Tensions and risks

completely. We argue that they must loosen control to a certain degree to reap the benefits of their users to the full extent, without needing to let go completely. The case analysis examined two user generated video projects, where the companies behind allowed the participating users a certain degree of freedom. They ended up with great results after putting the contributions through a filtering process at the end. Companies must keep in mind that they can generally trust consumers to participate and if they have foreseen the filtering process they will still have the final say on the project’s outcome and still enjoy the contributions of dedicated lead users.

We are also aware of the risks and tensions involved in engaging in co-creation projects and will take a critical look at them and examine whether it is worth running the inherent risks to attain the benefits of co-creation.

Risks

There are, however, risks and tensions involved with doing co-creation. First, if an artist decides to do a co-creative project with his/her fans they have to be in it for the long run and dedicated.

Companies need to be aware of this possible tension between them and the users. The users we interviewed expressed concern that co-creation would only be a “cheap marketing ploy” dictated from record label bosses and not something that the band did because they were actually interested in what their fans had to say. A project will have to be communicated properly and be as independent as possible from the record label and be presented as the idea of the band/artist itself (which it hopefully will be). Furthermore the labels and artists must be willing to keep the co-creation process simple and easy to use or else they will not participate, as we saw in the case analysis on music blogs.

Second, a possible tension that could surface between the companies, artists and users is the balance act of artistic freedom and mass entertainment (Lampel et al. 2000:266). We did not experience much tension when we observed or interviewed informants about co-creation, but from the literature we are aware that companies, artists and users could all have different reasons for participating in co-creation and possess different success parameters. And this difference in perceptions of value could be a source of tension, which must be balanced in order to avoid tensions (ibid). We agree with Lampel et al. when they argue that business needs creativity and creativity needs financial means. Without either one there can be no creative product (ibid:265).

The third factor regards a concern the artists Johannes and Mirza expressed: That too many

“voices” in the creative process could slow it down or even hinder it. This is also something that artists and companies must be aware of, namely the mentioned filtering process when doing co-creation (Bilton 2007:155). Johannes from Sony made it explicit that he wanted to control users’

input and filter what made it though. As we saw in the YouTube and Michael Jackson music video cases, great results can be achieved if creative individuals act as filters and sort in the creative contributions supplied by consumers.

The companies or artists may not have the time and resources that such a process demands and needs to be aware of this task before they take on co-creation with consumers.

A fourth risk is the fact that such a project will add another dimension for the band/artist to be judged upon. Traditionally the band is judged almost exclusively on their artistic output and not their personalities. When engaging directly with their users however, artists will come in direct contact with them and any mishaps or misunderstandings can prove to be devastating with their fans. Some of the users we interviewed expressed concern that their opinion of an artist/band could deteriorate if they turned out to be nice people. Traditionally, only a few fans would ever get close enough to their favorite artists to experience whether or not they were. Johannes also expressed concerns about giving fans high expectations for influence, and then disappointing them if their ideas could not be used. Thus, a co-creation is a risk that an artist/band can decide to take.

Co-deconstruction of value

Foster argued that consumer agency could be “a source of disruption… and can even destroy value” (Foster 2007:726). Some users also expressed concern on the artistic value of a musical output that was partly created by a band’s fans. A band/artist entering into such a collaborative effort must be aware that some of their fans will prefer for the artist to create everything themselves to maintain the image of the artist as a secluded source of inspiration for himself..

This leads us to an important point in our thesis. Exactly that co-creation is a process that should be assessed in every context, because as Plé & Cáceres argue, co-deconstruction of value is also a possible outcome of co-creation (Plé & Cáceres 2010). We argue, and our findings show, that the existing narrow and very optimistic view on co-creation needs to entail the possible negative aspects of co-creation as well. There is no doubt about the fact that co-creation of social value is possible, but it might not always be the right tool to use. Therefore managers must assess every context on its own and be aware that co-deconstruction is a possible outcome.

In sum the biggest potential tension in our context was between companies and users, because of the difference in perception of value. Companies look at co-creation in financial terms and users look at music as a source of social value and enjoyment. The users we interviewed expressed concern that the co-creation projects could easily be seen as too much and tacky if not done in

the right way. This means that companies need a high degree of transparency in their projects, so users know who are behind the initiatives.

Furthermore, as we discussed earlier, the tensions between stakeholders in the Danish music industry needs to be balanced as there is no art without income and therefore artist may need to compromise their artistic values in order to survive in a troubled industry.