Abstract
As per the tenets of Service-Dominant Logic theory, consumers play an incessant role as proactive participants and collaborative stakeholders within commercial transactions. This orchestrated involvement of consumers in the process of service production enables service providers to discern and address consumer's needs, thus fortifying their competitiveness. As a result, consumers benefit from heightening service performances and competitiveness of the company. The principal aim of this study is to ascertain the foundational underpinnings of value co-creation behavior, particularly as exhibited within the context of utilizing gym services at the California Fitness Center located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. A comprehensive investigation encompassing a sample size of 315 respondents was conducted using SPSS and AMOS software. The findings of this investigation establish a robust linkage between customer participatory behavior, customer citizenship behavior, and the premise of customer co-creation conduct. However, it is noteworthy that the factor of information-seeking within customer participation did not garner empirical support. Notably, there is a relationship between active co-creator behavior and customer loyalty.
Keywords: Participation, Citizenship, Value co-creation, Customer loyalty, Gym services, Service-dominant logic theory
1. Introduction
The evolution of consumer behavior over the last decade has revealed a growing appreciation for the inherent value within products and services. This heightened awareness has spurred the widespread adoption of value co-creation, a collaborative process where consumers actively contribute to product development. Extensive research has consistently demonstrated the significant and positive influence of value co-creation on enhancing consumer experiences [1].
Concurrently, there has been a notable shift in consumer spending patterns, notably reflected in increased investments in healthcare services. Notably, a substantial portion of this allocation is directed towards fitness facility memberships, averaging an expenditure of $172.3 [2]. The Vietnamese market, highlighted in the Euromonitor Report on Weight Management and Wellbeing, showcases a distinct consumer concern for weight and physical appearance, propelling remarkable growth within the fitness industry. This surge is evident in the market's substantial expansion to 12 trillion VND in 2019, signifying a noteworthy 22 % increase from the preceding year. Given the distinct focus of gym services on optimizing customer benefits, consumers actively engage in co-creation behaviors [3].
Value co-creation encapsulates the collaborative generation of shared value between companies and their clientele [4,5]. This collaboration encompasses a spectrum of behaviors, including participatory actions like information-sharing and citizenship behaviors such as proactive responses and offering assistance [6]. Investigating whether these participatory and citizenship behaviors directly impact customer loyalty is of utmost importance.
However, despite the acknowledgment of the impact of value co-creation on consumer experiences, particularly within the fitness industry, the existing academic discourse offers limited insights [7]. This research endeavors to leverage value co-creation as a robust strategy for consumer engagement, specifically examining its influence on refining fitness experiences at the California Fitness Center in Ho Chi Minh City. The primary aim is to scrutinize the correlation between co-creation behaviors and customer loyalty within this context. The anticipated findings aim to provide invaluable managerial insights, refining strategies to bolster customer loyalty and foster increased consumer engagement in value co-creation initiatives.
Within this changing landscape of consumer empowerment, characterized by heightened access to information, value creation processes extend beyond company confines. The perception customers hold about a brand significantly influences its success. Evolving marketing perspectives, transitioning from a production-centric model to a service-dominant logic, emphasize the pivotal role of customers as co-producers, striving to maximize engagement for tailored customization aligned with their needs. This study seeks to assist businesses in comprehending the role and impact of co-creation behaviors on customer loyalty. This understanding will aid business managers and communication professionals in devising strategic development plans and marketing communications aimed at improving brand image, reputation, and, most importantly, fostering enduring customer loyalty.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Value Co-Creation
Value co-creation, introduced by Vargo and Lusch [5], refers to a collaborative process wherein value is jointly and equitably generated by both consumers and companies through their interactions. Value cannot be unilaterally produced for one party by the other; instead, it emerges as a shared outcome. Extensive research conducted [5,8] emphasized the salience of value co-creation within the framework of Service-Dominant Logic, which focuses on the role of value co-creation and the active involvement of consumers therein. The Service-Dominant Logic is based on the premise that companies do not provide value but rather become facilitators of value propositions. It is consumers who contribute to value generation by using products and services. Besides, consumer participation is integral to creating more value, so both consumers and company employees need to be actively involved in value co-creation.
Subsequently, numerous scholars have focused on value co-creation and the role of consumers in varied theoretical frameworks [[9], [10], [11],[7], [12], [13]]. Nonetheless, most of the studies delved into (i) theoretical differences between value co-creation definitions, and (ii) buzzworthy issues of value co-creation such as the interaction between consumers and the service provider [9,14]. Consumer value co-creation refers to the practical engagement of consumers within the value co-creation procedure [6]. Consumer participation refers to the active practices of consumers in value co-creation [15,16]. For instance, a consumer interacts with the service provider so that they can get precise information on the location, and food choices of consumers, which is referred to as one type of value co-creation. It is consumers who are of paramount importance in co-creating value [6,17]. In the context of fitness services, the authors aim to what are the essential constructs that accelerate the development of customer behavior toward value co-creation. Therefore, this research has adopted the two concepts named citizenship behaviors and participatory behaviors raised by Yi and Gong [6,7].
2.2. Customer loyalty
Loyalty can be delineated as "the extent of a customer's discretionary affinity toward a brand (or service) and the intention to make subsequent purchases of the brand (or revisit the service) in the future" [18]. Loyalty behavior is a prevalent way consumers manifest contentment with a company's endeavors, and it bears a direct correlation with a company's profitability [19]. This allegiance can be expressed by the consumer's preference for the company, which thereafter makes consumers willing to engage in word-of-mouth practices [20,21].
Past research focused on the way to examine the level of customer loyalty, encompassing both behavioral and attitudinal aspects [22,23], and even a fusion of both behavior and attitude [24,25]. Within the behavioral approach, numerous scholars posit that frequent acquisitions of products or services effectively capture and signify customer loyalty toward a given brand [26,27]. Key metrics employed in the behavioral approach include objective measures such as purchase frequency, re-purchase decision, purchase sequence, and purchasing power [28].
In consumer behavior science, service quality and satisfaction emerge as distinct yet intricately interlinked concepts [[7], [12], [13]]. Prior research demonstrated that service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction [29,30,31]. This causal relationship stems from the fact that service quality is dependent on the way how service is delivered to consumers, whilst satisfaction can only be assessed after using the service.
Service quality is a multifaceted concept, with various definitions proposed by different scholars. Lehtinen and Lehtinen [32] propose a two-fold assessment of service quality, entailing an evaluation of both the service delivery process and the service outcome. Gronroos [33], on the other hand, defined service quality by encompassing two essential components, namely technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality pertains to what is provided, while functional quality pertains to how the service is delivered. It is widely acknowledged that service quality significantly impacts consumer loyalty [[29], [34], [35],31]. When a service provider furnishes customers with superior offerings that cater to their needs, the foundation for customer satisfaction is laid.
2.3. Service-dominant logic theory
In marketing, service-dominant logic is relatively a new academic term, which has gained attention from both scholars and stakeholders [36]. Research by Vargo and Lusch [5,8] emphasized value co-creation in the Service-Dominant Logic framework, which mainly focused on value co-creation and the role of consumers in co-creating value [5,37]. Value emerges as a joint effort between consumers and companies within the process of interaction, which means neither entity can independently create value for the other; rather, value is only created by the joint effort of both parties. Besides, service-dominant logic suggests that the consumer is always the co-creator of value [8]. Furthermore, the role of companies is not to deliver value but to implement value propositions. Consumers themselves create value by using or consuming products and services. This new approach also emphasizes that customer involvement in product and service experiences is integral to creating more value, so both consumers and company employees are actively involved in the value co-creation process. These benefits are oriented toward the consumer rather than the manufacturer or the service provider, which leads to the idea that anything a company is offering should not be seen as output, but rather as input to the value-creation process [38]. The service-centric approach of marketing is based on a deeply process-focused philosophy, that consumers are part of value co-creation.
2.4. Research model
As posited by Kellogg, Youngdahl, and Bowen [39], consumers seek information as a means to clarify service requirements and fulfill other perceived needs. Consumers have a desire to access information on service status and service parameters. Consumers want to know their role in co-creating service value regarding the tasks they need to complete, the procedure they need to follow, and the time they start doing. Information is hypothesized to be proven to co-creating value for two main reasons. Firstly, information reduces uncertainty and thus enables consumers to understand and control their value co-creation environment. Second, information search allows consumers to take full control of their role as value co-creators and be integrated into the value co-creation process.
To achieve successful value co-creation, consumers should provide information to facilitate the value co-creation procedure [40,[7], [12], [13]]. If consumers do not provide essential information, gym employees will not take part in their role in the value co-creation process. Through sharing information with employees, customers can ensure that employees provide services that meet their specific needs [6,41].
Responsible behavior occurs when consumers realize their duties and responsibilities are partly similar to those of service providers [6,41]. To successfully co-create value between consumers and employees, customers are supposed to cooperate, follow rules and policies, and accept direction from employees [42,[7], [12], [13]].
Personal interaction refers to the relationship between the consumer and the service provider in terms of personal information, which is necessary for value co-creation [6,41]. Kelley et al. [43] used the term customer function to refer to interactions between customers and service providers, including aspects of interaction such as polite, friendly, and respectful personal behavior in the context of the service taking place in a social environment. The more pleasant, sociable, and positive the social environment is, the more likely consumers are to engage in value co-creation [44,[7], [12], [13]].
H1
Information seeking (a), information share (b), responsible behavior (c), personal interaction (d) positively impacts the value co-creation behavior of consumers for gym services.
Feedback that customers are willing to provide to service providers could service providers and companies improve the service creation process at a prolonged interval [45]. It is only consumers who can provide useful suggestions to service providers since they have considerable experience with the service [42]. Companies can gain benefits from consumer feedback so that they can improve their service. While customer feedback can be valuable, it merely constitutes an additional behavior and is not a prerequisite for successful service delivery.
Within the context of value co-creation, the notion of advocacy illustrates the level of consumer loyalty towards the company, leading to a corporate interest beyond the interests of consumers themselves [42]. The channeling of advocacy through positive word-of-mouth communication is often regarded as an antecedent of consumer loyalty and exerts a profound impact on the company's reputation [[7], [12], [13]]. Advocacy also does wonders for promoting a company's products and services, valuing higher service quality, and increasing the number of customers [42,45].
In the process of value co-creation, it is consumers who directly guide other consumers, not service providers now that they can understand other problems as they share similarities (they are after all consumers) [45]. Rosenbaum and Massiah [46] also suggested that consumers can express empathy to other customers through voluntary behaviors in that customers will recall their own difficult experiences and can demonstrate a sense of social responsibility to help other consumers experiencing similar difficulties.
Tolerance refers to the polite behavior or willingness to grant permission by a group or individual consumers to accept delay due to any shortfall or risk of the company in any circumstances in which the company does not provide full service at any time to its customers [44]. This state is called tolerance which means the willingness to be patient [6,[7], [12], [13]] providing the elasticity needed to deal with unexpected problems that may arise.
H2
Feedback (a), advocacy (b), help (c), tolerance (d) positively impacts the value co-creation behavior of consumers for gym services.
Brand awareness derives from the relationship between consumers and the brand, and this will be performed equally between individuals [47], hence a justifiable value co-creation will create a perception of authenticity and sincerity of the brand. Several studies have confirmed a positive relationship between value co-creation and the consumer's loyalty to companies working in the personal care domain [48,[7], [12], [13]]. Khan and Hussainy [49] found that customer value co-creation has an impact on new product development and consumer loyalty; Encinas and Arroyo [50] show that graduate students' loyalty to the university is explained by both emotional commitment and service value co-creation; Shrivastava [51] has demonstrated that there is a strong impact of value co-creation on trust and a positive relationship between trust and brand loyalty in the context of Indian banks. Based on the results of experimental studies [[7], [12], [13],52], the author hypothesizes that.
H3
Value co-creation behavior positively impacts consumer loyalty toward gym services.
The research model is developed as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Research model.
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Methods
The research employed a mixed-method approach encompassing both qualitative and quantitative phases to comprehensively investigate factors influencing consumer loyalty in the context of the Vietnamese fitness market.
The qualitative phase aimed to identify antecedents impacting consumer loyalty, tailoring the research scale to align with the Vietnamese market's unique characteristics. This phase involved conducting one-on-one interviews with a select group of participants. Ten VIP customers from California Fitness centers, each with a minimum one-year tenure, were interviewed. Additionally, insights were gathered from two experts functioning as gym managers within the selected center located in Ho Chi Minh City. The qualitative research phase focused on ensuring the reliability and validity of the research questionnaire, thereby refining the scale to better suit the official study.The quantitative phase involved the distribution of research surveys directly to participants who had engaged in workouts for a minimum of three months. The research questionnaire was adapted to utilize a 5-point Likert scale, facilitating a nuanced understanding of participants' perspectives. A total of 350 research questionnaires were conveniently distributed among participants across various California gym centers. Subsequently, completed surveys were collected and reviewed, with invalid responses filtered out, resulting in 315 valid responses available for further analysis.
3.2. Sampling
In terms of the sample characteristics analysis (Table 1), there is no significant difference between male and female participants. Females comprised 164 individuals, constituting nearly 52 %, while males accounted for just under 48 %. The majority of them are housewives and office employees who are concerned with health and fitness, which are under 40 % and 34 %, respectively. About 22 % of total participants are students while a minor figure at 5.4 % was recorded in the groups of other occupations. Regarding age, the first position belonged to the age group from 21 to 30 at 38.09 %. This might be explained by the motive that after work, they often spend time exercising to improve their health. In terms of income, the figures ranged between 17.77 % in the lowest income and 41.58 % in the medium income.
Table 1.
Sample characteristics.
| Demographics | Frequency | Percent | Demographics | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Age (in years) | ||||
| Female | 164 | 52.06 | 16–20 | 51 | 16.2 |
| Male | 151 | 47.94 | 21–30 | 120 | 38.09 |
| Occupation | 31–35 | 97 | 30.79 | ||
| Student | 67 | 21.26 | Over 35 | 47 | 14.91 |
| Office staff | 125 | 39.68 | Income (million VND) | ||
| Housewife | 106 | 33.65 | Under 5 | 56 | 17.77 |
| Other | 17 | 5.4 | 5–10 | 131 | 41.58 |
| N | 315 | 100 | Over 10 | 128 | 40.64 |
4. Results
4.1. Measurement reliability
Descriptive statistics for variables show that the medium value of observations ranged between 3.349 and 3.794, which means the scale is rated evenly by most of the participants, showing the respondents' agreement with the statements in the scale. The medium values of the variable Loyalty are significantly high from 3.657 to 3.743, which also proves that if the California Fitness center co-creates value with customers, consumer loyalty is more likely to be achieved. The analysis results show that all scales have Cronbach's alpha coefficient greater than 0.7, so they are not excluded, confirming that the scales ensure the necessary reliability to make a further exploratory factor analysis (Table 2).
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics.
| Items |
Mean |
Standard deviation |
Corrected Item-Total Correlation |
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information search (IN-SE) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.855 | |||
| IN_SE1 | 3.743 | 1.126 | 0.700 | 0.815 |
| IN_SE2 | 3.641 | 1.203 | 0.691 | 0.819 |
| IN_SE3 | 3.651 | 1.167 | 0.709 | 0.811 |
| IN_SE4 | 3.705 | 1.134 | 0.692 | 0.818 |
| Information sharing (IN_SH) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.838 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN_SH1 | 3.629 | 1.148 | 0.703 | 0.781 |
| IN_SH2 | 3.575 | 1.130 | 0.654 | 0.802 |
| IN_SH3 | 3.590 | 1.195 | 0.693 | 0.785 |
| IN_SH4 | 3.632 | 1.136 | 0.631 | 0.812 |
| Responsible behavior (RES) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.851 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RES1 | 3.565 | 1.167 | 0.702 | 0.805 |
| RES2 | 3.527 | 1.216 | 0.694 | 0.809 |
| RES3 | 3.556 | 1.205 | 0.685 | 0.813 |
| RES4 | 3.568 | 1.167 | 0.68 | 0.815 |
| Personal interaction (INT) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.864 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INT1 | 3.543 | 1.181 | 0.685 | 0.835 |
| INT2 | 3.533 | 1.152 | 0.685 | 0.835 |
| INT3 | 3.521 | 1.163 | 0.684 | 0.836 |
| INT4 | 3.498 | 1.158 | 0.69 | 0.834 |
| INT5 | 3.552 | 1.173 | 0.676 | 0.838 |
| Response (FEE) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.824 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEE1 | 3.425 | 1.172 | 0.649 | 0.779 |
| FEE2 | 3.454 | 1.178 | 0.642 | 0.782 |
| FEE3 | 3.460 | 1.165 | 0.645 | 0.781 |
| FEE4 | 3.492 | 1.087 | 0.661 | 0.774 |
| Advocacy (ADV) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.798 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADV1 | 3.438 | 1.202 | 0.666 | 0.7 |
| ADV2 | 3.489 | 1.101 | 0.637 | 0.732 |
| ADV3 | 3.349 | 1.159 | 0.627 | 0.741 |
| Help (HEL) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.844 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEL1 | 3.498 | 1.169 | 0.694 | 0.796 |
| HEL2 | 3.394 | 1.169 | 0.653 | 0.813 |
| HEL3 | 3.444 | 1.148 | 0.688 | 0.798 |
| HEL4 | 3.454 | 1.148 | 0.682 | 0.801 |
| Tolerance (TOL) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.805 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOL1 | 3.695 | 1.116 | 0.665 | 0.721 |
| TOL2 | 3.683 | 1.168 | 0.666 | 0.72 |
| TOL3 | 3.708 | 1.110 | 0.628 | 0.759 |
| Value co-creation (COCR) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.897 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COCR1 | 3.733 | 1.205 | 0.732 | 0.877 |
| COCR2 | 3.737 | 1.139 | 0.735 | 0.876 |
| COCR3 | 3.794 | 1150 | 0.724 | 0.878 |
| COCR4 | 3.740 | 1.113 | 0.675 | 0.886 |
| COCR5 | 3.667 | 1.112 | 0.71 | 0.88 |
| COCR6 | 3.705 | 1.148 | 0.752 | 0.874 |
| Loyalty (LOY) | Cronbach's alpha = 0.879 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOY1 | 3.733 | 1.145 | 0.686 | 0.858 |
| LOY2 | 3.657 | 1.182 | 0.711 | 0.853 |
| LOY3 | 3.743 | 1.168 | 0.726 | 0.849 |
| LOY4 | 3.711 | 1.211 | 0.707 | 0.854 |
| LOY5 | 3.679 | 1.166 | 0.723 | 0.85 |
In the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the scale exhibited high coefficients for both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett's Test, with values of 0.901 and a significant significance level of p = 0.00. These results affirm the suitability of the EFA analysis. Extracting 10 factors from 43 observed variables using an Eigenvalue threshold of 1.281 (>1) revealed that these factors collectively explain 59.43 % of the data variance, surpassing the crucial 50 % mark. This outcome indicates a robust fit between the research data and the proposed model, providing a sound basis for the continuation of the analysis through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
The CFA was conducted to assess the reliability of the research model before proceeding with the structural equation modeling (SEM). The detailed results, outlined in Table 3 below, demonstrate promising indices. The Chi-square/df = 1.095 < 5, p = 0.033 (<0.05), indicating a good fit. Additionally, RMSEA = 0.017 (<0.08) and other fit indices—GFI = 0.888 > 0.8, CFI = 0.988, TLI = 0.987 > 0.9, all exceeding the recommended threshold—confirm the adequacy of the CFA.
Table 3.
Convergent validity.
| Correlation | Estimate | Composite Reliability | Variance Extracted | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COCR2 | <--- | COCR | 0.786 | 0.897 | 0.593 |
| COCR3 | <--- | COCR | 0.766 | ||
| COCR6 | <--- | COCR | 0.804 | ||
| COCR5 | <--- | COCR | 0.753 | ||
| COCR1 | <--- | COCR | 0.784 | ||
| COCR4 | <--- | COCR | 0.724 | ||
| LOY1 | <--- | LOY | 0.733 | 0.879 | 0.592 |
| LOY5 | <--- | LOY | 0.782 | ||
| LOY3 | <--- | LOY | 0.787 | ||
| LOY2 | <--- | LOY | 0.770 | ||
| LOY4 | <--- | LOY | 0.774 | ||
| INT5 | <--- | INT | 0.728 | 0.864 | 0.560 |
| INT4 | <--- | INT | 0.762 | ||
| INT3 | <--- | INT | 0.752 | ||
| INT1 | <--- | INT | 0.750 | ||
| INT2 | <--- | INT | 0.748 | ||
| IN_SE4 | <--- | IN_SE | 0.761 | 0.856 | 0.597 |
| IN_SE3 | <--- | IN_SE | 0.783 | ||
| IN_SE2 | <--- | IN_SE | 0.767 | ||
| IN_SE1 | <--- | IN_SE | 0.779 | ||
| IN_SH1 | <--- | IN_SH | 0.784 | 0.839 | 0.567 |
| IN_SH4 | <--- | IN_SH | 0.704 | ||
| IN_SH3 | <--- | IN_SH | 0.786 | ||
| IN_SH2 | <--- | IN_SH | 0.734 | ||
| RES1 | <--- | RES | 0.786 | 0.851 | 0.588 |
| RES3 | <--- | RES | 0.763 | ||
| RES2 | <--- | RES | 0.758 | ||
| RES4 | <--- | RES | 0.759 | ||
| HEL3 | <--- | HEL | 0.774 | 0.844 | 0.575 |
| HEL2 | <--- | HEL | 0.724 | ||
| HEL4 | <--- | HEL | 0.762 | ||
| HEL1 | <--- | HEL | 0.772 | ||
| TOL2 | <--- | TOL | 0.783 | 0.806 | 0.582 |
| TOL3 | <--- | TOL | 0.733 | ||
| TOL1 | <--- | TOL | 0.771 | ||
| FEE3 | <--- | FEE | 0.713 | 0.825 | 0.540 |
| FEE2 | <--- | FEE | 0.747 | ||
| FEE4 | <--- | FEE | 0.750 | ||
| FEE1 | <--- | FEE | 0.730 | ||
| ADV1 | <--- | ADV | 0.801 | 0.799 | 0.571 |
| ADV2 | <--- | ADV | 0.735 | ||
| ADV3 | <--- | ADV | 0.728 | ||
The assessment of convergence in this study followed Hair et al.'s recommendation [53] by utilizing Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The obtained results from standardized regression weights and correlation data (see Table 3) facilitated the computation of Composite Reliability (CR) and AVE. The CR values, surpassing 0.7, solidify the measurement scales' reliability, while all AVE values exceeding 0.5 ensure their convergent validity. Notably, the SqrtAVE values, surpassing inter-construct correlations, affirm discriminant validity (Table 4).
Table 4.
Discriminant Validity
SqrAVEs in the diagonal; Implied correlations for each construct in the model in the lower half of the table.
| IN_SE | IN_SH | RES | INT | FEE | ADV | HEL | TOL | COCR | LOY | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN_SE | 0.77 | |||||||||
| IN_SH | 0.39 | 0.75 | ||||||||
| RES | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.77 | |||||||
| INT | 0.45 | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.75 | ||||||
| FEE | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.39 | 0.74 | |||||
| ADV | 0.43 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.76 | ||||
| HEL | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.76 | |||
| TOL | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.35 | 0.23 | 0.44 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.76 | ||
| COCR | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.10 | 0.48 | 0.09 | 0.33 | 0.77 | |
| LOY | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.29 | 0.56 | 0.77 |
These comprehensive findings validate both convergent and discriminant validity within the measurement scales, affirming their suitability for inclusion in the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis. All CR values surpass 0.7, confirming the reliability of the measurement scales. Furthermore, AVE values exceeding 0.5 affirm convergent validity, while higher SqrtAVE values compared to inter-construct correlations ensure discriminant validity. These robust results collectively confirm the measurement scales' suitability for inclusion in the SEM analysis, signifying their validity in this study's context.
4.2. Model and Hypothesis Testing
The results of the SEM analysis are as follows: The research model has df = 810, Chi-square/df = 1.656 < 3, p-value = 0.000 < 0.05, RMSEA = 0.046 < 0.08, GFI = 0.816 > 0.8, CFI = 0.914 > 0.9, TLI = 0.908 > 0.9. Therefore, the model fits well with research data.
Utilizing p-values to assess the statistical significance of correlations within the research model, and employing a significance level p = 0.05, the SEM analysis findings indicate that all correlations within the model achieve statistical significance. Consequently, the study concludes that nearly all hypotheses within the model are supported, except for H1a (Table 5).
Table 5.
Model Testing.
| Correlation | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | Hypothesis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COCR | <--- | IN_SE | 0.100 | 0.049 | 1.759 | 0.079 | H1a: rejected |
| COCR | <--- | IN_SH | 0.179 | 0.05 | 3.078 | 0.002 | H1b: accepted |
| COCR | <--- | RES | 0.275 | 0.049 | 4.556 | a | H1c: accepted |
| COCR | <--- | INT | 0.135 | 0.047 | 2.344 | 0.019 | H1d: accepted |
| COCR | <--- | FEE | 0.329 | 0.052 | 5.304 | a | H2a: accepted |
| COCR | <--- | ADV | 0.161 | 0.048 | 2.703 | 0.007 | H2b: accepted |
| COCR | <--- | HEL | 0.226 | 0.053 | 3.749 | a | H2c: accepted |
| COCR | <--- | TOL | 0.191 | 0.047 | 3.17 | 0.002 | H2d: accepted |
| LOY | <--- | COCR | 0.413 | 0.075 | 6.021 | a | H1b: accepted |
p < 0.001.
Furthermore, the findings also reveal that the direct effects of participatory behaviors (IN_SE, IN_SH, RES, INT) and citizenship behaviors (FEE, ADV, HEL, TOL) on customer loyalty (LOY) are not statistically significant (all ps > 0.05). As a result, value co-creation behavior (COCR) serves as a full mediator, indicating that the impact of participatory behaviors and citizenship behaviors on customer loyalty is fully mediated by value co-creation. The indirect effects of the full mediator COCR are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6.
Indirect effects of value Co-creation.
| Indirect | Effects | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | IN_SE | IN_SE-- > COCR: no significance |
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | IN_SH | 0.179 * 0.413 = 0.074 |
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | RES | 0.275 * 0.413 = 0.114 |
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | INT | 0.135 * 0.413 = 0.056 |
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | FEE | 0.329 * 0.413 = 0.136 |
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | ADV | 0.161 * 0.413 = 0.066 |
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | HEL | 0.226 * 0.413 = 0.093 |
| LOY | <-- COCR < -- | TOL | 0.191 * 0.413 = 0.079 |
5. Discussion
There are three antecedents of consumer participation in value co-creation: responsible behavior, information share, and personal interaction. Firstly, responsible behavior has the most positive and strongest impact on achieving consumer satisfaction with β = 0.275 (H1c). This explains that the majority of participants agreed that their responsibility is the most important for successful value co-creation. If the consumer is neither cooperative nor responsible for their behavior, the center cannot create value for the customer as well as modify their exercise program. In fact, at the California Fitness center, the coach requires clients to work out at the center five times a week, following the home diet which abstains from sweets and starches. Nevertheless, some clients are snowed under their work so it is not possible to prepare meals with appropriate calorie intake every day. If they do not follow instructions and do not perform all the tasks that the coach requires, they will not achieve the original target, missing the performance of both stakeholders. Secondly, information share whose β = 0.179 (H1b), and personal interaction β = 0.135 (H1d) exert positive influences on the behavior of value co-creation. Customers perceive that to achieve high efficiency, it is necessary to provide information to the coach about their requirements and desires so that they can understand and design suitable exercises to satisfy consumer needs. One of the two gym experts revealed that there have been a few cases of female customers after their cesarean section, they did not provide enough information on this issue, so the coach let them get involved in some exercises that were too intense, leading to unnecessary incidents. As a result, the interaction between the client and the coach is not as polite as it used to be. Although this situation does not leave any permanent injury, this is a factor that makes customers unhappy. This also proves that without the cooperation of customers, value co-creation is far from achievable.
According to the results of quantitative analysis, the factor information search is not supported with β = 0.100, p = 0.079 > 0.05 (H1a). This study is a direct study of gym services in California center, so most customers believe that the popularity of California has made them somewhat confident, so when they decide to come to California, they do not need to find a lot of information. Experts also said that most of the customers they say were introduced by acquaintances first, and some customers said that this center was famous on social media, so it did not take long for them to make their final decision. Thus the results of this study show that Information Search is not an important factor in motivating them to participate in value co-creation.
There are four key predictors of citizenship behaviors including response, help, advocacy, and tolerance. The response β = 0.329, which has the most positive and significant relationship with value co-creation behavior (H2a). The majority of customers surveyed agreed that to create value, clients should actively respond to what they have experienced. They understood that they needed to send feedback to the gym center on whether they were satisfied with the gym service so that gym providers could improve their services and care for clients better than they could. The second most powerful antecedent in value co-creation is help whose β = 0.226 (H2c). Zwass [54] stated that companies with a dominant service strategy, however, need a team to grow, not just adapt to individual needs. Therefore, customers will feel active, and cooperation and learning from other customers will enable them to grow together [9,12]. Knowledge sharing is a form of customers helping each other, which to some extent affects their co-creation behavior. Furthermore, knowledge sharing is influenced by other factors, such as level of understanding, motivation to share, and personality. This proves that the mutual help of customers can also help them have more motivation to practice, learn from the experiences of successful customers, and thereby create the value of co-creation among customers in the gym center.
Services depend on a high level of interaction between providers and their clients. Service failure is sometimes an inevitable circumstance that the provider cannot avoid. If service providers handle failures in the wrong way, they can suffer some harmful consequences as it can make customers create negative WOM production, leading to a reduction in profits [55,56]. For that reason, the support and sympathy of clients play pivotal roles in the value co-creation procedure. The remaining two factors in citizenship behavior are advocacy whose β = 0.161 (H2b); and tolerance whose β = 0.191 (H2d), which implies that to make value co-creation successful, there is a need for support and sympathy of consumers.
Finally, based on the results of data analysis, only if consumers show proactive behaviors in co-creating value, they will gain benefits, and feel a sense of satisfaction. As a result, it leads to a high level of consumer loyalty (H3): Value co-creation behavior has a positive relationship with customer loyalty whose β = 0.413. Customers who find the service provided enjoyable, fun, productive, and highly economical are more likely to engage in value co-creation with California centers, share useful information with other customers, and respond positively to the training activities at the center with the coach. Value co-creation requires customers to contribute their resources such as ideas and time in co-producing services, and that affects loyalty. Loyalty is more towards the company than to any product or service because of the co-creation of value in a service environment where the company is often the focus of customer evaluation. Stokburger-Sauer et al. [57] stated that value co-creation plays an important role in customer evaluation of the company and thus it helps to strengthen the company-customer relationship. goods in the form of loyalty.
The research's result is consistent with previous studies by Cossío-Silva et al. [48] and Khan [49] that there is a positive and significant effect between value co-creation behavior and loyalty of consumers. However, in contrast to the study of Encinas and Arroyo [50], which showed that graduate students' loyalty to the university is explained by both emotional commitment and service value co-creation, the direct effect of value co-creation participation on loyalty had no effect.
6. Conclusion and implications
6.1. Conclusion
The research findings underscore the critical significance of customer engagement behavior and citizenship behavior in successful value co-creation. That is, responsibility behavior exposes a significant discrepancy: nearly half of the surveyed customers acknowledge the importance of committed training but struggle to fully engage, often due to a narrow focus on weight and health, lacking motivation for comprehensive training.
Similarly, moderate ratings in personal interaction imply a cooperation gap between trainers and customers, leading to dissatisfaction and unresolved issues. Moreover, delayed feedback rates hinder successful value co-creation, despite its perceived impact. Low advocacy ratings indicate customers' inability to endorse services without perceived benefits, while support ratings suggest opportunities for improvement in assistance.
Conversely, higher tolerance ratings indicate consumers' willingness to overlook minor service errors. These insights necessitate thorough analysis to draw conclusive implications. Recommendations should address gaps in customer engagement, coach-client interaction, feedback processes, advocacy, support, and tolerance. Tailoring these suggestions for California Fitness centers or similar businesses can promote effective value co-creation.
The study's emphasis on the pivotal roles of customer engagement and citizenship behaviors in successful value co-creation offers valuable insights into the intricacies of these behaviors. Evaluating responsibility, information-sharing, personal interaction, feedback, support, help, and empathy behaviors provides a comprehensive view of the dynamics influencing customer participation and service quality. Addressing the gaps identified through these evaluations can substantially enhance the value co-creation process, especially in service-oriented settings.
6.2. Implications
These findings significantly impact management strategies, emphasizing leveraging customer co-creation behaviors for competitive advantage and cultivating customer loyalty in the service industry like California Fitness centers. Recommendations from the study are as follows: (i) creating an online community categorizing gym members by membership duration to facilitate collaboration and joint goal-setting for value co-creation; (ii) encouraging customer involvement through incentives and an engaging training environment to enhance experiences; and (iii) recognizing the pivotal role of engaged customers in shaping success and incentivizing their active participation.
There are several limitations of this study, which suggest areas for further research. Firstly, the research mainly focused on the value co-creation behavior from the consumer's perspective. Nevertheless, value co-creation is a practice that needs coordination between the provider and the user, hence further research should concentrate on value co-creation from the provider's perception. Secondly, the research has adopted the concept and research scale proposed by Yi and Gong [6]. Value co-creation has remained new in this modern era in which service is now regarded as an inevitable part of any product, hence further studies could use other definitions and research scales of value co-creation to retest the relationship between value co-creation and customer loyalty such as those proposed by Mathwick et al. [58], Encinas and Arroyo [50]. Thirdly, the sample size is relatively small and the research was a cross-sectional study, hence further research should consider these two limitations. Finally, the reliability and validity of the research might be affected by non-probability sampling, which further research should consider using other methods to collect data.
Ethics approval
In accordance with ethical guidelines, this study obtained approval from the Ethics Committee at Ho Chi Minh City Open University. The study was conducted in compliance with their ethical standards, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. The approval reference number for this study is 2144.
Funding
No support was received or sought from any funding organization for the preparation of this work.
Data Availability statement
Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hoang Sinh Nguyen: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:Nguyen Hoang Sinh reports administrative support was provided by Ho Chi Minh City Open University. Nguyen Hoang Sinh reports a relationship with Ho Chi Minh City Open University that includes: employment. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Footnotes
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30278.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is/are the supplementary data to this article.
References
- 1.Prahalad C.K., Ramaswamy V. Co-Creation experiences: the Next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Market. 2004;18(3):5–14. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Euromonitor International . Euromonitor International; London: 2019. Herbal/Traditional Products in Consumer Health. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Aggarwal P., Basu A.K. Value Co-creation: factors affecting discretionary effort exertion. Serv. Market. Q. 2014;35(4):321–336. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gronroos C. Creating a relationship Dialogue: communication, interaction and value. Market. Rev. 2000;1(1):5–14. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Vargo S.L., Lusch R.F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Market. 2004;68(1):1–17. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Yi Y., Gong T. Customer value Co-creation Behaviour: scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2013;66(9):1279–1284. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lee Y.L., Pan L.Y., Hsu C.H., Lee D.C. Exploring the sustainability correlation of value co-creation and customer loyalty: a case study of fitness clubs. Sustainability. 2018;11(1):97. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Vargo S.L., Lusch R.F. Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2008;36(1):1–10. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Payne A.F., Storbacka K., Frow P. Managing the Co-creation of value. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2008;36:83–96. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zhang X., Chen R. Examining the Mechanism of the value Co-creation with customers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008;116(2):242–250. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Nambisan S., Baron R.A. Virtual customer environments: Testing a model of voluntary participation in value Co-creation activities. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 2009;26(4):388–406. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pervez T., Khawaja K.F., Sarfraz M. An empirical investigation of value co-creation on customer loyalty: Mediating role of customer trust. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Res. 2022;23(1):56–67. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sohaib M., Han H. Building value co-creation with social media marketing, brand trust, and brand loyalty. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 2023;74 [Google Scholar]
- 14.Leong A.M.W., Yeh S.S., Zhou Y., Hung C.W., Huan T.C. Exploring the influence of historical storytelling on cultural heritage tourists' value co-creation using tour guide interaction and authentic place as mediators. Tourism Manag. Perspect. 2024;50 [Google Scholar]
- 15.Dabholkar P.A. Proceedings of the 1990 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Springer; Cham: 2014. How to improve perceived service quality by increasing customer participation; pp. 483–487. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Revilla-Camacho M.Á., Vega-Vázquez M., Cossío-Silva F.J. Customer participation and citizenship behavior effects on Turnover intention. J. Bus. Res. 2015;68(7):1607–1611. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Shamim A., Ghazali Z. A conceptual model for developing customer value Co-creation behavior in Retailing. Global Business and Management Research: Int. J. 2014;6:185–196. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pan Y., Sheng S., Xie F. Antecedents of customer loyalty: an empirical Synthesis and Reexamination. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 2012;19(1):150–158. [Google Scholar]
- 19.García de los Salmones M.M., Herrero A., Rodríguez del Bosque I. Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and Valuation of services. J. Bus. Ethics. 2005;61(4):369–385. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kwon W.S., Englis B., Mann M. Are Third-party green-Brown ratings believed? The role of prior brand loyalty and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 2016;69(2):815–822. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Donthu N., Kumar S., Pandey N., Pandey N., Mishra A. Mapping the electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) research: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2021;135:758–773. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Buttle F., Maklan S. Routledge; 2019. Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Technologies. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Yi Y., La S. What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and Repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of Adjusted Expectations and customer loyalty. Psychol. Market. 2004;21(5):351–373. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bowen J.T., Chen S.L. The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2001;13(5):213–217. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rai A.K. PHI Learning; New Delhi: 2013. Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Cases. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ehrenberg A.S. Repeat Buying: Facts, theory and Applications. Journal of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing Science. 2000;5(2):392–770. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ehrenberg A.S., Goodhardt G.J., Barwise P.B. Double Jeopardy revisited. J. Market. 1990;54(3):82–91. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Dick A., Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 1994;22(2):99–113. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cronin J.J., Taylor S. Measuring service quality: a Reexamination and Extension. J. Market. 1992;56:55–68. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Spreng R.A., Mackoy R.D. An empirical Examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction. J. Retailing. 1996;72(2):201–214. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sinh N.H., Hien L.D. After-sales service quality affects loyalty through customer satisfaction: the case of Head Honda in Dong Nai province. Tạp Chí Khoa Học Đại Học Mở Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh-Kinh Tế Và Quản Trị Kinh Doanh. 2024;19(2) [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lehtinen U., Lehtinen J.R. A study of quality Dimensions. Service Management Institute. 1982;5:25–32. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Gronroos C. A service quality model and its marketing Implications. Eur. J. Market. 1984;18(4):36–44. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Jamal A., Naser K. Customer satisfaction and Retail Banking: an assessment of some of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in Retail Banking. Int. J. Bank Market. 2002;20(4):146–160. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Yavas U., Bilgin Z., Shemwell D.J. Service quality in the Banking sector in an emerging Economy: a consumer survey. Int. J. Bank Market. 1997;15(6):217–223. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Xie C., Bagozzi R.P., Troye S.V. Trying to Prosume: toward a theory of consumers as Co-creators of value. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2008;36(1):109–122. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Tommasetti A., Troisi O., Vesci M. Measuring customer value co-creation behavior: Developing a conceptual model based on service-dominant logic. Journal of Service Theory and Practice. 2017;27(5):930–950. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Lusch R.F., Vargo S.L., Wessels G. Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Syst. J. 2008;47(1):5–14. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kellogg D.L., Youngdahl W.E., Bowen D.E. On the relationship between customer participation and satisfaction: two frameworks. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 1997;8:206–219. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lengnick-Hall C.A. Customer Contributions to quality: a different view of the customer-oriented Firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996;21:791–824. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ennew C.T., Binks M.R. Impact of participative service relationships on quality, satisfaction and Retention: an exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 1999;46:121–132. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Bettencourt L.A. Customer voluntary performance: customers as Partners in service delivery. J. Retailing. 1997;73:383–406. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kelley S.W., Donnelly Jr J.H., Skinner S.J. Customer participation in service production and delivery. J. Retailing. 1990;66(3):315. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Lengnick-Hall C.A., Claycomb V., Inks L.W. From Recipient to contributor: examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. Eur. J. Market. 2000;34:359–383. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Groth M., Mertens D.P., Murphy R.O. Customers as good Soldiers: Extending organizational citizenship behavior research to the customer domain. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. 2004;1(1):113–124. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Rosenbaum M.S., Massiah C.A. When customers receive support from other customers: Exploring the influence of Intercustomer social support on customer voluntary performance. J. Serv. Res. 2007;9(3):257–270. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Fournier S. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 1998;24(4):343–373. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Cossío-Silva F.J., Revilla-Camacho M.A., Vega-Vázquez M., Palacios-Florencio B. Value Co-creation and customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2016;69(5):1621–1625. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Khan K., Hussainy S.K. Dimensions of customer value Co-creation behavior in a service setting. Journal of Managerial Sciences. 2017;11(3):83–96. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Encinas C., Arroyo J. Students' loyalty in higher Education: the roles of affective commitment, service Co-creation and engagement. Cuad. Adm. 2017;33(57):96–110. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Shrivastava P. Effect of Co-creation on customer experience, trust and brand loyalty. Int. J. Sale Market Manag. Res. Dev. 2016;6(6):1–14. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Liu J., Jo W. Value co-creation behaviors and hotel loyalty program member satisfaction based on engagement and involvement: Moderating effect of company support. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 2020;43:23–31. [Google Scholar]
- 53.Hair J.F., Hult G.T.M., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2022. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) [Google Scholar]
- 54.Zwass V. Co-Creation: toward a Taxonomy and an integrated research perspective. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2010;15(1):11–48. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Bitner M.J., Brown S.W., Meuter M.L. Technology Infusion in service Encounters. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2000;28(1):138–149. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Tronvoll B. Negative Emotions and their effect on customer Complaint Behaviour. J. Serv. Manag. 2011;22(1):111–134. [Google Scholar]
- 57.Stokburger-Sauer N.E., Scholl-Grissemann U., Teichmann K., Wetzels M. Value Cocreation at its Peak: the Asymmetric relationship between Coproduction and loyalty. J. Serv. Manag. 2016;27(4):563–590. [Google Scholar]
- 58.Mathwick Charla, Malhotra Naresh, Rigdon Edward. Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and Application in the Catalog and Internet Shopping environment. J. Retailing. 2001;77(1):39–56. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.