Former studies on event co-creation

In 2009, Larson (p. 304) claimed that the concept of co-creation could build a fruitful point of examination for event innovation and development processes. There are only a limited number of studies on event co-creation to date, however (e.g. Lugosi, 2014; Prebensen, 2010; Rihova, 2013; Rihova, Buhalis, Moital, & Gouthro, 2014; Van Limburg, 2008). The discussion is scattered between different journals and other publications, and the studies approach the co-creation of event experience value from a multitude of view-points. The brief literature review here was performed using the search word

“co-creation” in all fields in the web pages of three major event management/

studies journals (Event Management, International Journal of Event Manage-ment Research and International Journal of Event and Festival ManageManage-ment) and search words “co-creation event” and “co-creation festival” in Google Scholar. I reviewed the content of the publications, and only the articles where co-creation was the main theme of the article were selected, and they are all discussed in this chapter. In summary, it can be somewhat concluded that the management-oriented paradigm has dominated the discussion of co-creation in the field of event studies. The SDL paradigm and collaborative innova-tion approach have been the premises for most publicainnova-tions. Recently, more cultural oriented approaches have also been presented (e.g. Lugosi, 2014), but these do not usually draw their conceptual discussion from the cultural marketing literature but rather from the discussions of cultural studies and tourism studies (see Lugosi, 2014).

One of the first scholars to introduce the concept of co-creation in event literature was Van Limburg (2008). In his article, co-creation is offered as a new management tool for pop festivals to tackle the modern day competi-tion environment. Co-creacompeti-tion is discussed as an avenue to more accurate knowledge on festival customer experiences compared to, for example, questionnaires. The study ”gives an explorative insight on how cocreation can be implemented in the multiday pop festival branch” (Van Limburg, 2008, pp.105-106). The author constructs co-creation as interaction between cus-tomer, producer and the network of stakeholders, but the idea lies in customer interaction. Value creation is understood as a joint process involving

consum-ers and the producer, working together to build a product or service from the bottom up (Van Limburg, 2008, pp. 107-110). The exchange of knowledge in the study takes place in internet-based discussion groups where the lead user communities interact with each other. By reviewing this information practical suggestions are offered for developing festival experiences (ibid., pp. 109-114). The author concludes that “subsequent research on cocreation has to be done, not only on the consequences of cocreation, but also on the environment in which cocreation develops itself ” (ibid., p. 116).

According to Van Limburg’s (2008) proposition, the co-creation studies undertaken since have been mainly exploring the event context itself. Bridging co-creation with different theoretical standpoints, they explore the practices through which value is created in the social and material context of events.

Co-creation is explored inside and between different stakeholder groups, between event customers and as an identity formation practice, for example (e.g. Haanpää, García-Rosell, & Tuulentie, 2016; Lugosi 2014; Prebensen, 2010; Rihova, 2013; Rihova et al., 2014). Recent studies have also expanded the study of co-creation practice from the event environment back to the virtual communities of events (Gyimóthy & Larson, 2015). The studies show that different groups participate in both producing and consuming the event, creating experience value for themselves and others (Prebensen, 2010, p. 38;

Rihova, 2013). The reasons for participation vary from personal goals such as having fun and socialising to instrumental reasons such as making new friends and contacts, learning from or identifying with or immersing in the event (Prebensen, 2010, p. 41). The consumption and production of events are integrated and creative processes. The resources that the stakeholders bring to these processes vary, and events can be arenas of exchange for several forms of knowledge (Prebensen, 2010, pp. 49-50).

Stakeholders of events appreciate the emotional and cognitive elements of event co-creation (Prebensen, 2010, p. 49). There are implications in the literature on what these elements are, yet the processes and practices in which and how these develop have been underexplored. The social practices of fes-tival environments in which the value is formed have been under-analysed in the co-creation literature (Björner & Berg, 2012, p. 35; Rihova, 2013, pp.

16-18; see also Kinnunen & Haahti, 2015). There has been a theoretical gap

between social sciences which describe the cultural values, and experience management that gives guidance for staging events (Lugosi, 2014, p. 165).

Different concepts, such as dramaturgy, have been used to help to understand the symbolic dimensions and meanings of event experiences, but understand-ing of the non-symbolic practices that build up the experience should also be considered (e.g. Ziakas & Costa, 2012; see Lugosi, 2014, p.173). Recent studies have treated co-creation not only as a social practice but also as a practice tapping into the materialities and physical features of event envi-ronments (Haanpää et al., 2016; Lugosi, 2014; Rihova, 2013; Rihova et al., 2014). Through these, symbolic value is produced for different participants of the events (e.g. Rihova, 2013; Rihova et al., 2014). It is based on meanings created in the event context and should receive more attention, rather than being focused on just the output-centred impacts-oriented view.

In his recent study Lugosi (2014) explores co-creation as “how cultural values and notions of identities are incorporated into experience production”.

He points out that experience management, including in the case of events, has been overly concerned with controlling and guiding experiences, basing the development on dramaturgical conceptions and tools, and narrating spaces through theming. The critique of this production-oriented view has required shifting the viewpoint to co-creation. The co-creation of experiences happens between different stakeholders of an event and demands the mobilisation of intellectual, physical and emotional competencies (Lugosi, 2014, pp. 166-167;

see also Gyimóthy & Larson, 2015). Lugosi’s study makes a detailed analysis of how value is co-created by the participants on the basis of a regularly occurring event, by producing notions of common identity. This is realised through spatial, material, performative and representational practices and

“involves the continual mobilisation of labor and capital, the manipulation of the servicescape, juxtaposing of objects and sounds, representational acts and embodied performances of selves that perpetuate experiential possibili-ties” (Lugosi, 2014, pp. 173-177).

The perspective on experience co-creation as a “dynamic process in which multiple objects, actions and agencies interact” (Lugosi, 2014, p. 177) better communicates the context of events where there are multiple actors creating the experience (see also Gyimóthy & Larson, 2015), however, even though the

concept of knowledge is at the centre of co-creation theoritisations, studies only consider it in a very limited way. The process of co-creation is described through motives, reasons and practices, for example, but the knowledge(s) that builds up the co-creation process has been underanalysed. Following the ideas put forward by, for example, Lugosi (2014) and the cultural marketing scholars, I wish to continue discussing co-creation, and specifically the know-ing used in it, by proposknow-ing the concept of choreography. Choreographknow-ing has been seen in the event literature as a practical managerial construct for directing the movement inside events, but it has not been used as an analyti-cal construct in event studies. The concept leverages the understanding of knowledge inside event co-creation. In addition to the social, it is largely based on the materialities of place and space.

2.4 Understanding event co-creation as choreography