Building a persuasive value proposition

Each of the presented CVP frameworks can be also placed within one of the three per-spectives proposed by Payne et al. (2017). First, Anderson et al. (2006) provide with the value proposition classification that builds upon a supplier’s perspective on value as they aim to propose three kinds of value propositions that enable the supplier to focus their efforts on creating superior value. Thus, their classification clearly fits into G-D logic as it assumes the supplier to be the creator of value (Bitner et al., 1997) that through value proposition positions itself against competitors while implying potential outcomes for cus-tomers. Also, as the main way how to create the value proposition Anderson et al. (2006) suggest more traditional methods, such as market research, that require minimum in-volvement of the customer.

Second, according to Payne et al. (2017), the definition of value proposition proposed by Rintamäki et al. (2007) reflects supplier-determined CPV perspective. However, the lit-erature based on which Rintamäki et al. (2007) built CVP framework is scattered be-tween G-D logic literature and S-D logic literature. Rintamäki et al. (2007) state that value proposition is a company’s decision of what the company assumes the customers value which fits the G-D logic perspective on a value proposition being constructed by the company without a customer’s involvement (Ballantyne et al., 2011). However, Rinta-mäki et al. (2007) base their statements on the Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) idea of cus-tomers being the ones deciding what is value and companies only construct value prop-ositions that support customer’s value crating activities and thus, supporting S-D logic’s idea of the supplier being the facilitator of value creation not a sole value creator (Hibbert et al., 2012). Hence, Rintamäki et al. (2007) work can be rather seen as presenting the transitional view on CVP construction.

Last, frameworks proposed by Skålén et al. (2015), Leroi-Werelds et al. (2017), and Payne et al. (2017) clearly contribute to service view on value, and hence mutually de-fined CVP. All three frameworks assume the role of the customer in the value proposition creation process as well as the need for supplier and customer resources integration.

These authors also acknowledge that value is not only co-created between the supplier and the customer but also within a wider network of involved parties (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Bititici et al., 2004). As a result, value is not created by the offering provider, but the offering provider has creating and facilitating role, and customers create and co-create value while broader network may contribute to value creation and capture some of the value created within the network.

Summarizing, each of the CVP perspectives provides the set of guidelines on how to build a compelling value proposition. However, it should be noted that while the roles and involvement of the supplier and the customer change across different perspectives, the approach to what are the elements, design characteristics, criteria or processes in-curred in the creation of a value proposition, tend to evolve rather than drastically change. Figure 27 presents the idea.

Compelling value proposition in different CVP perspectives.

Figure 27 shows the transition between the perspectives emphasized by the gradient color filling in the figure. That signifies that there is no clear line between the CVP per-spectives and while building a CVP, a company does not have to be locked-in within a certain perspective but carefully consider relevant aspects that suit the business the best.

Also, as Figure 27 shows, with the turn towards service perspective, more aspects in building a compelling CVP are considered important. That can be a result of more active participation of the customer in the process of a CVP creation which is assumed in ser-vice logic (Grönroos, 2011).

Two of the aspects, building elements and effectiveness criteria have been discussed from the viewpoint of each of the CVP perspectives. While the approach to building blocks in supplier-determined and transitional perspectives focuses mostly on the value

Effectiveness criteria

Design characteristics Building blocks Types of CVP Practices/Steps Resources

• Distinctive

(Rintamäki et al., 2007)

• Customer s role

(Kozlenkova et al., 2014;

Payne et al., 2017)

statement, the mutually determined CVP perspective expands the building blocks by what resources and competencies are required to achieve this expected value and how it can be achieved. Then, as it comes to effectiveness criteria, all the CVP frameworks presented, and hence also all the CVP perspectives, underline the importance of com-munication of the offering’s potential impact on customer’s business in a measurable form. Thus, to build a persuasive value proposition, regardless of the CVP perspective chosen, a company should firstly perform initial value assessment that yields the meas-urable outcomes that can serve as the element of an effective value proposition as Figure 28 illustrates.

Effectiveness criteria

Design characteristics Building blocks Types of Practices/Steps Resources

CVP

(2005) Smith and Colgate (2007)

(Keränen and Jalka, 2013) Baseline Assessment

(Keränen and Jalka, 2013;

Lyly-Yrjänäinen et al., 2019)

Hinterhuber et al., 2017),

Building an effective value proposition.

Each of the CVP perspectives is valid today and has a different emphasis; hence, com-panies must decide which of these perspectives is relevant to them (Payne et al., 2017).

While the supplier-determined perspective sees customers solely as a recipient of value, the mutually determined perspective gives the customer a chance to participate in value proposition creation and, thus, makes the customer co-responsible for the realization of the promise stated in the customer value proposition. Thus, Figure 26 shows the aspects a company should focus one while following a particular perspective. However, the figure also highlights that regardless of the chosen perspective, a value proposition to be ef-fective must include monetarily expressed or at least quantified estimation of customer perceived value.