Consumer Responses to the Mass Customization of Product Aesthetics
Ruth Mugge*
Delft University of Technology, Department of Product Innovation Management,
Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands, P: +31 (0) 15 278 3801,
F: +31 (0) 15 278 7662, E: r.mugge@tudelft.nl
Frédéric F. Brunel
Boston University School of Management, Department of Marketing,
595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA, P: 617 359 4609,
F: 617 353 4098, E: brunel@bu.edu
Jan P. L. Schoormans
Delft University of Technology, Department of Product Innovation Management,
Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands, P: +31 (0) 15 278 4840,
F: +31 (0) 15 278 7662, E: j.p.l.schoormans@tudelft.nl
Consumer Responses to the Mass-customization of Product Aesthetics
ABSTRACT
This research investigates the psychological processes underlying consumer responses to
the mass-customization of product aesthetics. Respondents were presented with a website that
allowed for different extents of functional and aesthetic mass-customization. Also, we
manipulated the social setting in which the product was used.
Our findings suggest that customizing a product’s functional features enhances its
functional value, whereas aesthetic mass-customization increases the product’s self-expressive
value. Both the product’s functional and self-expressive value positively affect purchase
intention, whereas the perceived complexity of the task has a negative effect. Finally, public
consumption enhances the self-expressive value of visually customized products.
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Mass-customization strategies allow consumers to create individualized products that
match their personal needs. Although mass-customization can appeal to broad audiences and is
becoming more available in the marketplace, research on this topic has been somewhat limited
(Hauser, Tellis, and Griffin 2006). Specifically, we have an emerging body of evidence on the
processes that determine consumers’ evaluation of the mass-customization of functional
elements (e.g., Dellaert and Stremersch 2005), but lack a complementary understanding
regarding the mass-customization of product aesthetics. Although there are some similarities
between mass-customization of functional features and aesthetics, we believe that there are
unique aspects to aesthetic mass-customization as well. An important difference is that aesthetic
mass-customization has a strong affective and symbolic nature. Hence, different constructs might
drive consumers’ reactions to these mass-customization configurators. This paper explores the
value of aesthetic mass-customization for self-expression and identity management. Specifically,
we investigate the importance of the extent of mass-customization and the public consumption of
the mass-customized product for realizing the full potential of aesthetic mass-customization.
Mass-customization configurators differ in the extent of customization that is offered. In
some configurators, the extent of mass-customization is narrow, because consumers are only
offered a small number of choices, whereas in others they can make selections amongst an
immense number of options. Research on functional mass-customization demonstrated that
increasing the extent of functional mass-customization allows consumers to achieve greater
functional value, because the product can be better customized to fit one’s technical requirements
(Dellaert and Stremersch 2005). Similarly, to match consumers’ individual aesthetic preferences,
consumers should be offered a great extent of aesthetic mass-customization. Then, the product
can be aesthetically customized to fit one’s unique taste and reflect one’s identity. In contrast, the
importance of functional mass-customization for self-expression will be limited, because
functional components are often internal, and therefore, less visible than aesthetic elements.
Furthermore, consumers’ aesthetic preferences are heterogeneous, whereas functional
preferences are often uniformed within consumer segments, and thus, less effective in supporting
one’s unique identity. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the extent of aesthetic masscustomization positively impacts the mass-customized product’s self-expressive value (H1a),
whereas the extent of functional mass-customization positively affects its functional value (H2a).
Increasing the extent of functional and/or aesthetic mass-customization may also have a
negative effect on consumer responses. Consumers may become overwhelmed by the great
number of possibilities at their disposal (Huffman and Kahn 1998). Accordingly, we hypothesize
that the perceived complexity of the mass-customization process is positively affected by the
extent of aesthetic (H1b) and functional (H2b) mass-customization.
Based on the former, two opposing effects are expected for consumers’ purchase
intention of mass-customized products. Whereas the mass-customized product’s functional (H3a)
and self-expressive value (H3b) will enhance purchase intentions, perceived complexity (H4) will
reduce these.
Nevertheless, we expect that consumers’ perceptions of the self-expressive value of masscustomized products are impacted by more than just the extent of aesthetic mass-customization.
People derive their identity more from social interactions with others than from internal,
psychological forces (Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993). Consequently, a product’s selfexpressive value depends on its visibility to others. Accordingly, we propose that for aesthetic
mass-customization the benefit of self-expressiveness is enhanced if the mass-customized
product is publicly consumed (H5). Because the value of functional mass-customization for selfexpression is limited, public consumption will not affect this type of mass-customization.
In Study 1, 364 undergraduate students were presented with one of the eight generated
mass-customization configurators for a laptop. For the manipulation of functional masscustomization, the breadth (4 vs. 8 technical aspects) and depth (2 vs. 4-6 options for each
aspect) of functional mass-customization choices was varied. Extent of aesthetic masscustomization was manipulated by offering a choice among four colors or the possibility to
personally create the motif for the laptop’s appearance. For the manipulation of public/private
consumption, we primed the respondents by telling them that they are interested in purchasing a
new laptop to replace their current desktop, because it is portable and allows the user to work
anywhere they want (public) or because it takes less space in their bedroom (private). Each
condition was explained in text and by showing pictures of the mass-customization configurator.
Next, responses to several multi-item measures were obtained.
To test our hypotheses, we performed a structural equation model with latent variables in
LISREL. The fit statistics for the model indicated a good fit and only the hypothesized
relationships were significant. These results confirmed past findings on functional masscustomization and supported our hypotheses on the different processes that are involved with
aesthetic mass-customization.
In Study 2, we investigated the robustness and generalizability of our findings.
Specifically, we stepped outside the laboratory setting and tested our theory amongst a
heterogeneous group of consumers, using a home cordless telephone as a product category, and a
different manipulation of public/private consumption. Public/private consumption was
manipulated by varying the customized elements of the telephone. The configurator allowed the
consumers to customize an aspect of the telephone that would be more (shell) or less (display)
visible to others. By varying the number of aesthetic options, three conditions were generated to
manipulate the extent of aesthetic mass-customization. Members of a consumer panel (n = 218)
were asked to evaluate one of the six different configurators. After conducting several steps in
the data analysis, this model resulted in a good fit and replicated all effects regarding aesthetic
mass-customization as found in Study 1.
In conclusion, our research shows that aesthetic mass-customization is different from
functional mass-customization, because it provides symbolic value through the product’s ability
for self-expression. In contrast, functional mass-customization is valued because it provides a
better fit to individual technical requirements. Consequently, different antecedents may drive the
two types of mass-customization, which is supported by the effect of public/private consumption
on the evaluation of aesthetic mass-customization. Finally, our findings show that increasing the
extent of aesthetic mass-customization has a positive (through the self-expressive value) as well
as a negative (through perceived complexity) effect on the intention to purchase the masscustomized product. These opposing effects have to be carefully managed when offering masscustomization configurators.
REFERENCES
Bardakci, Ahmet and Jeryl Whitelock (2004), "How "Ready" Are Customers for Mass
Customisation? An Exploratory Study," European Journal of Marketing, 38 (11/12),
1396-1416.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Reference Group Influence on Product and
Brand Purchase Decision," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-194.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research,
15 (September), 139-168.
Bettman, James R., Eric J. Johnson, and John W. Payne (1990), "A Componential Analysis of
Cognitive Effort in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
45 (1), 111-139.
Blom, Jan O. and Andrew F. Monk (2003), "Theory of Personalization of Appearance: Why
Users Personalize Their PCs and Mobile Phones," Human-Computer Interaction, 18,
193-228.
Burroughs, W. Jeffrey (1991), "Predicting Personality from Personal Possessions: A SelfPresentational Analysis," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 147-163.
Dellaert, Benedict G. C. and Stefan Stremersch (2005), "Marketing Mass-Customized Products:
Striking Balance between Utility and Complexity," Journal of Marketing Research, 42
(May), 219-227.
Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991), "Effects of Price, Brand, and
Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations," Journal of Marketing Research, 28
(August), 307-319.
Fiore, Ann Marie, Seung-Eun Lee, and Grace Kunz (2004), "Individual Differences,
Motivations, and Willingness to Use a Mass-Customization Option for Fashion
Products," European Journal of Marketing, 38 (7), 835-849.
Franke, Nikolaus and Frank T. Piller (2003), "Key Research Issues in User Interaction with User
Toolkits in a Mass Customisation System," International Journal of Technology
Management, 26 (5/6), 578-599.
---- (2004), "Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The Case of the Watch
Market," Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (6), 401-415.
Gosling, Samuel D., Sei Jin Ko, Thomas Mannarelli, and Margaret E. Morris (2002), "A Room
with a Cue: Personality Judgments Based on Offices and Bedrooms," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 379-398.
Hauser, John, Gerard J. Tellis, and Abbie Griffin (2006), "Research on Innovation; a Review and
Agenda for Marketing Science," Marketing Science, 25 (6), 687-717.
Huffman, Cynthia and Barbara E. Kahn (1998), "Variety for Sale: Mass-customization or Mass
Confusion," Journal of Retailing, 74 (4), 491-513.
Kiesler, Tina and Sara Kiesler (2005), "My Pet Rock and Me: An Experimental Exploration of
the Self Extension Concept," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, Eds. Gita
Menon and Akshay Rao, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 365-370.
Kleine, Robert E., Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan (1993), "Mundane Consumption
and the Self: A Social-Identity Perspective," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3),
209-235.
Kleiser, Susan B. and Susan Powell Mantel (1994), "The Dimensions of Consumer Expertise: A
Scale Development," AMA Summer Educators' Proceedings, 5, 20-26.
Mugge, Ruth, Jan P. L. Schoormans, and Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein (2009), "Emotional
Bonding with Personalized Products," Journal of Engineering Design, forthcoming.
Piller, Frank and Melanie Müller (2004), "A New Marketing Approach to Mass Customisation,"
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17 (7), 583-593.
Piller, Frank, P. Schubert, Michael Koch, and Kathrin Möslein (2004), "From Masscustomization to Collaborative Customer Co-Design," in European Conference on
Information Systems.
Pine, Buddy J. (1993), Mass-customization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Randall, Taylor, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl Ulrich (2007), "User Design of Customized
Products," Marketing Science, 26 (2), 268-280.
Schreier, Martin (2006), "The Value Increment of Mass-Customized Products: An Empirical
Assessment and Conceptual Analysis of Its Explanation," Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 5 (July-August), 317-327.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), "The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic
Interactionism Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319-329.
Townsend, Claudia and Sanjay Sood (2009), "Self-Affirmation through the Choice of Good
Design," Working paper.
White, Katherine and Darren W. Dahl (2006), "To Be or Not Be? The Influence of Dissociative
Reference Groups on Consumer Preferences," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (4),
404-414.
Zipkin, Paul (2001), "The Limits of Mass-customization," Sloan Management Review, 42 (3),
81-87.