, emotional, and symbolic CVPs.
The challenge of differentiating by means of a distinctive and meaningful customer
value proposition becomes even more important when companies do business via
multiple channels and/or manage their business as a part of larger value networks.
MSQ This calls for research into how customer value propositions are affected by this
17,6 increasing complexity facilitated by multiple channels and service providers.

References
Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A. and Van Rossum, W. (2006), “Customer value propositions in business
632 markets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 91-9.
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Baar, A. (2000), “Fallon helps reinvent Nordstrom’s ad strategy”, Adweek Midwest Edition,
Vol. 41 No. 7, p. 4.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-56.
Ballantyne, D. and Varey, R.J. (2006), “Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: the
exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 335-48.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 139-68.
Berman, B. and Evans, J.R. (2007), Retail Management. A Strategic Approach, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Berry, L.L. (2001), “The old pillars of new retailing”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 4,
pp. 131-7.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P. and Haeckel, S.H. (2002), “Managing the total customer experience”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 85-9.
Body Shop (2007), Our values, available at: www.thebodyshopinternational.com/
Values þ and þ Campaigns/Our þ Values/Home.htm (accessed 14 March 2007).
Boyle, M. (2005), “The king of cheap stuff”, Fortune, Vol. 152 No. 10, p. 220.
Byrne, J.A. (2004), “Lessons from our customer champions”, Fast Company, 87, October, p. 16.
Carbone, L.P. (2004), Clued In: How to Keep Customers Coming Back Again and Again,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Carbone, L.P. and Haeckel, S.H. (1994), “Engineering customer experiences”, Marketing
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 8-19.
Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Duff, M. (2006), “Personal food shopper: Stop & Shop test looks to improve in-store experience”,
Retailing Today, Vol. 45 No. 21, p. 10.
Flint, D.J. (2006), “Innovation, symbolic interaction and customer valuing: thoughts stemming
from a service-dominant logic of marketing”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 349-62.
Gale, B.T. (1994), Managing Customer Value: Creating Quality and Service that Customers Can
See, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.) (1999), Consumer Value: A Framework For Analysis and Research,
Routledge, London.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: fantasies,
feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-40.
Kandampully, J. and Butler, L. (2001), “Service guarantees: a strategic mechanism to minimize Customer value
customers’ perceived risk in service organizations’”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 112-20. propositions
Khalifa, A.S. (2004), “Customer value: a review of recent literature and an integrative
configuration”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 645-66.
Meyer, C. and Schwager, A. (2007), “Understanding customer experience”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 116-26. 633
Morgan, I. and Rao, J. (2003), “Making routine customer experiences fun”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 93-5.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.
Prahalad, C. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value
creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Schmitt, B.H. (2003), Customer Experience Management: A Revolutionary Approach to
Connecting with Your Customers, Wiley, New York, NY.
Seiders, K., Berry, L.L. and Gresham, L.G. (2000), “Attention, retailers! How convenient is your
convenience strategy?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 79-90.
Selden, L. and MacMillan, I.C. (2006), “Manage customer-centric innovation – systemically”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 108-16.
Seth, A. and Randall, G. (2005), Supermarket Wars. Global Strategies for Food Retailers, Palgrave
MacMillan, New York, NY.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of
consumption values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-70.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D. and Mangleburg, T. (2000), “Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail
patronage: an integrative model and a research agenda”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 127-38.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), “Market orientation, customer value, and superior
performance”, Business Horizons, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 22-8.
Smith, G.E. and Nagle, T.T. (2005), “A question of value”, Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 38-43.
Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007), “Customer value creation: a practical framework”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Solomon, M.R. (1983), “The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism
perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-29.
Srivastava, R.K., Fahey, L. and Christensen, H.K. (2001), “The resource-based view and
marketing: the role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 777-802.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple
item scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-20.
Tong, C.H. and Tong, L.I. (2006), “Exploring the cornerstones of Wal-Mart’s success and
competitiveness”, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-9.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), “Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 193-211.
MSQ Walley, K. and Thwaites, D. (1996), “A review, synthesis and interpretation of the literature on
competitive advantage”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 163-79.
17,6 Wang, Y., Lo, H.P., Chi, R. and Yang, Y. (2004), “An integrated framework for customer value
and customer-relationship-management performance: a customer-based perspective from
China”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 Nos 2/3, pp. 169-82.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
634 Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1994a), “Defining the new marketing concept”, Marketing Management, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 22-31.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1994b), Market-Driven Management. Using the New Marketing Concept to
Create a Customer-Oriented Company, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Wilson, M. (2005), “Every picture tells a story”, Chain Store Age, Vol. 81 No. 10, p. 82.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

About the authors

Timo Rintamäki is an acting marketing lecturer at the University of Tampere. Besides teaching
courses on services marketing and retail strategies, he is finishing his doctoral dissertation on
customer value in retailing. His other research interests are in consumer behavior, including
experiential and symbolic aspects of consumption. He has published work in the International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management and collaborated on a book on customer value.
Timo Rintamäki is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: timo.rintamaki@uta.fi
Hannu Kuusela is a professor of marketing at the University of Tampere. His research
interests lie in consumer behavior and marketing strategy. In addition to textbooks and chapters
for books (focusing on marketing of services, customer value, and risk management), he has
published articles in the American Journal of Psychology, European Journal of Marketing, Journal
of Professional Services Marketing, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
and Journal of Financial Services Marketing.
Lasse Mitronen, D.Sc. (Econ. & Bus. Adm.) is vice president for Corporate Responsibility and
Business Development at Kesko. His doctoral thesis (Management Systems in Hybrid
Merchandising Organizations: Case Study of a Retailing Network Organization) was accepted in
2002 at the University of Tampere. His research interests focus on topics in the fields of retailing,
management, networks, and business improvement. His work has been published in academic
journals and proceedings of international conferences, and he has professional experience in the
wholesaling, food, and non-food business. He is a visiting lecturer at several business schools in
Finland.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.