IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v60y2014i9p2138-2159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Huang

    (Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

  • Param Vir Singh

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Kannan Srinivasan

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

Abstract

We propose a dynamic structural model that illuminates the economic mechanisms shaping individual behavior and outcomes on crowdsourced ideation platforms. We estimate the model using a rich data set obtained from IdeaStorm.com, a crowdsourced ideation initiative affiliated with Dell. We find that, on IdeaStorm.com, individuals tend to significantly underestimate the costs to the firm for implementing their ideas but overestimate the potential of their ideas in the initial stages of the crowdsourcing process. Therefore, the “idea market” is initially overcrowded with ideas that are less likely to be implemented. However, individuals learn about both their abilities to come up with high-potential ideas as well as the cost structure of the firm from peer voting on their ideas and the firm's response to contributed ideas. We find that individuals learn rather quickly about their abilities to come up with high-potential ideas, but the learning regarding the firm's cost structure is quite slow. Contributors of low-potential ideas eventually become inactive, whereas the high-potential idea contributors remain active. As a result, over time, the average potential of generated ideas increases while the number of ideas contributed decreases. Hence, the decrease in the number of ideas generated represents market efficiency through self-selection rather than its failure. Through counterfactuals, we show that providing more precise cost signals to individuals can accelerate the filtering process. Increasing the total number of ideas to respond to and improving the response speed will lead to more idea contributions. However, failure to distinguish between high- and low-potential ideas and between high- and low-ability idea generators leads to the overall potential of the ideas generated to drop significantly. This paper was accepted by Sandra Slaughter, information systems .

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Huang & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2014. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(9), pages 2138-2159, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:60:y:2014:i:9:p:2138-2159
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2013.1879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1879
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franke, Nikolaus & Hippel, Eric von, 2003. "Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1199-1215, July.
    2. Oded Netzer & James M. Lattin & V. Srinivasan, 2008. "A Hidden Markov Model of Customer Relationship Dynamics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 185-204, 03-04.
    3. Antonio E. Bernardo & Ivo Welch, 2001. "On the Evolution of Overconfidence and Entrepreneurs," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 301-330, September.
    4. John R. Hauser & Glen L. Urban, 1977. "A Normative Methodology for Modeling Consumer Response to Innovation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 579-619, August.
    5. Gregory S. Crawford & Matthew Shum, 2005. "Uncertainty and Learning in Pharmaceutical Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1137-1173, July.
    6. Herz, Holger & Schunk, Daniel & Zehnder, Christian, 2014. "How do judgmental overconfidence and overoptimism shape innovative activity?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-23.
    7. Alberto Galasso & Timothy S. Simcoe, 2011. "CEO Overconfidence and Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1469-1484, August.
    8. Vineet Kumar & Brett R. Gordon & Kannan Srinivasan, 2011. "Competitive Strategy for Open Source Software," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1066-1078, November.
    9. Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March.
    10. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    11. Karan Girotra & Christian Terwiesch & Karl T. Ulrich, 2010. "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 591-605, April.
    12. Sridhar Narayanan & Puneet Manchanda, 2009. "Heterogeneous Learning and the Targeting of Marketing Communication for New Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 424-441, 05-06.
    13. Nitin Mehta & Surendra Rajiv & Kannan Srinivasan, 2003. "Price Uncertainty and Consumer Search: A Structural Model of Consideration Set Formation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 58-84, June.
    14. Robert A. Lowe & Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2006. "Overoptimism and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 173-186, February.
    15. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    16. Kevin J. Boudreau & Nicola Lacetera & Karim R. Lakhani, 2011. "Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 843-863, May.
    17. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    18. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane & Baohong Sun, 2008. "A Dynamic Model of Brand Choice When Price and Advertising Signal Product Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1111-1125, 11-12.
    19. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    20. Schulze, Anja & Hoegl, Martin, 2008. "Organizational knowledge creation and the generation of new product ideas: A behavioral approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1742-1750, December.
    21. Lucas, Robert Jr, 1976. "Econometric policy evaluation: A critique," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 19-46, January.
    22. Juanjuan Zhang, 2010. "The Sound of Silence: Observational Learning in the U.S. Kidney Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 315-335, 03-04.
    23. Nitin Mehta & Xinlei (Jack) Chen & Om Narasimhan, 2008. "Informing, Transforming, and Persuading: Disentangling the Multiple Effects of Advertising on Brand Choice Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 334-355, 05-06.
    24. Lakhani, Karim R. & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 923-943, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Invited Paper ---Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges, and New Developments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 913-938, November.
    2. van Ewijk, Bernadette J. & Gijsbrechts, Els & Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., 2022. "The dark side of innovation: How new SKUs affect brand choice in the presence of consumer uncertainty and learning," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 967-987.
    3. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges and New Developments," Economics Papers 2013-W07, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    4. Shunyuan Zhang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2019. "A Structural Analysis of the Role of Superstars in Crowdsourcing Contests," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 15-33, March.
    5. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Ann Majchrzak & Arvind Malhotra, 2016. "Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 685-703, December.
    7. Gillier, Thomas & Chaffois, Cédric & Belkhouja, Mustapha & Roth, Yannig & Bayus, Barry L., 2018. "The effects of task instructions in crowdsourcing innovative ideas," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 35-44.
    8. Pollok, Patrick & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2019. "Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 98-114.
    9. Dominik Mahr & Aric Rindfleisch & Rebecca Slotegraaf, 2015. "Enhancing Crowdsourcing Success: the Role of Creative and Deliberate Problem-Solving Styles," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(3), pages 209-221, September.
    10. Szymanowski, Maciej & Gijsbrechts, Els, 2013. "Patterns in consumption-based learning about brand quality for consumer packaged goods," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 219-235.
    11. Salgado, Stéphane & Hemonnet-Goujot, Aurelie & Henard, David H. & de Barnier, Virginie, 2020. "The dynamics of innovation contest experience: An integrated framework from the customer’s perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 29-43.
    12. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    13. Guofang Huang & Hong Luo & Jing Xia, 2019. "Invest in Information or Wing It? A Model of Dynamic Pricing with Seller Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5556-5583, December.
    14. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Viktoria Boss & Robin Kleer & Alexander Vossen, 2017. "Walking Parallel Paths Or Taking The Same Road? The Effect Of Collaborative Incentives In Innovation Contests," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-34, April.
    16. Zhu, Z.;, 2023. "The Value of Patients: Heterogenous Physician Learning and Generic Drug Diffusion," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 23/12, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. Szymanowski, M.G., 2009. "Consumption-based learning about brand quality : Essays on how private labels share and borrow reputation," Other publications TiSEM b12825d8-5e21-4437-adda-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Piller, Frank & Vossen, Alexander & Ihl, Christoph, 2012. "From Social Media to Social Product Development: The Impact of Social Media on Co-Creation of Innovation," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(1), pages 7-27.
    19. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.
    20. Natalicchio, A. & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. & Garavelli, A.C., 2017. "Innovation problems and search for solutions in crowdsourcing platforms – A simulation approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 64, pages 28-42.
    21. Nirup Menon & Anant Mishra & Shun Ye, 2020. "Beyond Related Experience: Upstream vs. Downstream Experience in Innovation Contest Platforms with Interdependent Problem Domains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1045-1065, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:60:y:2014:i:9:p:2138-2159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.