You are on page 1of 31

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2010;27:797827

r 2010 Product Development & Management Association

Living Twice: How a Product Goes through Multiple Life Cycles!


John K. Christiansen, Claus J. Varnes, Marta Gasparin, Diana Storm-Nielsen, and
Erik Johnsen Vinther

Product value and life are usually expected to follow the product life cycle (PLC), wherein products are expected to
move from an investment toward a profitable mature peak that ends when the product is phased out. This study
illustrates the sales volume of Arne Jacobsens Egg chair over a 50-year period, shifting from low to high volume to
extremely low to high again. This study introduces a theoretical perspective in which value creation is described as a
process of valuing, in which an assumption is made that the value of a product is relational and that relationships
between products and consumers are created, broken, and recreated. This makes it possible to understand how
timeless products can be achieved. Based on a coconstructivistic view of value creation, the life of the Egg chair
demonstrates how value is cocreated as different associations, relationships, and conflicts are attached, detached,
and reattached to the product through processes of qualifications and requalifications. Value is context dependent,
emerging, and performative. By providing vital clues about what makes some products timeless, the study of the Egg
provides implications for companies and managers. The strength of the Egg is its ability to be simultaneously flexible
and stable. At its core is the design of a mastermind, yet it can adapt to todays changes and tastes. Through its
ability to transform and connect in new ways, keeping its core, it becomes strong. The implications for product
development are, among other things, that the PLC curve should not guide actions or reactions. Instead, it is
necessary to understand, identify, or define the core design and values of products and the way products of the past
can be adapted, negotiated, and transformed to stay attractive and to involve modern customers. It is essential to
understand how product framing and framing devices work as management technologies in processes that involve the
creation of long-lasting product icons.

Introduction

etween 2005 and 2008, sales of the Egg, the


Swan, Series Seven, and other famous chairs
designed by architect Arne Jacobsen and
launched in the 1950s have resulted in a 73% increase
in the manufacturers sales volume. At a time when
consumers demand newness and firms respond by accelerating their innovation cycle (Carillo and Franza,
2006, p. 536; Chesbrough, 2007, p. 24), it is puzzling
what has kept the Egg young and valued and what
processes have constituted its success. Design effectiveness produces better financial results (Hertenstein,
Platt, and Veryzer, 2005); 85% of the total turnover in
Fritz Hansen comes from sales of classic furniture. In
the same period2005 to 2008the operating profit

Address correspondence to: John K. Christiansen, Copenhagen


Business School, Department of Operations Management, Solbjerg
Plads 3, Blok B., DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark. E-mail:
john@cbs.dk.
! The authors thank JPIM reviewers and editor Anthony Di Benedetto for very helpful comments and suggestions on the first version of
this paper, which was developed from a conference paper presented at
the International Product Development Management Conference in
Twente in 2009.

grew by 225% (Berlingske Nyhedsmagasin, 2008,


p. 10). In 2007, revenues from the Egg amounted to
DKK 100 million. The Egg is a well-known object
with which people easily identify and about which
they readily form opinions. Designers categorize the
Egg as high design (Sharp, 1991), and as such, it is
among the ranks of equally peculiar and highly successful products like Philippe Starcks lemon squeezer
(Julier, 2000, p. 67) and Michael Gravess kettle that
whistles like a bird (Verganti, 2006).
The Egg lounge chair, designed by Jacobsen and
now produced by the Danish company Fritz Hansen
(http://www.fritzhansen.com), made its first appearance in 1958 at the Formes Scandinaves exhibition in
Muse`e des Art Decoratifs in Paris. Originally designed for the SAS Royal Hotel in Copenhagen, the
hotels purchase helped move the chair from prototype to product. Rumors are that Jacobsen presented
his designs for furnishing the hotel before his architectural drawings of the building were finalized, thus
securing a contract for designing the interior as well as
the exterior of the building. Jacobsen used new materials to lighten the structure and pushed the elements
and form to the limits in each creation, provoking and

798

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

astonishing people with his designs. The Egg was


styled to be futuristic but not strange and appeared
in major design magazines and newspapers from time

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. John K. Christiansen is professor of management of innovation
and projects at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), where he is a
member of the research program on Management Technologies in
Product Development and Innovation (MaTePDI). His recent publications include studies of sense making of structured approaches in
product development; how market perceptions and the use of
knowledge relate; different perspectives on innovation management;
the coconstruction of products and brands and how management
technologies in product development can act as boundary objects.
His research has been published in journals such as Journal of Product Innovation Management, International Journal of Innovation
Management, and Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management. He is involved in the Ph.D. workshop on management of
product development at the International Product Development
Management Conference (IPDMC). He is responsible for courses
on product development, project management, and management
technologies at CBS and is currently head of the executive master
program, Master of Management Development (MMD) at CBS.
Dr. Claus J. Varnes is associate professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS), where he is a member of the research program
on Management Technologies in Product Development and Innovation (MaTePDI). Departing from sociological theories, his research focuses on performance management and innovation. His
recent publications include studies of sense making of rules in product development, the coconstruction of products and brands, appropriate decision making in portfolio management, and how
management technologies in product development can act as
boundary objects. Dr. Varnes is responsible for M.B.A. and
M.Sc. courses on innovation management and performance management in marketing. He is presently heading the launch of a new
executive master program, Master of Corporate Performance. He
holds a Ph.D. from CBS on the use of structured methods for new
product development. Previously, he worked in the industry in various management positions.
Marta Gasparin is research assistant on innovation management in
the Department of Operation Management at Copenhagen Business
School and participating in the research program on Management
Technologies in Product Development and Innovation (MaTePDI).
She has a double degree from Bocconi (economics and management
in arts, culture, media and entertainment) and from Copenhagen
Business School (master of social science with a concentration in
management of creative business processes).
Diana Storm-Nielsen is project manager at Fireball and works with
strategic shopper marketing. She has a special interest in value creation in product innovations and has studied design, communication, and innovation management. Ms. Storm-Nielsen has an M.Sc.
in economics and business administration with a specialization in
strategic market creation from the Copenhagen Business School.
Erik Johnsen Vinther is business consultant at NNIT, where he
works with information systems (IS) strategy, IS governance, and
change management. He has a special interest in how organizations
realize the business value from implementation of IS projects. He
has an M.Sc. in economics and business administration with a specialization in management of innovation and business development
from the Copenhagen Business School.

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

to time. Over its lifespan, the Egg has at times experienced extremely low sales volumes; recently, however, it demonstrates increased sales. More popular
than ever and considered a global design icon, in 2008
the Egg chair celebrated its 50th anniversary with a
limited edition of 999 stylish gold chairs that nearly
sold out before hitting retail stores. Its bronze base
and limited number of special editions render the Egg
remarkable and elevate it to a piece of art that owners
regard as a status symbol. In 2008, following the
chairs remarkable success, Fritz Hansen asked artist
Tal R to create editions of the Egg upholstered in
patchwork to express visually the 50 years of past and
present fame, using textile and materials collected
globally. The aim was to make a chair that could
tell a multitude of stories. The exhibition started in
Milan during Design Week, after which it was
planned that it would travel and be exhibited in galleries and museums around the world.
But what has decreed the success of the Egg? What
devices, actors, and relationships were active in
shaping the life of the Egg? Why did the chair pass
from its glorious launch, only to be forgotten in its
dark ages of the 1990s, during which there was a
risk of it being retired from the market, then to
be suddenly resurrected to its current explosive and
increasing success?
This paper provides two interpretations of the Egg
case. The first is based on the concept of the product
life cycle (PLC). The second interpretation views
value creation as a dynamic interactive process with
negotiations, struggles, interessement (Akrich, Callon,
and Latour, 2002a), and relationship building based
on cocreation. The dynamic coconstruction perspective allows for observations outside the reach of the
PLC curve perspective. It is possible to point to some
features of products that become timeless or, more
modestly, features that break the iron cage of the
product life cycle.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.
First, some methodological issues are discussed. The
concept of the PLC is detailed next as it relates to the
life of the Egg. Next, the underlying assumptions in
the PLC concept regarding value creation are reviewed, and alternative views are presented. Finally,
the paper offers a coconstructivistic reinterpretation
of the life of the Egg that provides background for the
conclusions and implications. The paper concludes
and relates the process of the Egg to other products
and the art market and provides preliminary propositions (Latour, 1999, p. 309) from the observations

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

offered for further investigation on the cocreation of


timeless products.

Research Method
This study is exploratory (Drenth, Thierry, and Wolff,
1998, p. 15; Kotler, Adam, et al., 2006, p. 122), meaning that its purpose is to understand a complex phenomenon: the continued value construction and
reconstruction of a product innovation, departing
from a well-known type of interpretation (the PLC)
into a theoretical framework used to explore qualities
that may explain what constitutes a timeless product.
As such, it leans toward recent observations in social
science: deep and new knowledge is often generated
by in-depth analysis of current phenomena in their
social context (Flyvbjerg, 2001).
The study design grew from the authors interest in
studying the value creation of specific products while
being sufficiently theoretical sensitive, so . . . [we]
could conceptualize and formulate a theory as is
emerges from the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1999).
This led to overlapping data collection and theoretical
work (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 538) and to an ongoing
dialogue surrounding iterations and interactions
among the four elements in an engaged scholarship
mode: research design, theory building, problem formulation, and analysis (Van de Ven, 2007). This approach allowed for flexibility and an adjustment of the
research design, which is essential to exploratory research. It allows for learning while researching and
the possibility of improving the study: serendipitous
findings in a theory-testing study suggest[ing] the need
for a new perspective (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548).
Such a situation emerged in the research process,
when the data collected on the sales volumes of the
Egg were plotted on a flipchart. The graph indicated
an unusual curve compared with the textbook versions of the PLC. Simultaneously, interviews with
marketing people in the company provided evidence
that the company had been close to totally abandoning the Egg during a period later labeled herein as the
dark ages. These observations led to a shift in the
present research from a focus on investigating the elements and attributes that could explain changes in
the value of the Egg to analyze the processes, events,
and activities that could explain how a product gets a
second life.
Thus, a variance study became a process study (Van
de Ven, 2007, p. 143), wherein a developmental event

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

799

sequence was analyzed (ibid. p. 197). The objective of


this study was modified to open this black box of complicated processes and relationships that are sometimes
reduced into the curves representing the relationship
between profits or sales volumes and time as expressed
in the PLC curves. Instead of explaining the dynamics
and phases of products as the result of fads, fashion, or
styles (i.e., given by some outside forces), the analysis
focused on the interactions, relationships, and networks between human and non-human actors (Latour,
1999), with special attention given to the qualification
and requalification processes and the framing devices.
The outcome is examples and illustrations of some
of the mechanisms that enable some products to create networks and successfully handle the interessement
(Akrich, Callon, and Latour, 2002a; Callon, 1986a)
with customers and other actors over long periods
whereas other products are detached from their network (Callon, 1986b). Within the chosen theoretical
framework, interessement describes the process of successfully getting others to support, interact, and devote their energy and resources toward something
(ibid.). Innovation processes can be seen as a mishmash of decisions that cannot wait (Akrich et al.,
2002a), in an environment of complex, changing markets, and customer tastes, in which action cannot be
planned or predicted in any mechanical way (hence
the term nonlinear), facing many different trials (tests)
and accusations, and in which there are claims for an
innovation (i.e., a certain product) that it is better
than prior solutions. The interessement process is
driven by spokespersons (Akrich, Callon, and Latour,
2002b) that speak on behalf of and for the innovation,
thereby trying to create a stable network of human
and non-human actors (Latour, 2005) that become
allies across social, organizational, and technical domains: The model of interessement sets out all of the
actors who seize the object or turn away from it and it
highlights the points of articulation between the object and the more or less organised interests which it
gives rise to (Akrich et al., 2002a, p. 205).
A process study requires careful attention to process concepts, the collection of incidents (observations), the specifying of potential classifications of
incidents into analytical and theoretically informed
events, and the development of a process theory (Van
de Ven, 2007). To increase the present studys
theoretical sensitivity (Glaser and Strauss, 1999) and
to inform the data collection, prior research was
investigated to identify various perspectives on
value creation. This process helped clarify prior

800

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

interpretations of the value of products and informed


the data collection.
The Fritz Hansen company was selected for two
reasons. The selection relied on theoretical sampling
(Glaser and Strauss, 1999, p. 45) rather than statistical
ones (Eisenhardt, 1989), and, as rich data and access
to company information and informants is critical for
rich case studies, prior professional relationships with
the company were exploited. The data sampling was
theoretically informed (ibid.). The aim of this study
was to provide a thick description (Geertz, 1973) by
collecting and analyzing data from various sources
(Eisenhardt) and combining multiple methods and
sources (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p. 205), all of
which are essential factors in the investigation of a
phenomenon in its complex context (Van de Ven,
2007; Yin, 2009). Analyzing and writing within the
framework of actor-network theory (ANT) requires
one to follow the actors and their relationships (Latour, 2005), but the present study is limited to the Egg,
providing the reader with an account of the evidence
(e.g., the PLC) and the observations that qualify the
claim made herein (Booth, Colomb, and Williams,
2003): that is, that the PLC does not follow the expected pattern.
Interviews were conducted in three rounds with
employees of the manufacturer, experts in design and
art, and five buyers of the limited edition of 999 Eggs.
The first interviews were open ended and provided
background information on the company, products,
strategies, and history from three informants in the
company. The second round was based on semistructured interviews focusing on the origins of the Egg
and its history. A total of 10 interviews with employees from the manufacturer, Fritz Hansen, and with
design and marketing experts and architects external
to the company provided valuable information. The
Fritz Hansen interviewees were a brand manager (5
years with the company), a graphic designer (36
years), a marketing intelligence analyst (1 year), an
upholsterer (10 years), the intellectual property rights
(IPR) coordinator (2 years), the design director (15
years), and the marketing manager (5 years). A furniture designer and professor at the Danish Design
School, a professor from the Department of Art and
Culture at Copenhagen University, a curator from the
Danish Museum of Art and Design, and a leading
Danish architect and former professor from the
School of Architecture in Copenhagen were also interviewed. Interviews was based on an open questionnaire and lasted an average of 1.5 hours. All

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

interviews were fully transcribed and mailed to respondents for validation. The third round of interviews, conducted by telephone, comprised follow-up
questions to validate specific data. Information was
also collected from internal and external sources such
as annual reports, financial statements, marketing
material, recent Internet sources, and announcements
and articles in books, newspapers, and magazines.
The observations and data collection were thus informed by the various theories on product value and
prior PLC research and theories on valuation.
The bracketing of empirical observations and incidents into coded events is critical in process studies
(Van de Ven, 2007, p. 217). Two processes were
used to improve the validity of coding incidents into
indicators of events. Validity, especially when based
on interview data and case studies, is considered by
many researchers today as constituted through
dialogue: valid knowledge claims emerge as conflicting interpretations and actions possibilities are discussed and negotiated (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009,
p. 247).
First, theoretically informed operational definitions and coding conventions were developed. These
constructs were then used by single researchers to analyze parts of the observed processes and were later
given to the other members of the team for subsequent
validation. The observations and coding were ultimately presented and discussed with informants in the
case company and, for external validation, with colleagues who were knowledgeable about the design and
furniture industry in Denmark, as in a postmodern
area, truth is constituted through a dialogue . . .
among the members of a community (Kvale and
Brinkmann, 2009, p. 247). Additionally, as data collection continued, it became possible to construct the
product life cycle curve based on sales information.
These data were not readily available in the case company because it is normal practice to keep historical
data in the accounting systems for only five years as
required by the tax authorities. Thus, data had to be
dug out of archives with records and reports found in
various corners.
Triangulating the constructed PLC curve for the
Egg and the present studys qualitative data provided
a historical account not only of the rise and decline
(Pettigrew, 1985) and then the rise again of the Egg
sales curve. A central research strategy in process
studies for the interpretation of sequence data into
events could be the construction of story narratives
(Van de Ven, 2007, p. 223). The analysis in this study

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

is based on a theoretical framework that focuses not


on narratives but on relationshipsthe human and
non-human actors and their relationships and struggles as the process unfoldsso the use of metaphors
was added to the analysis. Metaphors can be identified in everyday life, investigated and subjected to
analysis (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980), or used as part
of the research strategy. The use of metaphors in research can be useful for describing and reducing complex observations into simpler constructs (Schmitt,
2005), and the research team did produce and test
various metaphors that described the different periods. These metaphors did not come directly from data
or from interviews but represented the interpretations
of the research team from the emerging corresponding
knowledge about the history of the Egg (ibid., p. 374).
Metaphors were first used as part of the researchers
self-reflection (ibid., p. 262), and they were subsequently found useful for communicating the synthesis
of observations. As noted, Metaphor analysis cannot
work without previous socialization in the language
and environment in general and, in particular, without field experience gained prior to or during the
course of research (ibid., p. 383). The validation of
the metaphors was tested within the research
team and through discussions with the marketing
department in the case company; Fritz Hansen
personnel found them to be both illuminating and
useful in understanding the past.
The reliability of the study was supported as suggested by Yin (2009, p. 45): using a case study protocol and developing a case study database. The case
study protocol was basically a project diary with entries for interactions to the field, particularly meetings; fully transcribed interviews and references to
material collected; and transcribed interviews, which
were kept in the database. More than 150 articles and
photographs from newspapers and magazines were
identified in archives and scrapbooks and were copied
into the database. The database with all these materials was distributed to every research team member.
A note of precaution: Bruno Latour would probably
object strongly to the mix of methods presented
herein, as ANTs main claims are that the world is
constructed by heterogeneous actors and networks;
that objects cannot be studied independent of their
context as human or non-human actors; that their
existence is recognized only insofar as they are related
to other actors (Latour, 2005); and that entities like
the Egg are performative. They exist only when
they are acting or acted upon. Furthermore, as

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

801

actor-network worlds are performative and by nature


temporary, constantly created and recreated in the
ANT view, Latour strongly objects to generalizations.
The theoretical claim is respected here, but suggestions for some implications are provided.

The Product Life Cycle for the Egg


Levitt (1965) first introduced the concept of the PLC
with the goal of making it a tool for managers. The
PLC is presented as a predictive instrument for forecasting marketing requirements and assisting in the
planning of long-term product strategies (Wood,
1990). Despite its critics (e.g., Dhalla and Yuspeh,
1976; Moon, 2005; Wood), the PLC is used for corporate strategy, product development, finance, and
production and is considered to be an influential concept (Golder and Tellis, 2004; Moon) and a central
and enduring marketing framework (Golder and Tellis). The PLC curve is usually depicted as following a
bell-shaped curve from the products introduction
into the market to its withdrawal from the market.
The model hypothesizes that sales follow a sequence
of stages, beginning with product introduction and
proceeding with growth, through maturity, and eventually decline (Polli and Cook, 1969; Figure 1).
The life cycle concept has been applied and investigated for products, brands, markets, and product
categories (Bayus, 1994; Levitt, 1965). Different life
cycles have been depicted for industries, brands, firms,
products, and technologies (ibid.); for specific technologies (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978); for customers adaptations of new technologies (Rogers,
1962); for dominant designs (Tushman and Anderson, 1990); and for specific industries and clusters
(Audretsch and Feldman, 1996) such as motion

Figure 1. Product Life Cycle Example Showing Sales and the


Four Stages

802

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

pictures (Calantone et al., 2010). DeBresson and


Lampel (1985a, 1985b) issue warnings against relying
too heavily on life cycle curves, as they represent an
accumulation of a diversity of information and complex relationships. They focus on the technology life
cycle but show how various production modes, organizational discontinuities, and unforeseen innovations
produce a highly complex situation, which could not
be predicted with a PLC. Levitt argues that the PLC
can be extremely helpful in deciding competitive decisions and moves. In a recent review of the PLC literature, Golder and Tellis (2004, p. 207) defend the
PLC, having found that its main shortcoming relates
to a lack of clear metrics for the turning points that
define various stages. Kotler, Keller, and Cunningham (2006) propose that four things are implied when
stating that a product has a life cycle: (1) products
have a limited life; (2) product sales pass through
distinct stages; (3) profit rises and falls at different
stages; and (4) products require different marketing,
financial, manufacturing, purchasing, and human
resource strategies at each stage. Kotler, Keller,
et al. include different PLC curves and declare that
the length is variable and subject to externalities, such
as fashion. Wood (1990) points out that the lack of
data in most companies prevents the PLC from being
usefully applied.
The Egg shows a curious product life cycle curve: it
does not follow the normal birth, growth, and decline phases, and after 50 years it is more valuable to
the manufacturer than ever. Mapping out the PLC for
the Egg based on sales figures from Fritz Hansen produces the graph shown in Figure 2. Product life cycles
usually show either sales volumes or profit on the

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

y-axis (Kotler, Keller, et al., 2006, p. 323). Based on


availability of data, sales volumes are used in this
study. Prior research provides a variety of explanations for deviations from the bell-shaped curve, including cyclerecycle patterns, in which styles can
disappear and reappear as modernoutdatedmodern
cycles or as fashion (e.g., for a season) or even as fads
(a short period, like a month or two) (ibid., pp. 323
336). Both fashions and fads definitely fade at some
point; the cyclerecycle pattern is based on aggressive
marketing campaigns; and styles are based on whole
concepts like popular expressions of life (e.g., the Seventies) (Kotler et al., 2006). None of these explanations explicitly deals with the case of what makes
revitalization possible and constitutes the timeliness
of a specific product. Thus, prior PLC research offers
little detail on the processes and mechanisms that
cause a certain product to break the curve and rise to
renewed fame once again.
Other scholars have provided alternative interpretations of the PLC that could prove useful for understanding the dynamics. Dhalla and Yuspeh (1976,
p. 105) offer another such perspective and argue
that the PLC should be considered as a dependent
variable. The PLC, they say, is the consequence rather
than the cause of marketing choices. They present
four arguments, related especially to brands but also
to products: (1) not all products have a limited life,
and it is not unusual for products to gain a second
life or reincarnation (ibid., p. 103); (2) it is difficult
to predict when the next stage will appear, how long it
will last, and what levels the sales will reach (ibid.,
p. 104); (3) the concept of PLC per se is misleading
and is not applicable to brands; and (4) no statistical

Figure 2. The Product Life Cycle for the Egg, with Sales Volumes for the Past 50 Years

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

evidence for the average life of brands can be found


because some brands last for a few years and others
are still present in the same category after more than
100 years (ibid., p. 105). Furthermore, the PLC concept is based on an assumption that the future can be
predicted from past and present data, assuming that
presently identified networks are both relevant and
stable in the future (Akrich et al., 2002a, b; Christiansen and Varnes, 2007, 2008). This perspective on innovation processes has been labeled a linear view
(Akrich et al., 2002a).
This paper argues for an alternative way of understanding the life cycle (for lack of a better term) of
products; the term cycle somehow indicates a linearity
that may be useful for planners but is not helpful
when trying to grasp the dynamics that could explain
the ups and downs of a product over a long period.
The observations of the changes in sales and the popularity of the Egg may best be understood from a position in which value creation is described as a process
of valuing. Valuing focuses attention on the basic idea
of value as generated by the relationships between
customers and products, services, and brands and
how these relationships are established, modified,
and recreated over time.

Perspectives on Value Creation


Value is a fundamental concept in economics and
other disciplines. Anthropologists have studied the
ways people find value in things and how things give
value to social relations across different cultures and
time (Appadurai, 1986). Boztepe (2007, p. 56) raises a
fundamental question on the topic: is value subjectively assigned by the consumer, independent of
the products physical qualities; or is it embedded in
the object and recognized by the user, emphasizing the
userproduct relationship in considering where value
is created. Boztepe identifies five approaches to the
concept of value. First, value as belief system represents the notion that values are socially and culturally
defined. Value as exchange represents the notion that
value is defined by the monetary sacrifice people are
willing to make for a product; hence, money is an index of value. Next, value as use indicates that value
relates to the utility of the physical properties of the
product, which is realized only upon its use. In addition, value as meaning and difference implies a consideration of not only the context in which a product
is used but also how it is understood. Finally, value as

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

803

experience implies that the value is tied to an experience based on interactions. Boztepe (2003, p. 4) refers
to Cagan and Vogel (2007) and Pine and Gilmore
(1999), who argue that the better the experience, the
greater is the value of a product to the user. Although
Boztepe (2003) suggests that value as experience actually embraces the four other value definitions, a review of prior research on value creation has helped us
to group the approaches on value into four perspectives, as shown in Table 1: (1) firm; (2) consumer; (3)
cocreation; and (4) coconstructivisism. A literature
review from 16 journals with publications on value is
shown in Appendix 1.
The firm perspective places the company in the
center. Thus, the firm incorporates value into a new
product and then hands it over to a passive consumer,
in a simple transaction managed by the firm. Value is
transferred and realized at the time of consumption.
The consumer perspective assumes that value is created in consumption and in the minds of customers.
Criticizing the firm perspective, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) argue that the firm may combine
different sources of value creation, thus enabling it
to create value for consumers who are willing to pay.
Under the consumer perspective, value creation relates to the way consumers understand and perceive
new productshow they benefit from the experience.
The firm cannot solely manage value creation, therefore, because it is created in consumption and affected
by complex sense-making processes involving cognitive and emotional factors (Rindova and Petkova,
2007).
The cocreation perspective departs from the two
previous perspectives, focusing as it does on the interaction between the firm and the consumer. Under
this perspective, the meaning of value and the process
of value creation are rapidly shifting from a productand firm-centric view to personalized consumer experiences, as todays consumers have gained negotiation
power in their choice of products (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004, p. 7). Firms should therefore create
and facilitate experience environments within which
individual consumers can create their unique personalized experience. The firm has an influencing power
in value creation, due to its partial control over the
experience environment and the network it builds to
facilitate the cocreation experience (ibid., p. 11).
However, the firm cannot control the consumerto-consumer interaction that is facilitated in communities or the individual experience a consumer will
have at any given time. Thus, value differs for each

804

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Table 1. Four Perspectives on Value Creation in Innovation Research


Perspective

How Value Is Created

Firm
Perspective

The process of value creation is not well understood. Value


creation depends on the activities undertaken, the target users,
and the underlying theoretical foundation.
Firms create value via accessible resources in the community;
thus, both the firm and the larger community may realize value
capture.
A firm depends on its innovation ecosystem to create value and
to become successful. Therefore, a firms strategy needs to
match the respective ecosystem.
Value in long-term co-development appears to derive from the
enduring exchange processes developed throughout the
collaboration.
Users are involved and participate in the innovation and design
process through toolkits. Hence, users are part of the process
by being a source of value creation.
Technology and market factors have an impact on value
creation and capture the commercialization of radical generic
technology.
Value produces experiences for the consumer. Consumers must
be a key consideration in strategy formation, because
consumers experienced benefits are essential to company
success.
Value is created in the minds of the consumers; hence, a new
products success is explained by its ability to resolve resistance
and to offer distinct improvements over existing ones.
Customers participate in value cocreation, and virtual
customer environments become essential.
Interaction between firm and consumer is the locus of value
creation and value extraction. Cocreated experiences are the
basis for value creation.
The Internet facilitates value creation through firmconsumer
interaction in different parts of the new product development
process.
Company and customer interact in the process of creating
mass-customized products.
Markets, value, products, services, and brands are constructed
and coconstructed and are stable (for a time) only when fragile
networks are created and established.

Consumer
Perspective

Co-creation
Perspective

Co-construction
Perspective

consumer yet is still cocreated in a firm-facilitated


experience environment.
Within the coconstruction perspective, Callon,
Meadel, and Rabeharisoa (2002) argue that the value
creation process is better understood in terms of value
constructions that are continuously negotiated in networks incorporating heterogeneous actors. Developing a network perspective by drawing on recent
writings on ANT, this study offers a fourth perspective on value creation: valuing, or the network process
perspective (Christiansen and Varnes, 2007, 2008,
2009). The economy of qualities is a continuation of
ANT (Barry and Slater, 2002, p. 285). Akrich et al.
(2002a, b) discuss interessement and the role of spokes-

Examples
Lepak, Smith, and Taylor (2007)

Chesbrough and Appleyard (2007)

Adner (2006)

Perks (2004)

Franke and Piller (2004)

Maine and Garnsey (2006)

Priem (2007)

Gourville (2006) and Rindova and Petkova


(2007)
Nambisan and Baron (2007)
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004)

Sawhney, Verona, and Prandelli (2005)

Kaplan and Haenlein (2006)


Akrich, Callon, and Latour (2002a, b);
Araujo (2007); Barry and Slater (2002b);
Callon (1986a, b); Callon (1999); Callon
and Muniesa (2005); Christiansen and
Varnes (2008); De Laet and Mol (2000);
Latour (1991, 1996, 2005)

persons as keys for successful innovations. In addressing interessement, Akrich et al. (2002b) note that . . .
the fate of the innovation depends on the active participation of all those who have decided to develop it
(p. 208). They argue that consumers are not passive
adopters but are active adapters, meaning that
the success of innovations depends on the users willingness and ability to adapt the product innovation to
suit their needs (Akrich et al., 2002a, p. 209). Moreover, success depends on the ability of an object to
interest more and more actors: Innovation is perpetually in search of allies (ibid., p. 203). Spokespersons
are all those . . . who will interact, negotiate to give
shape to the project and to transform it until a market

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

is built (Akrich et al., 2002b, p. 217). Interessement,


then, deals with the way actors are enrolled in a
network.
Qualification explains how qualities are attributed
to a product (Callon et al., 2002). One could argue
that for there to be a qualification actors must first be
successfully enrolled in a network. To be successfully
enrolled and for the network to be stabilized, other
networks of relationships must be rejected through
the use of devices which give his/her actions a shape
(Callon, 1999, p. 191). The value is thus continuously
negotiated and constructed through processes of qualificationrequalification in actor networks, and the
output of this negotiation is value construction. The
values rely on (1) the participation of several actors in
the qualificationrequalification processes; (2) the notion that the meaning of a product transforms
through the qualificationrequalification processes;
and (3) the notion that, because of its fluid boundaries, the product is able to mean many things simultaneously. Value is never stable because it is
negotiated in actor networks. Finally, valuable actors,
being human or non-human, are able to connect or
relate to other human or non-human actors, to modify the relationships, to change or replace existing
ones with new ones, and thus to become valuable
through the multitude of existing and potential relationships (De Laet and Mol, 2000). Two views on
value are summarized in Table 2.
Five distinct periods in the life of the Egg over the
past 50 years have been identified, each with its own
metaphor: (1) creation and launch; (2) the forgotten
child; (3) the return of the Egg; (4) the original Egg;
and (5) fifty and funky. This categorization does not
divide the entire period into phases but rather represents distinct periods in what has previously been
discussed here as qualification and requalification

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

805

(Callon et al., 2002), which produces certain perceived


qualities of the product using framing devices. Framing devices facilitate a certain interpretation and allow
for the definition of objects, goods, and merchandise
that are identifiable and can be separated from others
by their qualities (Callon, 1999, p. 187). Callon argues
that the market is performative (the idea of temporality), that entities are defined by their relationships,
and that concepts such as a consumer segment are
framed and not given per se. Hence, as Christiansen,
Lefe`vre, et al. (2008, p. 7) argue, . . . It is impossiblein this perspectiveto identify something or a
group of customers as a market or a segment of a
market out there. When developing segmentation
models, for instance, the firm constructs models of the
customers. According to this view, the market is a
temporary and relatively fragile construction.
The qualification and requalification processes can
be considered trials (Latour, 1987) that test the relationship to actors, in a process that transforms and
forms the product as products, as products are
mutable or never quite finished within the coconstructivistic perspective. As Callon et al. (2002, p.
197) noted, A product . . . is an economic good seen
from the point of view of its production, circulation
and consumption. The concept (produce: to bring
forward) shows that it consists of a sequence of actions, a series of operations that transform it, move it
and cause it to change hands, to cross a series of
metamorphoses that end up putting it into a form
judged useful by an economic agent who pays for it.
During these transformations its characteristics
change. They add (p. 200), A good is defined by
the qualities attributed to it during qualification trials
. . . [and the] controversial processes of qualification,
processes through which qualities are attributed, stabilized, objectified and arranged.

Table 2. Value Creation in Two Perspectives


Product Life Cycle (PLC) View on Value
Product Life

Products have a limited life.

Product Sales

Product sales pass through distinct stages.

Product Profit

Profit grows, peaks, and then falls, depending on the


progress through phases.
Products require different marketing, financial,
manufacturing, purchasing, and human resource
strategies at each stage.
Traditionally, PLC is illustrated with a bell-shaped
curve.

Product
Management
Product Curve

Coconstructivistic View on Value Creation


The product is alive as long as someone or something
relates to it.
Product sales can go up and down, depending on the
strength of the human and non-human relationships
(i.e., the stability of the network).
Profits can move in different directions and are
performative.
Products require that a host of actors in an actor
network continuously stabilize value constructions in
processes with qualificationrequalification.
The curve of a product depends on relationships; profits
are performative, and many relations are possible.

806

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

The qualification and requalification processes are


dynamic, as the product singles out the agents and
binds them together and, reciprocally, it is the agents
that, by adjustment, iteration and transformation, define its characteristics (Callon et al., 2002, p. 198).
Hence, the product implies a dynamic economy of
qualities, in which tradable goods in the market are
defined by the characteristics attributed to them in
successive qualifications and requalifications, including
those enacted by consumers. Different actors come
onto the scene at different stages in the . . . career
(ibid., p. 204), and all attachment is constantly threatened (ibid., p. 205). As Callon et al. also state, Attached consumers are ones who are caught up in
routines. They are driven by the distributed apparatus
of qualification. The differences they perceive and the
evaluations they make are stabilized, objectified. They
buy goods, the qualities of which they are familiar.
They grade them and then use those scales (p. 206).
Callon and Muniesa (2005) provide examples of
requalification processes that would be labeled within
marketing as the repositioning of products (Kotler,
Keller, et al., 2006). Requalification can occur when
consumers begin questioning the position and qualities of a certain product: Consumers engaged in the
requalification process hesitate (Callon et al., 2002, p.
206) because their preferences are not stable. Their
attachments to specific products or brands are missing, weak, or broken for some reason or another. They
are searching. When the process of debate, struggle,
questions, and trials are settled (at least for the time
being) it is regarded as a (temporary) qualification
(moment). Using a coconstructivist view of value creation, the qualification and requalifications related to
the life of the Egg are analyzed in the next section.

Coconstructivistic Interpretation of the Life of


the Egg
The life of the Egg is divided into five periodsa significant number, given that they each represent parts of
the qualificationrequalification dynamics requiring that
networks around the product be established (or broken)
as value is increased or reduced. Each period is labeled
with the identified metaphors. Specifically, the actors,
the relationships (networks), and the qualities that enable the value construction to be stable for a period were
identified. Within the ANT framework, such a narrative
is the analysis, but some implications are discussed in the
last section after this theoretical informed interpretation.

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Period 1: Creation and Launch (around 1960)


The first period involves at least five actors connected
in a network: The Styrophor (expandable polystyrene,
a type of foam); Jacobsen; the furniture manufacturer,
Fritz Hansen; the Danish welfare state; and the SAS
Royal Hotel in Copenhagen. The first part of the network includes Jacobsens search for new ideas and
materials for a new series of furniture sometime
around 1958. It also includes a furniture manufacturer that acquires the license in 1958 for using Styrophor, which was patented by BASF in 1950 but not
widely used for furniture at that time. In 1944, the
Dow Chemical Company patented an expanded polystyrene in the United States under the brand name
Styrofoam, and the material might have been used in
furniture in that country in the early 1950s. As the
design director explains, Arne Jacobsen must have
succeeded in convincing S!ren and Fritz Hansen (the
owners of the company at the time) that the technology he had learned from Eames could be used to create new designs. Id think that Jacobsen provoked
them enough that they had no choice but to let him
work with new materials.
The precise sequence of these actions is obscure
and was probably obscure at the time of the events.
The important thing here is that a new network that
will eventually constitute the Egg is under construction. Jacobsen was not merely a designer. As the Design Corner stated in 1961, The name Arne
Jacobsen has been synonymous with ultra-modern
design since 1952, when he presented his first chair,
the triple-legged affair with seat and back support in
one single piece of laminated plywood. That was the
Ant, which is still being produced today. When Jacobsen and his design studio won the contract for the
exterritorial design of a new hotel in the center of
Copenhagen, it seems that he exploited the situation
fully and tried to involve even more allies into his
network by presenting the contract-givers with the
suggestion that he should design as much of the interior as possible, including lamps, fittings, kitchenware, and furniture. As he was subsequently given
that contract before presenting the exterior design,
Fritz Hansen became more inclined to continue product development of the Egg.
The Second World War and the American designers Charles and Ray Eames belong to the network in
different ways. New technology and new materials
were developed during the war in relation to airplanes. The new technology enabled American

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

furniture designers Charles and Ray Eames to craft


the first glass fiber chairs. As the design director tells
it, the manufacturer exposed Jacobsen to these chairs
deliberately: S!ren Hansen and Fritz Hansen were
proactively trying to inspire Jacobsen. They were
among the first in the late 1940s to purchase furniture by Eames, Saarinen and Alto, and they displayed
them at the furniture fair in Copenhagen. Jacobsen
borrowed a plywood chair made by Eames and placed
it in front of his team of designers in his studio. Based
on this model, he came up with the Ant. The design
director continued: It all started with the Ant in 1952.
Im convinced that it was inspiration from Eames that
enabled Jacobsen to make the great leap in design;
otherwise I cant explain how the differences in design
from 1934 to 1952 are so significant. I think [he] was
provoked by the success of Eames and thought, I can
do that too, and even better, and he did.
The Second World War is also an actor, as it represented values and designs to be avoided or juxtaposed from, as the professor in design explained: The
Egg represents the organic paradigm, a feminine esthetic, a product that appeals to the home of the welfare society. As such it is a radical break from
functionalism, with its standards for mass production
and rationality that had dominated the years since the
war. It was a period with new optimism and more
risk taking and a growing welfare society. He continued: We were headed into the 1960s, a time when
many things happened in Denmark; there was an economic upturn, and the mentality was changing. People were ready to embrace new things. This optimism
is also shown in the furniture producers willingness to
assume risks and put new furniture into production,
regardless of the outlook for success. According to the
design director, back then, in the 1950s and 1960s,
we had producers who were willing to assume risk;
there were new materials, a new social system, an upswing after the war, and lots of opportunities. Designers were politically engaged and wanted to make
furniture that the new, young families could enjoy.
But it was also a time of brilliant journalists who were
able to communicate and spread the news of these
new types of furniture; Politiken [a main DK newspaper], played a major role, but so did exhibitions and
department stores.
Jacobsen began the innovation process by drawing
rough sketches of what was to become the Egg; these
representations were transformed into full-scale
molded plaster models of the Egg (Tau and Vindum,
2002, p. 468). The final plaster model was later shown

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

807

with the Egg when it was displayed in January 1959 in


Fritz Hansens showroom (ibid.). The first public appearance of the Egg was in November 1958 at the
Formes Scandinaves exhibition at Musee des Arts
Decoratifs in Paris, where the Egg and the Swan
were presented as part of the interior for the SAS
Royal Hotel. In a 1958 article in the Danish newspaper, Politiken, a headline referring to the Formes
Scandinaves exhibition reads: The French press is
astonished by Danish Design. Other furniture fairs,
which all helped to draw attention to the new creation, followed the exhibition in Paris.
The positive critique in the media corresponds with
another actor: Danish Modern Design. The qualities of
the Egg cannot be defined without looking at the general developments within furniture design that started
in the 1930s with designer Kaare Klint. Jacobsen did
not represent anything Danish, as he was an international modernist who brought international trends
to Denmark; as such, he was tied into the story of the
great Danish furniture architects (lecture at the University of Copenhagen by design professor Lars
Dybdahl). The 1950s was the happiest period for
Danish furniture Design: International attention and
lots of interesting furniture in Denmark. The Copenhagen furniture fair was for everyone to see and included the best-known designers; Finn Juhl, Hans J.
Wegner, Arne Jacobsen, and Poul Kjrholm were
treated as design heroes in Denmark and abroad
(Hansen, 2006, p. 11).
The fact that Jacobsen was a strong brand is reflected in the media under such headlines as The
athlete professor, accompanied by a picture in which
he holds the lightweight Swan chair Swanover his
head. According to Hansen (p. 357), Jacobsen was
such a strong brand that critiques from the other
Danish architects did not stick to him. He was invited
to the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) to
show his design and furniture. This was the first time a
single architect was given that privilege, and Politiken
reported, Arne Jacobsen gets strong support from
British Magazines. The British architects envied him,
as he was riding a wave of publicity and had also been
given the task of designing a new dormitory for Oxford University. To celebrate his 60th birthday in
1962, a nestor among Danish architect Knud Peter
Harboe wrote a tribute to him in the Danish newspaper Aktuelt: For more than 30 years, Arne Jacobsen has been able to provoke and astonish people with
his work of arts . . . . He is the best-known Danish
architect outside of Denmark. According to an

808

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

independent furniture designer, much of the success of


the Egg can be explained by the timing of its creation:
Denmark was a powerful brand, we were known for
Danish Modern, Arne Jacobsen, B!rge Mogensen,
and Finn Juhl. Fritz Hansen was not alone in drawing
attention to the Egg; the timing of the Egg was no less
than perfect.
Another strong established network became associated with Arne Jacobsen and his Egg. In the 1950s
and 1960s, Danish Modern was supported by the Copenhagen furniture exhibition, Den Permanente,
where designers showed their work. According to
the graphic designer from Fritz Hansen, the managing director of the exhibition centre was associated
with the Egg network early and easily: S!ren Hansen
[director of sales at Fritz Hansen] . . . was an extremely outspoken person. He was chairman of
Den Permanente and chairman for Danish Handcrafts. He had access to all the right channels and
knew how to exploit them so that the Egg appeared
at the right places at the right time. He was part of a
very strong network. Today I would call him a
lobbyist. S!ren Hansen was also the man to open
the door to the American market. There is no doubt
that he played a key role in the initial success of the
Egg.
In October 1960, there was a picture of a Danish
family in the New York Times located in a typical
Danish landscape with soft hills. The mother is cooking, the son is climbing on his bicycle, and the father is
sitting and comfortably reading his newspaper in the
Egg. The picture clearly shows the optimism that the
Egg symbolizes. An article in the Chicago Daily
Tribune (now the Chicago Tribune) from February
23, 1961, has the headline, Artistry in Danish Modern, illustrated with a picture of a rococo chair opposite to the Egg.
Initially, it was the new technology and the material used for producing the Egg that received attention. The Egg was described as a sensationa novelty
in terms of the organic form and technology and,
most importantly, lightweight enough for a woman to
be able to move it easily. Hence, the Egg was ideal for
the modern housewife. However, satirical drawings in
the Danish tabloids ridiculed the fact that the Egg was
baked in an oven. Another drawing under the heading Eggitect drawn caricatured a shopping situation
in which the consumer is clearly struggling to make
sense of the Egg. The drawing insinuates that the Egg
is as comfortable as a broken shell. In a 1959 article in
the former newspaper Aftenbladet, a journalist asks

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Jacobsen if one will be able to sit comfortably in the


Egg with his wife on his lap? He answers, I have
tested it for just that, and I can say that both you and
your wife will be very comfortable in the chair together. But not everybody agreed. The Egg even
made its way into a Flintstone comic strip, in which
Barney shows off his new Egg chair to Fred, who does
not like it because it is uncomfortable. But as concluded in the same article whether you sit comfortably
in the chair does not really matter, because it is always
the designer that matters. Anecdotal evidence says
that Vice President Lyndon Johnson also found the
Egg uncomfortable when staying at the SAS Royal
Hotel in 1963.
The SAS Royal Hotel contract became an actor,
an enabler for the project to go from prototype to
production. But the hotel was also criticized after
opened to the public in 1961: It was a breakthrough
for Copenhagen, but seen from the point of view
of the common man, it was awful, states the graphic
designer from Fritz Hansen. I remember my
parents telling me that the hotel was designed by
this evil architect who wanted to control everything,
from the plates that people were eating from, to the
curtains. It was inconsistent with the Danish mentality . . . . Many people felt provoked by the Egg, the
ability to make furniture in Styrophor, and with such
an expressive look, it was too much. Other architects,
in particular, were critical of the hotel, he continues:
Of course all the architects that did not get the contract were against the Egg, and then the majority of
people were just not ready to embrace the Egg. It was
too soon for them; they were not aware of the developments around the world that Arne Jacobsen was
tapping into.
The design professor says, I remember visiting the
SAS Royal Hotel in the 1960s. When you entered the
lobby you could feel the cosmopolitan atmosphere of
men traveling around the world. It represented a
niche, a futuristic but not strange space, and the
Egg played an important part in creating that special
atmosphere. Thus, the Egg served its purpose as a
lobby chair (a new wing chair) that created a closed
space for the one sitting in it but also allowed the
person to be social through the ability to turn the
chair in the direction of others. The Egg was cosmopolitan, futuristic, and provocative. The question is
whether those were the qualities that consumers
bought into when they decided to purchase the Egg.
According to the designer at Fritz Hansen, it was not
a limited elite who had the money to buy the Egg; it

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

was a chair for ordinary people: From 1959 to 1965,


Fritz Hansen produced 20,000 Eggs. Thats a lot of
Eggs, and people find it difficult to believe that we
produced that many. But back then, it was nothing
more than a chair for ordinary people. In 1967, the
womens lifestyle magazine Alt For Damerne published an article on the Egg, giving the retail price as
DKK 1.995 (USD 337).

Period 2: The Forgotten Child (around 19751980)


The 1970s were marked by economic recessions and a
less optimistic attitude toward life. The decade induced a change in manufacturing approaches at Fritz
Hansena search for more cost-effective production
methods. In 1974, this brought about a change in the
foot base of the Egg to reduce costs, as the manufacturer tried to take advantage of synergies from other
products and added a tilting mechanism to maximize
sitting comfort. As the brand manager said, In the
1970s and 1980s there were rationalizations in the
firm. They were looking for cost reductions, and they
discovered that some of the pipes could be used differently to generate synergy from other productsthe
Oxford chair, among others. The design changes
were perceived as minor adjustments at the time
they were donethe foot base that was changed,
for instance. It had a really fine base with four
branches that merged in the middle. But then in the
1970s, Fritz Hansen needed to rationalize, and made a
cross foot and a center pipe. The company also tried
to improve the comfort. As the graphic designer says,
Later on it got a tilting mechanism, because its very
steep and people were sitting like they were sitting on
a dinner table chair. So we made a tilting mechanism,
so you can move back and forth, and the Egg became
more heavy and clumsy. This change made no positive impact on sales or its public image. As the design
professor explains, One must say that very few people thought about the Egg in the 1970s and 1980s.
When Jacobsen died in 1971, there was a revival of
media interest in his work, with articles in design
magazines, the leading Danish newspapers, and even
the Washington Post, but that did not increase sales to
the disappointment of Fritz Hansens new owners, an
investment company. As the graphic designer recalls,
the Egg reached its lowest sales ever in 1979: I remember the number for 1979, when only 83 Eggs were
produced; [the investment company] was a bit disappointed, because theyd bought the factory that made
the Eggs, and then it appeared that we only made 83 a

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

809

year. It seems, then, that consumers became detached from the Egg at the same time it was attracting the attention of investors.
Three other networks were drawing support away
from the network that had previously made the Egg
successful: the small number of resources used in the
marketing of the Egg; a shift in the Zeitgeist and values; and a new designer. An economic recession
meant that the manufacturer spent less on marketing
of the Egg and promoted new products instead. The
Egg became a forgotten child, said the designer. Simultaneously the Zeitgeist changed radically compared with the postwar era. A professor in design
explained, Clearly the economy played a role, but at
all times, the Egg has been for saleon the international market as well. The mentality of the 1970s was
another obstacle for connecting the Egg with consumers. Exclusive things had been produced for a
decadent middle class. But what was the point if no
one cultivated the Egg or worshiped it? An examination of home magazines published at the beginning
of the 1970s suggests that that era was a culture of doit-yourselfers, and that it is the green-colored Vordingborg [country-style] kitchen that dominates.
Qualities like cosmopolitan and futuristic as Jacobsen had interpreted them were not appreciated; in
fact, people seemed to oppose things that had been
produced for the middle class. Then Verner Panton
emerged on the horizon. He was a provocative and
colorful new designer working for Fritz Hansen and
was competing for attention and resources. He used
strong, happy colors and inflatable furniture. He
pioneered a single-molded plastic Panton chair and
refused to accept gravity by creating the Flying Chair.
Verner Panton envisioned a colorful and happy future (http://www.vernerpanton.com) rather than the
more classical Jacobsen style. As early as 1973, the
Egg was illustrated in a setting with Panton furniture.
His furniture enjoyed high growth in sales and popularity, nearly rendering the Egg a classic from the
past. When asked what kept the Egg alive during this
period of low sales, the design director highlighted
the role played by architects who bought them
for their homes and chose them for new buildings.
In the emerging network, we see a value construction
that is stabilized by qualities like exclusiveness, contemporary Danish classic, and the Arne Jacobsen
brand. These qualities make the Egg appear decadent
and unnecessary and therefore unappreciated and
sold only in small numbers. In the March 23, 1978,
issue of Politiken, the retail price is identified as DKK

810

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

5,795 (USD 970) for the leather version and DKK


2,765 (USD 460) for the version upholstered in fabric
(USD 970).

Period 3: The Return of the Egg (around 1995)


In this actor network, the Egg is requalified and becomes a desired object, as represented by rising sales.
Among the actors are secondhand furniture, Arne
Jacobsen exhibitions, the media, and lifestyle magazines. A struggle revolves around Fritz Hansens decision either to end the career of the Egg or to work to
rejuvenate its qualities.
In the 1990s, the sales curve of the Egg reached a
new low. Its production methods and materials had
moved the Egg from an affordable to an expensive
piece of furniture. As the design director said, Back
then, Fritz Hansen was seriously considering ending
the production of Eggs. Today, its completely absurd
to talk about that. According to the design director,
a consultancy company concluded that there was no
future market for expensive furniture: We hired a
consultancy to tell us about the future trends. They
came back to us and said, that people would spend
money on accessories, watches, clothes, sunglasses,
shoes and so on. Stuff that you wear and people can
see. Furniture was out of the question, because its
only in Scandinavia, USA and perhaps Japan that
you invite people home for dinner. Elsewhere you go
out for a drink. But as it turned out, they were wrong.
People wanted to show off their new kitchen, and the
home became the center of attention.
Parallel to thoughts about taking the Egg out of
production, events in the early 1990s led to a renewed
interest in Jacobsen and his furniture. In 1991, the
Danish Architecture Centre displayed an exhibition
about his life and works, and in the same year a red
Egg appeared on the front cover of the Danish design
magazine Bo Bedre, marking that magazines 30th
anniversary. The exhibition was one of several that
renewed and increased attention to the Egg from the
mid 1990s. Although sales numbers were still low, the
Egg was widely represented in the 1980s and 1990s,
especially on front covers of magazines but also on
television shows. As Fritz Hansens brand manager
says, In 1980s and 1990s, the Egg had many appearances on TV shows like MTV and in music videos and
movies. But it was not deliberate product placement
on our part; it was more coincidental. And of course,
if asked, we supported these things. We also placed

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Bill Clinton in the Egg a couple of times, when we


thought it would make good pictures. A change in
lifestyle supported this increased exposure, and the
Zeitgeist reconnected with the Egg network, according to the design director from Fritz Hansen: Ten
years ago a new kind of lifestyle started appearing in
home decorating and womens magazines, and in order to fill the pages with suitable material they started
to send journalists to furniture fairs, and these journalists told the story about the furniture and designers. So the stories [about the Egg] were all over, when
you were sitting in the waiting room of the dentist,
and browsing through a magazine, you would find
furniture and the story of the designer.
These lifestyle magazines connected to an emerging
image of retro furniture as super modern. Fritz Hansen also worked proactively to stimulate the wave of
storytelling surrounding lifestyle objects, and the
Arne Jacobsen brand and the ambitions of the manufacturer also grew. In 1998, a business newspaper
article stated, Fritz Hansen wants to be a brand.
The recently appointed chief executive officer at Fritz
Hansen implemented a strategy with the purpose of
transforming the production company into a branded
goods company. The idea was further strengthened
when Fritz Hansen became the Republic of Fritz
Hansen. According to the graphic designer, the purpose of the brand name Republic of Fritz Hansen was
to illustrate that once one buys a piece of furniture
made by Fritz Hansen, that person becomes part of a
culture, a distinguished elitepart of a republic. The
brand manager explained, We concluded that it was
naive to believe that Fritz Hansen could brand itself
as a furniture company. We realized that the only way
to build a strong brand was to establish a platform
around the designers, so that we could tell the great
story of Jacobsen, Kjrholm, Wegner, and contemporary designers. Thats why we became the Republic
of Fritz Hansen.
The increased price created a secondhand market
as the Egg attracted attention. A newspaper article
from 1992 showed that the Egg was hot again, because consumers wanted something different from the
straight-line designs of the 1980s. The headline
from a 1992 newspaper article in Politiken read,
An eternally young classic. The price of the
leather-upholstered version was USD 7,600. An article from Bo Bedre stated that a piece of furniture becomes a classic because it represents good style and
quality. The headline of a 1996 article in JyllandsPosten read, The Egg still has it, and a 1998 head-

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

line in Berlingske Tidende read 40 yearsand still


young. That article referred to the Egg as an Iconic
chair. The organic form, the craftsmanship, and the
design icon are attributed qualities. Despite these
qualities, the sales numbers were extremely low
around 1994 to 1996; however, the network was expanding and involved still more actors. The Egg also
emerged as a secondhand object, priced well above the
retail prices of the originals; as a 1994 article in the
magazine UD og Se read, The Return of the Egg.
Young people have fallen in love with the old originals that sell as secondhand furniture. The design director regarded the secondhand market as a valuable
actor for the success of the Egg: The popularity of
secondhand furniture is difficult to explain, but I
guess there is an extra dimension to secondhand furniture compared with new furniture. Theres nothing
as beautiful as a piece of furniture on which you can
see the patina. The design director explained that the
secondhand market was an international phenomenon: The market for secondhand furniture really
started in the 1990s. Not just in Denmark, but internationally, a new culture started to grow around classic furniture. Especially Eames and Jacobsen. Go to
Paris, and youll see that these two dominate the market. This trend and the exclusivity of the Egg were
reflected at an auction in Stockholm around 2002:
An Egg sold for USD 30,000 at an auction. Thats a
lot of money, and I dont know if it was because
Marilyn Monroe had been sitting nude in it or what
the story is. At an auction in Copenhagen, a Swan
with two cigarette burns was purchased for USD
5,000. When youre willing to pay that amount of
money, you have to know who smoked that cigarette, says the brand manager.
A change in the Zeitgeist supported or produced by
the media and lifestyle magazines become actors that
attribute qualities to the Egg. An increase in sales began because of representations of the Egg in lifestyle
magazines, along with the storytelling of the great
designer, Arne Jacobsen. The secondhand market was
also an important actor. Original Eggs are wanted
and traded at auctions, which also becomes a framing
device for the qualities of the Egg. The value construction of the Egg is stabilized by qualities like original, exclusive, iconic, and all-time classic, and Fritz
Hansen tries to add craftsmanship and the Republic
brand as a value. Lifestyle magazines and auctions are
identified as framing devices that reframe the Egg as
currently being highly exclusive and modern. According to the April 17, 1996, issue of Jyllands-Posten, the

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

811

leather version of the Egg was selling at 28,807 DKK


(USD 4,800) and the wool fabric version at 15,143
DKK (USD 2,500).

Period 4: The Original Egg (around 2002)


The fourth period and its network involve three actors: McDonalds, which wanted to revitalize its chain
of fast food restaurants by using Egg chairs; British
furniture companies, which were marketing for copies
of the Egg at low prices; and Fritz Hansen, which responded with an aggressive IPR strategy and introduced different framing devices to demonstrate the
originality of the Egg. The key struggle that threatened the network and increased sales in the previous
period led to a qualification of the Egg through the
notion of originality. The distinction between an
original Egg and a copy proved to be so significant
that Fritz Hansen made an effort to deploy new devices that helped the consumer to frame the Egg as
having extraordinary value.
In 2007, several British retail stores began to market copies priced well below the original Egg (e.g.,
www.mojointeriors.co.uk), and the original pieces
traded on the secondhand market at auctions. As
the IPR coordinator at Fritz Hansen revealed, According to Danish copyright law, the product is protected for 70 years after the death of the designer; the
Egg is also protected by a [three-dimensional] 3-D
certification, which makes it possible for us to press
charges against British firms that copy the Egg. It is
perfectly legal for Danish consumers to purchase a
copy of the Egg from England, as long as the Danish
consumer does not sell it or give it away. Although
this is currently the law, the IPR coordinator says that
this was not always the case: We have seen incidences in which copies of the Egg have been on sale,
priced as if it were an original. Some consumers prefer
the copies over the originals, as they are priced significantly lower.
The furniture designer believed that the real hardcore Arne Jacobsen fans need a label of originality.
The question is whether the copies make the originals
more or less valuable. The furniture designer added,
The classic Egg consumer has nothing against the
fact that his peers have obtained Eggs as well, but if it
becomes too mainstream then it becomes a problem.
Thus, the copies do have an effect on the value construction of the Egg.
Fritz Hansens collaboration with McDonalds is a
good example of the struggles around the originality

812

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

of the Egg. McDonalds wanted to revitalize its chain


of restaurants and approached Fritz Hansen; the
company was willing to collaborate. The brand manager explained, Our mission statement says that our
job is to enhance our customers image though exclusive design furniture, so in that way the collaboration
with McDonalds was spot on. McDonalds purchased 2,500 Eggs, and the two firms set up a pilot test
introducing Eggs in selected restaurants. As Eggs began to turn up in restaurants around the world, the
event made headlines in magazines and newspapers.
Consumers were surprised to find exclusive furniture
and burgers in the same place. A conflict arose when
Fritz Hansen learned that some McDonalds restaurants in England had bought copies of the Egg as well.
There was nothing illegal in their doing so, and McDonalds could find no reason to prevent its English
franchisers from buying copies. In response, Fritz
Hansen decided to terminate the contract with McDonalds immediately. Although it seemed to be a
good idea initially to collaborate with McDonalds,
the brand manager at Fritz Hansen considered it to
have been a risky decision: From a branding perspective, I cant say that I wasnt happy to get out of
the deal with McDonalds . . . . Clearly we miss out on
a lot of money. But for the sake of Fritz Hansen and
the Egg, I believe its a good thing that we dont get
overexposed.
According to Jyllands-Posten, a 2002 exhibition at
the Danish modern art museum, Louisiana, on the life
and work of Arne Jacobsen received far more visitors
than expected. The same year, in an opening speech
for an exhibition on Jacobsen at the Design Museum
in Oslo, a curator at the Norwegian Museum of Art
and Design claimed that the Egg was created not by
Jacobsen but by the Norwegian Henry Klein. According to the graphic designer at Fritz Hansen, the company acquired chairs made by Klein along with the
patent rights. Although it turned out not to be true
that Klein had come up with the design for the Egg,
the event made headlines in newspapers and drew attention to the topic of the Eggs originality.
The dilemma concerning the originality of the Egg
and the high value of originals from the 1960s affected
the value construction. Consumers call and tell us
that they have found this Egg at an auction, and they
want to know if it really is an original. Sometimes, if
its a very old Egg, we cant tell for sure, said the IPR
coordinator. Fritz Hansen responded by mobilizing
new framing devices to assist consumers in its decision-making process (Callon et al., 2002). Fritz Han-

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

sen began to label all its furniture. In the beginning, it


was because of theft, as the furniture designer said,
Our furniture gets stolen all the time; therefore we
have to label it, so the consumer has a chance of
getting his piece of furniture back. According to the
designer, however, . . . Its much more a question of
making clear distinctions between originals and copiesmaking a certification or label of originality. A
little red label that signifies the originality of the Egg
becomes a framing device, because it helps the consumer to judge the qualities of the Egg. Even though
the Egg, with its organic form, is easily identifiable, it
is the red label that establishes the value of the product. Moreover, if consumers get their original Egg
upholstered at Fritz Hansen, they receive a certificate
guaranteeing that it is a real Egg, which adds value if
it is later sold.
These framing devices also act as powerful weapons against illegal copies, something Fritz Hansen
only recently has begun to focus on, according to the
IPO coordinator. Copies did not exist previously in
numbers of any significance. We have started to use
this little red label to signify that this is an original
Fritz Hansen piece of furniture. If somebody copies
our furniture and applies the red label, then we can
press charges for trademark violations. According to
the IPO coordinator, Fritz Hansen is devoting more
and more resources to fighting copies: We prepare
many court cases based on copyright infringement,
but few of them get as far as the courts. Were often
able to settle the case with the infringer, and the pieces
of furniture are destroyed.
The importance of craftsmanship adds value and
has recently been explicitly associated to the network
of the Egg. According to Callon et al. (2002, p. 198),
the attribution of qualities depends on the instruments
used for testing the product; hence, quality assurance
at Fritz Hansen affects the value of the Egg. As an
upholsterer at Fritz Hansen explains, each Egg really
is unique: The Eggs are never the same. Nothing is
carried out by measurement; everything relies on rule
of thumb. On Monday the Egg is worked one way, on
Friday its different. Every Egg is unique and sometimes I make mistakes, but like a painter of porcelain,
only I see it. Fritz Hansen does have measures for
quality: We have rules, but they are rather fluid, and
they depend on the mood Im in and the mood of my
colleagues. If its one stitch that isnt well made, its
okay, but if its three stitches or other things, then its
not okay. The stitching is the absolute measure of
the quality of the Egg. As the craftsman told us: The

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

continuous success of the Egg depends on the use of


the original production methods. If Fritz Hansen
moves too far from these methods, then it will bring
an end to the Egg. You could put a zipper into the
fabric, so you could change it, but then it wouldnt be
the same. As long as the craftsmanship remains the
same, it doesnt matter if you change the fabric, if its
textile, leather, or fur. A furniture designer from
outside the company believes that the quality of the
Egg is not necessarily better because Fritz Hansen
upholsters it: Most of the original Eggs need to be
upholstered again, and Fritz Hansen claims that only
the firm can make a good job of upholstering the
originalsafter all they know the furniture. But any
gifted upholsterer can do the job just as well, so its a
question of trust more than anything else.
In the fourth period and network, the qualification
of the Egg revolves around the dilemma of originality.
Copies destabilize the value construction of the Egg.
On the other hand, copies of the Egg play a significant
role in creating headlines in newspapers and putting
the Egg on the agenda. Fritz Hansen mobilizes new
framing devices to support the qualification and singularization of the Egg. Consumers are attached to
the original Egg and to copies of the Egg at the same
time, thereby threatening its value construction. The
craftsmanship of upholstery by Fritz Hansen becomes
important as an actor constructing the value of the
original Egg. The value construction of the Egg is
stabilized by assigning qualities like originality, craftsmanship, and exclusivity, enabling a distinction from
the copies. Framing devices like the red tag are
mobilized by Fritz Hansen to qualify a certain Egg
as an original Egg. A special fur-covered version developed in collaboration with the fashion house Birger
Christensen was put on sale in 2000 for DKK 75,000
(USD 12,000), while a downscaled Egg 1:6 was selling
for DKK 2,000 (US 322). The auction house, Lauritz.com, sold a 50th edition Egg chair for DKK
84,000 (USD 13,500).

Period 5: Fifty and Funky (around 2008)


The last network stabilized temporarily around
2008the year the Egg turned 50. Despite its age,
the Egg has regained its success and is now more
popular than ever. Fritz Hansen is active in the qualification process, as it celebrates the anniversary of the
Egg. Actors in the present network are Fritz Hansen,
the Egg, consumers, the upholsterer, and artist Tal R.

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

813

Some struggles are evolving around the different


strategies of Tal R and Egg marketing and between
protectors of a classical Egg image inside Fritz Hansen and the involvement with Tal R.
The anniversary edition Egg, called the Golden
Egg, is an individually numbered Egg in chocolate
brown leather with soft, smooth suede on the back
and with a hand-polished solid bronze base as a finishing touchand limited to 999 items (Fritz Hansen
Anniversary Book, 2008, p. 22). The Golden Egg has
been successful from the beginning, as the brand manager from Fritz Hansen shared: The anniversary
Eggs that we launched in February were sold before
wed placed the first advertisement in the paper. . . .
We thought that retailers would buy a couple of them,
sell them, and place a new order, but we sold out before launch. And I think the retailers sold out quickly
as well. It was crazy.
With the particular choice of materials, the Egg
supports the qualities of being classic and stylish; as
such it becomes even more exclusive: We chose the
bronze base to make it more exclusive and more special because Jacobsen would have used it in his time.
Some people may find it disgusting and laughable, but
in fact it is historically correct, claimed the design
director. According to the external furniture designer,
this choice of material easily fits the consumers that
Fritz Hansen wishes to attach to the Egg network:
The golden base fits perfectly with the consumers
who want to profile their own status through the Egg.
Actually, they could have made the entire chair in
gold, because you almost feel like you covered in gold
when sitting there with all your power in a chair that
actually is too small. The limited numbers make it
even more interesting, and, according to the professor, owning it will make a statement: To make limited editions means that some people will go for it and
feel that they become more important by buying it. It
supports their egos, and in that way they demonstrate
that they have money to buy these Eggs. The main
target with this model was private consumers, and the
interessement has been successful, as sales data indicate. In the Danish market, 52% were sold to private
consumers in 2001. In 2007, this number increased to
77%.
The Golden Egg has facilitated the attachment of
more private consumers to the network and has successfully created extra expressions of uniqueness in the
999 jubilee items. The uniqueness is attached to the Egg
by giving each one a unique number, an engraved Arne
Jacobsen signature, and the special golden bronze base.

814

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

Sales numbers indicate that consumers are embracing


the Egg enthusiastically. As one young Golden Egg
consumer explained, When I saw the anniversary Egg
I thought I needed to have it . . . Its so beautiful, and
its a good investment. Moreover, only 999 copies have
been made. So its unique, and I know that no more
than 998 other people have this Egg. She had a great
passion for Jacobsens designs and had been collecting
them since she was 9 and dreaming about owning an
Egg one day: For me it is a dream come true, because
Ive always dreamed about having an Egg, and now I
finally have one. And its much more than an Egg; its
something special.
Before she bought the Golden Egg, she had another
Egg covered in white leather, but because it was reupholstered she did not enjoy it as much as the
Golden Egg: There are many people who cant understand it. They say, Did you really buy it? They
would rather buy a car or pay down debt. But I chose
to use equity in my apartment to buy it. She considered the Egg to be a useful piece of art as well as an
investment. In fact, she said, Ive signed up for another Golden Egg, but for an investment. Ive seen on
the Internet that theyre already selling for up to USD
22,000.
A married couple who already owned a red Egg
was attached to the Golden Egg because it was limited: Its like a sculpture; its made special, with only
999 copies, so I think it is unique, said the wife. The
husband saw the Golden Egg at a retailers exhibition:
It was placed in a small niche, and the lightning was
perfect. It looked so impressive that I thought I
needed to have such an Egg. . . . When I heard that
500 Eggs were already sold before they had reached
the retailers, then I wanted to have it. You know,
suddenly greediness arose, because there were only a
few left. Then I wanted it even more. Normally, they
would not have bought such an expensive piece of
furniture without thorough consideration, but with
the pressure to make a fast decision they decided to go
ahead with the purchase while it was still possible.
They do not often sit on the Golden Egg; the husband
finds it uncomfortable, and the fact that it is placed in
the hall makes it appear more like a sculpture. Unlike
her husband, the wife uses their red Egg more because
it is in the living room: Naturally its the red Egg that
we placed in the living room, and I sit in it when I
watch the news. Later I move over to the softer
couch. By placing the Golden Egg in the hall, this
couple can experience it many times a day when passing by: It had to be placed in a unique spot; it would

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

be a shame to place it with other furniture. Some


people find it a pity that its in the hall. But the couple emphasizes that they prefer the qualities of craftsmanship, timelessness, and classical lines, and they
appreciate Jacobsens genius. They did not purchase
the Egg as an investment, because they believe people
should buy it because the Egg is valuable but because
they like it. They have followed the prices on the Internet, but unless there is some radical change in their
economic situation they have other plans for it: I
think our children will inherit it. They would like to
have it. A couple of years ago they said that they
would like a brown leather Egg with patina.
An owner of the Golden Egg can receive a book
about the Egg and Arne Jacobsen by signing up at
Fritz Hansens homepage. Thus, the book acts a
framing device that assists in the singularization of
the Golden Egg. The book received mixed reviews
from consumers, however: I think its a good idea
that you can register on the homepage, but Im really
not impressed by the book. Its so small. The font is in
bronze, but its nothing compared with the investment
Ive made, so I find it very feeble, says the young
consumer. The married couple thinks it is a funny
idea, as consumers can read about Arne Jacobsen
and his history, and it makes the purchase a bit more
unusual.
Fritz Hansen has received many messages from
satisfied consumers, such as the following:
! I am really enjoying the Egg, thank you. I was
wondering if you have an anniversary footstool
(Quote from consumer. Source: Fritz Hansen).
! Thank you so much. Now I have signed up for
the book and am looking forward to reading it
while sitting in my Egg, which I am so pleased
withthey are the best USD 15,000 I have spend
in a long time (Quote from consumer. Source:
Fritz Hansen).
! Dear Sir/Madam I am very, very pleased to have
acquired number 2 of your 50th Anniversary Egg
chair in March this year, from Chaplins of London, who also gave me excellent service. I am also
led to believe (please correct me if I am wrong)
there will be a similar limited edition Swan Chair.
For my own collection, I would be overjoyed if it
were at all possible to acquire number 2 of this
Classic piece of furniture/art. Can I please stress
that I am not purchasing these chairs for profit,
but to add to my collection of 20th century furniture design. It would be lovely to know what

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

part of the world number 1 of the Golden Egg is?


Museum? MoMA? Keep up the good work
(Quote from consumer. Source: Fritz Hansen).
As an artistic tribute to the Egg and in its attempt
to change the Egg into a piece of art, Fritz Hansen
collaborated with the artist Tal R, who created 50
unique patchwork editions of the Egg. Tal R could be
considered an important actor in this project of raising the Egg to the level of art. He was definitely one of
Denmarks most renowned and acknowledged artists
in 2008. Hence, the collaboration with Tal R can be
considered cobranding. According to the brand manager, Fritz Hansen aims to bring the Egg into museums, galleries, and exhibitions with this event and to
qualify it as a piece of art. The Tal R project met resistance from Fritz Hansen employees, however. Tal
R was not considered to be sufficiently related to the
Egg network, and he did not know the history behind
the Egg. According to the brand manager, the Egg
fascinated Tal R because it was an egg, and as such it
represented a Freudian symbol: the womb and the
ability to create new life. Tal R wanted to collaborate
only if he would be allowed to accomplish his idea.
The design director was against the project: Personally I wasnt pleased with the Tal R Eggs. Not because I dont find it cool to collaborate with artists but
because I dont think that Tal Rs artistic concept was
interesting enough. I dont think that patchwork was
artistically genuine enough. But I wasnt allowed to
decide, so the Tal R Eggs have been created against my
will. The Arne Jacobsen Foundation, which manages
the copyrights on Jacobsens works, was not pleased
with the idea either. As the brand manager explained,
When deciding on new models of the Egg, we sit
down with Arne Jacobsens grandson and with Arne
Jacobsens son, who is an old and intelligent man, yet
he has a totally different background. They try to decide on what Arne Jacobsen would have thought in the
given situation, and thats impossible, because it was
over 50 years ago. We have to think in terms of present
references, and that creates some clashes, because they
cant understand all of these things, and clearly many
people feel that we are running a whorehouse business
when we dress the Egg in patchwork.
The brand manager explained the suspense in Tal
Rs idea: Its about that patchwork. Its an old needlework tradition, its about reuse, and in relation to
style and exclusivity it is radically opposite. Theres a
clash between the expensive, exclusive, and minimalistic Egg and collected pieces of old clothes from sec-

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

815

ondhand markets. Employees at Fritz Hansen were


skeptical at the beginning of the project. As the brand
manager recalled about one upholsterer: He has upholstered these 50 Eggs. . . . In the beginning he almost refused to do so, because it was a sacrilege, and
it has something to do with the professional discipline
of upholstering. Primarily its about getting the upholstery as smooth as possible, and this design required the material to be fluffy. He couldnt cope with
that in the beginning, until he met Tal R and the project began. It changed dramatically, however. The
women who sew, the cutters and the upholsterer that
worked on the project, they all had tears in their eyes
when they talked about the project; they loved to
work in this period where they made these Eggs because it was such a fun process.
The upholsterer shared his view on the Egg
changes: In the beginning neither I nor anyone else
in the company believed that we could do such a
thing. People said that it would never work. Everything on an Egg needs to be tightened, and it definitely
was not. Then Tal R came by and explained the idea,
and then I started to embrace the idea, and from his
explanations Ive made the Eggs. For him it was
important to forget about traditions, to make a new
Egg in this material, and I have done so . . . I think
theyre beautiful, Ive nurtured every single one
of them, I got a bag with fabric and we saw a poster
with all the chairs, the women who sew were also
there, so we talked about each of the squares in the
chair.
Tal R and the 50 patchwork Eggs were exhibited
around the globe in 2008 in places like Corso Como,
Seoul, South Korea, North America, and various cities in Europe. The external furniture designer was not
impressed and said, Many have done that over the
years, and it is a way to keep bringing it up to date. . . .
Its 100% [public relations] PR. The marketing department claims that consumers have shown interest
in the Tal R Eggs, whereas incarnate Egg connoisseurs are skeptical about the whole idea. The wife of
the married couple interviewed for this studysaid
that she would never consider owning one of the
patchwork editions: . . . First of all its PR. Second
it is something unique; the attention is pulled to the
Egg and Fritz Hansen when Tal R creates these Eggs,
and I wouldnt own one. I dont know what to do with
it, and you cant sit in it either. Her husband finds
the patchwork Eggs stylish, but it would not be
enough to own just one because then it would look
like the chair was covered with an old cloth. It would

816

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

make sense only if three to four Eggs were placed


together. One young, passionate Egg consumer
had strong words for the patchwork Eggs: I dont
like them at all. I dont get it. I would never buy
such an Egg. The fabrictoo many things are going
on at the same time; it would never work with my
paintings and pillows. And the fabric wears out
when it is used. No, I prefer leather; it will last in
the long run.
In 2008, Fritz Hansen conducted an Internet poll
on the question: The Tal R Eggshot or notIs it a
great update to a classic or is it a tragedy? Of the 336
respondents, only 53 voters liked the update; 283 did
not like it. The value construction of the classical Egg
is challenged somewhat successfully in this period.
The celebration of the Eggs 50th anniversary with the
Golden Egg and the art project becomes part of the
Egg network, drawing even more customers to the
Egg Through different qualities of the new Eggs.
The value construction of the Egg is stabilized by
three different interpretations of its qualities: One expresses qualities like modern classic, a safe choice of
style, a symbol of status and image, a functional
sculpture, and exclusive quality. Furthermore, the
Golden Egg has the qualities of being a distinctive
and limited piece of furniture and therefore qualifies
as an investment. Finally, the patchwork edition
elevates the Egg to the level of art, which ultimately
illustrates its timelessness.
Different framing devices (Table 3) facilitate the
creation of temporarily stable networks around certain qualities of the Egg during each period. The
different qualities establish distinctions, which are significant for the value construction to be stable but not
homogenous. During the last period, for instance, the
Golden Egg and the Tal R Egg seemed to be able to
coexist without jeopardizing the value construction.
In fact, the value was made stronger because a clear
distinction between exclusivity and lack of style was
established, illustrating that value is relational: that
different actors attribute conflicting qualities to the
Egg enables different networks to support the Egg,
thereby increasing sales volumes and value. If Fritz
Hansen were to have followed the prescriptions of the
PLC theory, the firm should have terminated the production of Eggs when its sales began to decline. The
story demonstrates, however, that new connections
can be made, that new qualifications are possible, that
sales curves can be negotiated and changed, and that
new actors can be enrolled to increase the value once
again (Figure 3).

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Discussion
Hertenstein, Platt, and Veryzer (2005) found that
firms with high design effectiveness perform better financially, although the processes that produce the
high design are less well known. What has made the
Egg so successful? Why is it currently so popular?
What has created the value of the product? By drawing on recent ANT writings to develop the network
perspective, this study offers a fourth perspective on
value creation: valuing, or the network process perspective (Christiansen and Varnes, 2007, 2008, 2009).
Contrary to what this study calls the firm perspective,
Callon et al. (2002) argue that the value creation process is better understood in terms of value constructions that are continuously negotiated in networks
incorporating different actors. We have observed how
the qualification and requalification processes attaches or detaches actors through several periods
and how the framing of the Egg becomes an important actor in these processes. When the framing is unsuccessful, actors are not drawn into the network, and
consumers that are already connected leavewhen
new trends in society are not matched by a reframing
of the Egg into that context, for instance.
There are presently significant differences between
a product life cycle and a reconstructed Egg. It seems
impossible a priori to determine in which PLC phase
the Egg is presently situated: growth, maturity, or decline. The framing strategy of launching an anniversary edition could be categorized as both a market
modification (i.e., strengthening the market of private consumers even more) and a marketing-mix
modification (i.e., by enhancing the price or a hidden
harvesting strategy) (Kotler, Keller, et al., 2006).
During the first period, the value construction of the
Egg is stabilized by qualities like cosmopolitan, futuristic, and provocative but also by uncomfortable. The
Egg was a sensation in many respects, due to its lightweight, organic form and its production method. Despite these qualities and because of its price, it was a
chair for ordinary people.
About 20 years later, during the second period, the
prior network was destabilized, and the value construction of the Egg was then stabilized by qualities
like contemporary Danish, classic, and decadent. The
Egg managed to survive, however, and about 15 years
later it regained the status of fashionable.
During the third period, a value construction of the
Egg was stabilized by qualities like iconic chair and
all-time classic. The sales curve accelerated from 2001

Value
Construction

Framing
Devices

Qualities

Actors

The value construction of the


Egg is stabilized by qualities like
cosmopolitan, futuristic, and
provocative. Yet the quality of
uncomfortable is also attributed
to the Egg.

Danish modern
Den Permanente sales
exhibition
Eames and other architects
Economy and World War II
Fritz Hansen
Formes Scandinaves in Paris
Media
New production technology
Plaster model of the Egg
Professor Arne Jacobsen
Price tag
RIBA
SAS Royal Hotel
Styrophors
S!ren Hansen
A chair for ordinary people
Brand of Arne Jacobsen
Cosmopolitan
Craftsmanship
(Exclusive)
Feminine aesthetic
Futuristic
Ideal for home and house wife
Light-weight
New version of a wing-chair
Organic form
Provocative
Sensation
Uncomfortable
SAS Royal Hotel
Formes Scandinaves in Paris
New production technology
Professor

Actor Network 1
Creation and Launch

The value construction of the


Egg is stabilized by qualities
like Danish classic, brand of
Arne Jacobsen, and exclusive.
These qualities make the Egg
appear decadent and
unnecessary, and
are thus not appreciated.

Cost-effective methods

Arne Jacobsen Brand


Contemporary Danish
classic
Craftsmanship
Decadent
Exclusive
Heavy and clumsy
Organic form

Architects
Arne Jacobsen
Economic recession
Fritz Hansen
Lifestyle
Media
Scandinavian Furniture Fair
Verner Panton

Actor Network 2
The Forgotten Child

The value construction of the


Egg is stabilized by qualities
like original, exclusive, iconic,
and an all-time classic.

Auctions
Lifestyle magazines

Arne Jacobsen Brand


(Arne Jacobsen)
Classic
Craftsmanship
Exclusive
Icon
Modern
Organic form
Original
Retro

Arne Jacobsen exhibitions


Auction
Home
Lifestyle magazines
Media
MTV and celebrities
Secondhand furniture
The Republic of Fritz Hansen

Actor Network 3
The Return of
the Egg
Actor Network 4
The Original Egg

Arne Jacobsen brand


Craftsmanship
Exclusive
Functional sculpture
Investment
Limited
Modern classic
Organic form
Symbol of status and image
The safe choice of style
Timeless
Unique

Arne Jacobsen Foundation


Fritz Hansen
Golden Egg consumers
Hans, the upholster
Tal R, the artist
The Egg

Actor Network 5
Fifty and funky

999 limited editions


Anniversary book
Brand of Arne Jacobsen
Retail stores marketing (e.g. Brdr.
Friis)
Fritzhansen.com
Internet pooling
Newsletters
Republic of Fritz Hansen
Tour of Tal R Eggs
The value construction of the
The value construction of the Egg is
Egg is stabilized by qualities like stabilized by qualities like modern
original, craftsmanship, and
classic, a safe choice of style, and a
exclusive, enabling a distinction symbol of status and image. The
from the copies.
anniversary Egg is qualified as unique
and limited, hence it is an investment.
The Tal R Egg elevates the Egg to art.

3D certification
Original certification
Red label of Fritz Hansen
Trademark

Arne Jacobsen Brand


Copy
Craftsmanship
Exclusive
Organic form
Original

Classicfurniture4u.com
Fritz Hansen
Louisiana exhibition
McDonalds
Mojointeriors.co.uk

Table 3. Actors, Qualities, Framing Devices, and Value Construction Related to the Five Periods

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES


J PROD INNOV MANAG
2010;27:797827
817

818

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Figure 3. Periods and Moments of Qualifications and Requalifications in the Life of the Egg

onward, and, simultaneous with its success, the debate


about originality became central in the fourth network. During this period, the value construction
of the Egg was stabilized by qualities like original,
craftsmanship, and exclusive, providing the original
Egg with a greater value than its copies.
In 2008, at age 50, the Egg regained its success. The
network now consists of a multitude of actors from
design, production, and consumption. In the fifth network, the value construction of the Egg is stabilized
by qualities like modern classic, safe choice of style, a
symbol of status and image, a functional sculpture, and
exclusiveness. Furthermore, the Golden Egg has the
qualities of a unique and limited piece of furniture,
thereby qualifying it as an investment.
What becomes clear from these five value constructions is that the meaning of the Egg has been transformed. From being a sensational and provocative
chair aimed at modern yet ordinary people with an
interest in design, the Egg acquired the status of an
iconic modern classic and is now a safe choice of style
for a consumer base that wishes to portray an image
of status, either by association with the classic version
or by purchasing the artistic version. Hence, the Egg
has become a brand symbol and a status symbol. It
has been transformed from an innovative chair to a
classic piece of furniture, due to framing devices mobilized by Fritz Hansen. The Egg is currently recognized as a sculpture and an art object, which were not
the qualities emphasized when it was first introduced
in 1958. The aim at that time was not to create a
timeless classic but to be innovative and modern. And
lately the Egg, especially the expensive leather limitededition version, has become an investment.

The concurrent presentation of the Golden Egg and


the Tal R Egg are of interest because the move seems
counterintuitive on the surface. The Golden Egg is a
symbol of exclusivity and high-end design and is one of
the most expensive pieces of furniture manufactured by
Fritz Hansen. On the other hand, the Tal R Egg signifies both high culture (as an art object) and lack of
culture (due to its fabric upholstery that wears out when
used). It will not age as well as the original leather Eggs.
Thus, the Tal R Eggs share some qualities with the copy
Eggs sold by British retailers. Why would Fritz Hansen
want to make an anti-Egg, and how is it possible to
create a distinction between the two? The Golden Egg
was originally a commercial project, and the Tal R Egg
was intended to be an art project. The Tal R Egg helped
to make the Golden Egg even more valuable to some
consumers, whereas others can connect to the (now)
classic (original) Egg, thus making it possible for conflicting value perceptions to connect simultaneously to
the Egg project.
Another aspect of conflicting meanings relates to
the comfort of the chair. How is it possible that such
high value is attached to a lounge chair described as
uncomfortable? From the different value constructions, the fact that many consumers find the Egg uncomfortable appears not to be a problem, because
they do not buy the Egg for the purpose of sitting on
it. The Egg is often valued first for its qualities as a
sculpture and symbol of status and only second as a
chair. Its round organic form provides versatility.
This is consistent with the observations of Dellera
and Verganti (2009, p. 871), who noted, Product innovations may arise from two independent sources:
symbolism (intangible attributes) and technology

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

(tangible attributes). Symbolic innovations consist of


the assignment of social meaning to a product, while
technological innovations are those that spring from
the addition or alteration of tangible features in a
product, helping distinguish it from prior models.
The Egg demonstrates that this process is not
merely completed once but can be repeated several
times in different ways. Consistent with the studies of
Dellera and Verganti (2009, p. 875), people are currently looking for their own identity more than they
have in any previous historical age. In this sense culturally oriented products can represent significant
tools to reinforce consumers own culture and lifestyle. Furthermore, pleasure is often derived from
possessing and looking at the object, independent of
its function. Because of its organic form and manufacturing method, the Egg has endless possibilities for
upholstering. This capability enables the Egg to be
made continuously relevant and thus to appear timeless. The newly created Arne Jacobsen Foundation is
supposed to approve the design director, the upholsterer, the texture of the fabric, the softness of the
leather, all modifications to the original chair, and the
different upholsteries for each new collection,. Not
only is the Egg valued for its inherent characteristics
and the fact that it is understood and invites cocreated
experiences between the firm and the consumer, but
the limited edition and the Tal R project also become
framing devices, as they profile both the product and
the consumer (Callon et al., 2002, p. 205).

Is the Egg Story Unique?


Do other products demonstrate lives or processes similar to those of the Egg? Anecdotal evidence points to
industrial products that have or are experiencing a
second life, yet few studies have been found to indicate similar processes. Although some researchers
claim that PLCs are becoming increasingly shorter
(Carillo and Franza, 2006), some empirical research
seems to contradict this assertion. Bayus (1994, p.
301) examined seven empirical studies and found that
generally speaking there is no strong empirical support for shrinking product life cycles at the industry,
product category, product technology, or product
model level. He concluded that the shorter PLCs
seem to be based more on the intuition and gut feelings of managers and consultants than on the available empirical evidence. He also studied trends in the
consumer goods market and observed, The classic

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

819

four-stage product life cycle (with a single peak) is


only one of several patterns observed. Some products
have multiple peaks (ibid., p. 301). He presented examples from electronics and consumer goods, but his
examples with several peaks are all for relatively short
periods like two to five years, whereas the career path
of the Egg has been followed for more than 50 years.
The present studys observations suggest that the
value of an innovation and products may be more
fragileand flexiblethan the existing literature
suggests. Buganza and Verganti (2006) researched
the ways Internet service firms extend their life cycles
and achieve life cycle flexibility, and they suggested that companies should invest in front-end
and back-end technological competences, external
partners, technological openness, a low level of formalization of the development processes, and a highly
formalized project organization. The present research
extends their work by focusing on issues unrelated to
technology.
In their study of the international motorcycle industry, Pinch and Reimer (2007) explored how motorcycles are qualified and requalified by networks of
actors through processes of production, distribution,
and consumption. The authors focus on a specific
motorcycle over time: The qualification of the GS
model has evolved over 25 years since the introduction of the (now frequently referred to as iconic) R80
GS in 1980 (ibid., p. 13). The authors found that
several framing devices such as a user community had
been used, and that participation in the Paris-Dakar
Rally and marketing efforts have helped to requalify
the motorcycle. The authors conclude that innovative responses to and interventions in processes of
qualification and requalification by consumers have
been vital to their market expansion in recent years
(ibid., p. 19).
Dobers and Strannegard (2004) studied a design
object called the Cocoon and explored the ways
it was transformed by different actors (e.g., designers,
journalists, curators, exhibitions) and by different
framing devices (e.g., lifestyle magazines, exhibition
contexts, talk shows). The Cocoon is a piece of
furniture designed as a cocoon to shelter people
from the outside world. It started as a graduation
school project in design in Stockholm; it then altered
shape and became a head-cocoon and traveled
around the world to exhibitions from Tokyo to the
Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City.
In successive stages, the meaning and the form of
the Cocoon were transformed. The success of the

820

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

Cocoon is not dependent on the brilliance of the initial idea. It was in the hands of others (Latour, 1987,
1991). The Cocoon case also demonstrates how a core
concept is transformed and the importance of its ability to adapt to new and different actors over time and
to allow new actors to reinterpret the original meaning.
Another example of a prolonged life cycle comes
from Japan. A study on the return and steady sales of
the kimono in Japan indicates that it is more than a
historical dress; it is part of a much larger network
(Assmann, 2008). Buying and using a kimono connects to Japanese culture, manners, and etiquette and
links the owner and user to a certain group with a
certain social distinction by mastering the art of the
kimono; wearing a kimono has become an expression
of collective individualism.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that other products
like the Morris Mini car; Ray-Ban Sunglasses; LEGO
toy bricks; the Italian amaro or bitter, Fernet-Branca;
and the herbal digestive liqueur, Jagermeister have
experienced comebacks and a reconnection with customers. Some of these products have remained unchanged over time, whereas others, like the Morris
Mini, have experienced major product changes and
modifications over time. Ray-Ban, one of the best
selling designs of sunglasses in history, has been manufactured since 1952 and has only recently experienced a revival. Ray-Bans were in vogue during the
1950s and 1960s but lost popularity in the 1970s. Sales
plummeted during the 1980s and 1990s, with a short
peak in 1981, after the release of the movie The Blues
Brothers (18,000 pairs sold) and again in 1983 after
the release of the movie Risky Business with Tom
Cruise (36,000 pairs sold). The brand experienced
slow sales until the middle of the 2000s, when popularity exploded again. Contributing to the rebirth of
Ray-Ban was the framing in movies and the public use
of the sunglasses by famous artists.
LEGO has succeeded in transforming itself into a
new success in the past few years, after having failing
sales volumes from around 1990 until the beginning of
2000. LEGO has used the reframing device of connecting with popular movies and stories, such as
Harry Potter, fostering the creationand the good
salesof new sets of items that can help to create
Harrys magic universe in playrooms. According to
figures from AC Nielsen (2005), both Fernet-Branca
and Jagermeister belong to a segment of products that
has experienced a steady decline in Italy alone from
77,825 billion liters in 1977 to 40,000 billion liters in
1990 and then to 20,769 billion liters in 2004. Con-

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

sumption had previously been related to functional


usesas a digestive after eating. But Jagermeister has
used a carefully crafted marketing approach with
carefully selected models to promote the product
and its consumption, relating it to music and musicians in various ways, trying to frame the product
with young, modern, and trendy lifestyles. According
to the company, this approach has had great success
in both Italy and the United States. Similarly, FernetBranca has succeeded in reframing itself for younger
generations through a 2007 article the San Francisco
paper SF Weekly and another article on a famous
U.S. golfer. It is also popular in a range of countries
from Argentina to the Czech Republic. These cases
illustrate that second lives of products may extend
beyond the predictions by the linear PLC curve. Yet it
is an area that has attracted little researchan area in
which further research is clearly needed.

Does Art Behave like the Egg Behaves?


Attempts to reframe the Egg as an art object rather
than an industrial product raises the question: Does
the Egg share similarities with the product life of
art, and what are the PLCs for art? Reports on art
sales make headlines. As art is usually considered to
be a truly heterogeneous product (not including the
market for copies), it does make more sense to research prices rather than units sold. Studies on the
prices of art objects have relied upon the sales prices
reported by auction houses, which process an estimated 30 to 50% of art sales (Campbell, 2008). In
March 1987, Vincent Van Goghs (18531890) Sunflowers was sold at auction for USD 39.9 million, and
his Irises sold in November 1987 for USD 53.9 million. In May 1989, Pablo Picassos (18811973) Yo
Picasso sold for USD 47.8 millionfar more than the
USD 5.8 million that it had last commanded in May
1981. His Noces de Pierette was sold for USD 60 million. In May 1990, Van Goghs Portrait of Docteur
Gachet sold for USD 82.5 million and Pierre-Auguste
Renoirs (18411919) At the Moulin de la Galette for
USD 78.1 million. Prices such as these made these
items the most expensive paintings ever sold at an
auction (Pesando and Shum, 1999). The international
art market rose from USD 150 million in 1970 to
more than USD 1.8 billion in 1997 (Renneboog and
Van Houtte, 2002).
Such prices spur the commonly held belief that the
art market yields huge profits in comparison to other

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

more prosaic investment markets (Worthington and


Higgs, 2004, p. 258). Do art objects experience huge
variations and substantial revivals that prolong their
life? The short answer is yes and no. The prices of Van
Goghs paintings have dropped dramatically since,
and in 2007 The Fields put up for auction at Sothebys
for USD 2835 million did not attract a single bid.
Frey and Eichenberger (1995) concluded in their review of more than 20 empirical studies since the late
1970s that investing in single art objects or whole collections does not provide greater profit than investing
in more mundane markets. Studies over more than 30
years have investigated art prices, constructing different price indices and investigating the return and price
fluctuations of art, in an attempt to uncover the PLCs
of art. Examples range from Baumols (1986) influential analysis of 640 sales between 1652 and 1961,
Pesandos (1993) analysis of modern prints from
1977 to 1992, Mei and Mosess (2002) analysis of
4,896 price pairs for masterpieces covering the period
18752000, and Pesando and Shums (2008) recent
analysis of 80,214 repeat sales of prints.
Goetzmanns (1993) data analysis from 1715 to
1986 demonstrated that although returns from art
have exceeded inflation for long periods and returns
from art in the second half of the 20th century have
rivaled the stock market, they are no higher than
would be justified by the extraordinary risks. Like
most researchers in the area, Pesando and Shum had
to conclude in their recent study that the real return
on a diversified portfolio of modern prints sold at
auctions worldwide averaged a modest 1.51% during
the period 19772004. Ashenfelter and Graddys
(2003, p. 769) review of 15 studies found a real return
of between 0.6 and 5.0% for paintings in general; between 1.4 and 1.5% for modern prints, including Picasso; 1.5% for impressionists; and 2.2% for
Stradivarius violins. Several such studies have documented that art prices are strongly related to the development on the financial markets (Hiraki et al.,
2009) as demonstrated by the fact that the art index
and an index of London Stock Exchange for the period 17151986 are highly correlated (Goetzmann).
An example from a leading data provider (Art Market
Research) is shown in Figure 4, which illustrates the
latest curve for a section of paintings.
Art prices perform differently than industrial products do, and some of the factors behind this difference
have been identified (Sagot-Duvauroux, 2003): high
transactions costs; the fact that pieces that cannot
achieve the desired prices are withdrawn from the

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

821

Figure 4. Price Index for Modern European Paintings (Not Adjusted) Fetched from the Art Market Index Website (http://
www.artmarketresearch.com)

market; and the differing prices among auction houses


and between London and New York. Tastes shift, as
Baumol (1986) noted, and artists like El Greco are
forgotten for years or decades. Others, like Turner
and more recently Damien Hirst, achieve fame and
fantastic prices, only to be reduced to the ordinary or
simply forgotten. Sagot-Duvauroux also provided an
account of the factors that determine the value construction of a painting in a historical perspective, as
reflected in its price; the physical properties of the
painting, such as size and color, determined the prices
that were settled before the delivery in the Italian
Quattrocentro. From around mid-17th century
France, the choice of subjects and the number of its
elements determined the price of a painting, but by the
end of the 19th century the artists signature had become a significant variable.

Conclusions
The analytical framework employed in this paper has
made it possible to show how the value of the Egg has
been qualified and requalified in specific actor networks during its 50-year career. The network perspective gives rise to an alternative interpretation of value
creation in new product development. Given this perspective, value creation is a never-ending process, in
that the product should be considered to be a process
by which value constructions are constantly negotiated in actor networks. The processes of qualificationrequalification demonstrate that the value of a
product is not established by simple transactions. The

822

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

objective for the firm becomes the facilitation and


guidanceusing framing devicesof the continuous
flow of information among the firm, the consumer,
and other actors, so that the ability to qualify a product is preserved. The Egg is a success because various
actors have collaborated to make it so and because
different framing devices like magazines, auctions, and
limited editions have affected the value constructions.
The actors have constantly reinterpreted this design,
which has given the Egg a durable life, even if the reinterpretation may have rooted out the original meaning as the Egg was reshaped and readapted to
different historical contexts. In one network, the value
construction of the Egg was based on qualities like
futuristic and uncomfortable; in another the value construction was based on art, symbol of status, and image. The value of the Egg is continuously negotiated
in different networks. The Egg is still of value, due to
its change of meaning in different actor networks that
establish the meaning of the Egg; thus, value is relational, because it exists only in the relationship. The
interaction, connection, detachment, and reattachment in the processes around the Egg demonstrate
complex interactions among many actors, where
product qualities are framed in different ways, such
that different tastes and interpretations can connect to
the Egg and in that process recreate the Egg. What the
Egg is now, or rather has become, is the result of
changes that have occurred not only over time but
also thanks to time. The different values assigned to
the Egg during the different epochs are the outcomes
of associations and relationships made and connected
to the Egg network and to the struggles and conflicts
around it. So does the Egg have some intrinsic characteristics or design features that make it timeless,
some shapes that can be appreciated across time and
space? Its design and features are simple, clear, and
perfectly understandable, part of the universal language, a protagonist in the society rather than a mere
reflection. Even if its colors and materials have been
reshaped and presented again several times, it seems
to live in an eternal present, immobilized as a work in
progress that changes only on the surface, not in the
deeper meaning of the chair.

Implications
Most of the product development literature assumes
that certain customer segments can be identified and
that those segments care about and are loyal to cer-

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

tain products or services given certain cognitive and


emotional bonds. The relationships are fragile because actors are constantly negotiating them. The
study argues, therefore, that the value and success of
innovations should be seen through a lens of resistance and constant negotiation. The value and success
of a product innovation is not certain, indicating that
it can be predicted and planned, and because value is
complex and ambiguous the success of an innovation
is not in the hands of the firm but in the hands of
others. From this perspective, value creation is an ongoing process that is negotiated by many actors. How
can companies support this ongoing process and stimulate new interpretations and new relationships with
the same product? The use of the concept of framing devices seems to be extremely valuable; it facilitates the involvement and connection to customers.
Framing devices includes artists, journalists, conferences, exhibitions, produced narratives, marketing
campaigns in different forms, product placements, articles in newspapers, online forums, design journals,
and new editions of products. The list is endless and
depends on the situation and the product.
What makes some products timeless? What makes
some survive and even prosper over decades whereas
others last but a year or two? Based on the analysis
and discussion presented here, several elements seem
to be relevant for the prolonged life and timelessness
of the Egg:
! Flexibility and adaptability that make it possible
for the product to travel to new places and participate in new qualification processes and attach
to new actors and be part of new networks.
! The ability to connect to different networks simultaneously as part of a network that stresses the
high-end market attaching to the need for having a
distinctive product to some, being a classical piece
of sculpture-furniture to others and being related
to contemporary artistic expressions to yet others.
! A strong core that provides the product with a
unique and significant identity or expression, allowing for temporal interpretations or additions
and modifications.
! Framing devices that help to position the product
in settings that continue to present the product as
relevant and useful in changing networks in a
context in which others are constantly trying to
get customers to attach to other networks.
! Serendipityas fortune and misfortune cannot be
accurately predicted or calculated when the out-

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

come is a product of multiple connections over


long time spans among potentially numerous human and non-human actors.
The network perspective forces managers to rethink the process of value creation in relation to product innovation. It is crucial, therefore, for the firm to
understand this dynamic process and to constantly
consider requalifications and actor engagement, even
when the product is on the market. Moreover, the role
of the firm becomes the direction and guidance of input for value constructions, accomplished by mobilizing framing devices.

Future Research
Future research that combines the approach used here
with some type of contingency theory could investigate the value construction of product innovations
during product development. One could also apply an
interdepartmental angle to see if and how various
value constructions are related to different organizational units during innovation. The product development literature includes models that explain how to
make valuable products. One such model is quality
function deployment (QDF)a model used widely in
many industries today (Tidd, Bessant, and Pavitt,
2006, p. 246). It could be of interest to analyze
how this model could account for the more dynamic
aspects of value creation that our analysis has produced. The present studys analysis of qualification
and requalification rests on assumptions other than
those of mainstream marketing. There is a widely
shared belief within marketing that consumers can be
segmented and that they will respond to cleverly
crafted marketing campaigns (Kotler, 2000, p. 8).
But Callon et al. (2002) suggest otherwise. This papers discussion has argued that it can be advantageous for a firm to foster conflicting qualities in one
value construction of a product innovation. This argument goes against the brand management and marketing literatures, which argue that a product should
be supported by a brand identity that communicates a
coherent and clear message so the consumer knows
exactly the value to expect from the product (Kapferer, 2004, p. 106; Kotler, 2000, p. 85). The brand
management literature assumes that value is an intangible asset inherent in the brand, whereas the
product holds the visible differentiating characteristics (Kapferer, p. 43). The marketing literature tends

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

823

to treat value as a stable entity that can be created


through a value delivery process (Kotler, p. 85)a
perspective that ignores the dynamics observed here.
Future research could be directed at the impact of
framing the value of product innovations in various
ways. One open question is whether the present studys
observations are applicable to all products and services
or if special properties related to the Egg have enabled
its long career of qualifications and requalifications.
According to Callon et al. (2002), there is no ontological difference between products and services. In fact,
Callon et al. argue, firms would benefit from understanding their goods as services (p. 197). Service providers are much more aware of the necessity of keeping
an active relationship with their consumers, because
they know that the value of their service is created
during the moment of interaction between consumer
and firm. Service innovation is a largely underresearched domain, and it would be valuable to study
how value constructions of services are stabilized.

References!
Abernathy, W. and Utterback, J. (1978). Patterns of Industrial Innovation. Technology Review 80(7):407.
AC Nielsen (2005). Checkout. Special report. Alcoholic drinks, July,
pp. 2225.
Adner, R. (2006). Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem. Harvard Business Review 84(4):98107.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., and Latour, B. (2002a). The Key to Success in
Innovation Part I, The Art of Interessement. International Journal
of Innovation Management 6(2):187206.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., and Latour, B. (2002b). The Key to Success in
innovation Part II, The Art of Choosing Good Spokespersons. International Journal of Innovation Management 6(2):207225.
Andersen, B. and Konzelmann, S. (2008). In Search of a Useful Theory
of the Productive Potential of Intellectual Property Rights. Research Policy 37(1):1228.
Appadurai, A. (1986). The Social Life of ThingsCommodities in Cultural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Araujo, L. (2007). Markets, Market-Making and Marketing. Marketing Theory 7(3):211226.
Ashenfelter, O. and Graddy, K. (2003). Auctions and the Price of Art.
Journal of Economic Literature 41(3):763787.
Assmann, S. (2008). Between Tradition and Innovation: The Reinvention of the Kimono in Japanese Consumer Culture. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture 12(3):359376.
Audretsch, D.B. and Feldman, M.P. (1996). Innovative Clusters and
the Industry Life Cycle. Review of Industrial Organization
11(2):253273.
Barry, A. and Slater, D. (2002a). IntroductionThe Technological
Economy. Economy and Society 31(2):175193.
Barry, A. and Slater, D. (2002b). Technology, Politics and the Market:
An Interview with Michel Callon. Economy and Society 31(2):
285306.
Baumol, W.J. (1986). Unnatural Value: Or Art Investment as Floating
Crap Game. American Economic Review 76(2):1014.

824

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

Bayus, B.L. (1994). Are Product Life Cycles Really Getting Shorter?
Journal of Product Innovation Management 11(4):300308.
Berlinske Nyhedsmagasin. (2008). Number 10, June.
Berry, H. (2006). Shareholder Valuation of Foreign Investment and
Expansion. Strategic Management Journal 27(12):11231140.
Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., and Williams, J.M. (2003). The Craft of
Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bowman, C. and Swart, J. (2007). Whose Human Capital? The Challenge of Value Capture When Capital Is Embedded. Journal of
Management Studies 44(4):488505.
Boztepe, S. (2003). The Notion of Value and Design. In: Journal of the
Asian Design International Conference, 1 [CD], ed. H. Aoki.
Tsukuba, Japan, October 1417, 2003. Available at: http://trex.
id.iit.edu/ " boztepe/.

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Christiansen, J.K. and Varnes, C.J. (2007). Making Decisions on Innovation, Meetings or Networks? Creativity and Innovation Management 16(3):282298.
Christiansen, J.K. and Varnes, C.J. (2008). Management of Innovation
and Product Development. A Linear versus a Process Perspective.
In: Strategic Market CreationA New Perspective on Marketing
and Innovation Management, ed. K. Tollin. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., 7196.
Daymon, C. and Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative Research Methods
in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. London:
Routledge.
DeBresson, C. and Lampel, J. (1985a). Beyond the Life Cycle. II. An
Illustration. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2(3):
188195.

Boztepe, S. (2007). Toward a Framework of Product Development for


Global Markets: A User-Value-Based Approach. Design Studies
28(5):513533.

DeBresson, C. and Lampel, J. (1985b). Beyond the Life Cycle: Organizational and Technological Design. I. An Alternative Perspective.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 2(3):170187.

Buganza, T. and Verganti, R. (2006). Life-Cycle Flexibility: How to


Measure and Improve the Innovative Capability in Turbulent Environments. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(5):393407.

Dellera, C. and Verganti, R. (2009). The Impact of International


Designers on Firm Innovation Capability and Consumer Interest.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management
29(9):870893.

Cagan, J. and Vogel, C.M. (2007). Creating Breakthrough Products,


Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Press.
Calantone, R.J., Townsend, J.D., Yeniyurt, S., and Schmidt, J.B.
(2010). The Effects of Competition in Short Product Life Cycle
Markets: The Case of Motion Pictures. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27:349361.
Callon, M. (1986a). The Sociology of an Actor-Network, The Case of
the Electric Vehicle. In: Mapping the Dynamics of Science and
Technology, ed. M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip. London: Macmillan Press, 1934.
Callon, M. (1986b). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation,
Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc
Bay. In: Power, Action and Belief, A New Sociology of Knowledge?,
ed. J. Law. London: Routledge, 196233.
Callon, M. (1999). Actor-Network-TheoryThe Market Test. In: Actor
Network Theory and after, ed. J. Law, and J. Hassard. Oxford:
Blackwell, 181195.
Callon, M., Meadel, C., and Rabeharisoa, V. (2002). The Economy of
Qualities. Economy & Society 31(2):194217.
Callon, M. and Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic Markets as Calculative
Collective Devices. Organization Studies 26(8):12291250.

De Laet, M. and Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe Bush Pump,


Mechanics of a Fluid Technology. Social Studies of Science 30(2):
225263.
Dhalla, N.K. and Yuspeh, S. (1976). Forget the Product Life Cycle
Concept. Harvard Business Review 54(1):102112.
Dobers, P. and Strannegard, L. (2004). The CocoonA Traveling
Space. Organization 11(6):825848.
Doz, Y.L. and Kosonen, M. (2007). The New Deal at the Top. Harvard
Business Review 85(6):98104.
Drenth, P.J.D., Thierry, H., and De Wolff, C.J. (Eds.) (1998). A Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Introduction to
Work and Organizational Psychology, (2d ed.). East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Dutta, S., Zbaracki, M.J., and Bergen, M. (2003). Pricing Process as a
Capability: A Resource-Based Perspective. Strategic Management
Journal 24(7):615630.
Dyer, J.H. and Chu, W. (2003). The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance, Empirical
Evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization
Science 14(1):5768.

Campbell, R.A.J. (2008). Art as a Financial Investment. Journal of


Alternative Investments 10:6481.

Elkington, J., Emerson, J., and Beloe, S. (2006). The Value Palette: A
Tool for Full Spectrum Strategy. California Management Review
48(2):628.

Capron, L. and Shen, J. (2007). Acquisitions of Private vs. Public


Firms: Private Information, Target Selection, and Acquirer Returns. Strategic Management Journal 28(9):891911.

Ertel, D. (2004). Getting Past Yes. Harvard Business Review 82(11):


6068.

Carillo, J.E. and Franza, R.M. (2006). Investing in Product Development and Production Capabilities: The Crucial Linkage between
Time-to-Market and Ramp-Up Time. European Journal of Operational Research 171(2):536556.
Chang, S., Chung, C., and Mahmood, I.P. (2006). When and How
Does Business Group Affiliation Promote Firm Innovation? A Tale
of Two Emerging Economies. Organization Science 17(5):637656.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2007). Why Companies Should Have Open Business Models. MIT Sloan Management Review 48(2):2129.
Chesbrough, H.W. and Appleyard, M.M. (2007). Open Innovation
and Strategy. California Management Review 50(1):5776.
Christensen, C.M., Kaufman, S.P., and Shih, W.C. (2008). Innovation
Killers. Harvard Business Review 86(1):98105.
Christiansen, J.K., Lefe`vre, A.S., Varnes, C.J., and Wolf, A.S. (2008).
How Market Perceptions Influence Knowledge Strategies on User
Involvement. In: Strategic Market CreationA New Perspective on
Marketing and Innovation Management, ed. K. Tollin. Chichester,
United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 285312.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study


Research. Academy of Management Review 14(4):532550.
Farrell, D. (2004). Beyond Offshoring: Assess Your Companys Global
Potential. Harvard Business Review 82(12):8290.
Feld, C.S. and Stoddard, D.B. (2004). Getting IT Right. Harvard Business Review 82(2):7279.
Floricel, S. and Dougherty, D. (2007). Where Do Games of Innovation
Come from? Explaining the Persistence of Dynamic Innovation
Patterns. International Journal of Innovation Management 11(1):
6591.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Foss, K. and Foss, N.J. (2005). Resources and Transaction Costs, How
Property Rights Economics Furthers the Resource-Based View.
Strategic Management Journal 26(6):541553.
Franke, N. and Piller, F. (2004). Value Creation by Toolkits for User
Innovation and Design: The Case of the Watch Market. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 21(6):401415.

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

825

Frey, B.S. and Eichenberger, R. (1995). On the Return of Art


Investment Return Analyses. Journal of Cultural Economics 19(3):
207220.

Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the Craft of


Qualitative Research Interviewing, (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1999). The Discovery of Grounded


Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. (Original work published 1967.).
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic
Books.
Goetzmann, W.N. (1993). Accounting for Taste: Art and the Financial
Markets over Three Centuries. American Economic Review
83(5):13701376.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:


University of Chicago Press.

Golder, P.N. and Tellis, G.J. (2004). Growing, Growing, Gone, Cascades, Diffusion, and Turning Points in the Product Life Cycle.
Marketing Science 23(2):207218.
Gourville, J.T. (2006). Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers. Harvard Business Review 84(6):98106.
Gourville, J.T. and Rangan, V.K. (2004). Valuing the Cause Marketing
Relationship. California Management Review 47(1):3857.
Hansen, P.H. (2006). Da danske m!bler blev moderne. Historien om
dansk m!beldesigns storhedstid. Copenhagen: Aschehoug & Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Hertenstein, J.H., Platt, M.B., and Veryzer, R.W. (2005). The Impact of Industrial Design Effectiveness on Corporate Financial
Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22(1):
321.
Hiraki, T., Ito, A., Spieth, D.A., and Takezawa, N. (2009). How Did
Japanese Investments Influence International Art Prices? Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis 44(6):14891514.
Hughes, J. and Weiss, J. (2007). Simple Rules for Making Alliances
Work. Harvard Business Review 85(11):122131.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Latour, B. (1991). Technology Is Society Made Durable. In: A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination,
ed. J. Law. London: Routledge, 103131.
Latour, B. (1996). On Actor-Network Theory, A Few Clarifications.
Soziale Welt 41(4):369381.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandoras HopeEssays on the Reality of Science
Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to ActorNetwork-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Lavie, D. (2007). Alliance Portfolios and Firm Performance: A Study
of Value Creation and Appropriation in the U.S. Software Industry. Strategic Management Journal 28(12):11871212.
Lax, D.A and Sebenius, J.K. (2003). 3-D Negotiation. Harvard Business Review 81(11):6474.
Lepak, D.P., Smith, K.G., and Taylor, M.S. (2007). Value Creation
and Value Capture, A Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Review 32(1):180194.
Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Harvard Business
Review 43(6):8194.
Levy, D.L. (2005). Offshoring in the New Global Political Economy.
Journal of Management Studies 42(3):685693.

Huselid, M.A., Beatty, R.W., and Becker, B.E. (2005). A Players or


A Positions? Harvard Business Review 83(12):110117.

Magnan, M. and St-Onge, S. (2005). The Impact of Profit Sharing on


the Performance of Financial Services Firms. Journal of Management Studies 42(4):761791.

Jacobides, M.G., Knudsen, T., and Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from


Innovation, Value Creation, Value Appropriation and the Role of
Industry Architectures. Research Policy 35(8):12001221.

Mahadevan, B. (2003). Making Sense of Emerging Market Structures


in B2B e-Commerce. California Management Review 46(1):86100.

Johnson, M.D. and Selnes, F. (2004). Customer Portfolio Management: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Exchange Relationships. Journal of Marketing 68(2):117.
Julier, G. (2000). The Culture of Design. London: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Kang, S., Morris, S.S., and Snell, S.A. (2007). Relational Archetypes,
Organizational Learning, and Value Creation: Extending the Human Resource Architecture. Academy of Management Review
32(1):236256.
Kapferer, J. (2004). The New Strategic Brand ManagementCreating
and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term (3rd ed.). London: Kogan
Page Limited.

Maine, E. and Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercializing Generic Technology: The Case of Advanced Materials Ventures. Research Policy
35(3):375393.
Makhija, M.V. (2004). The Value of Restructuring in Emerging Economies: The Case of the Czech Republic. Strategic Management
Journal 25(3):243267.
Mankins, M.C. (2004). Stop Wasting Valuable Time. Harvard Business
Review 82(9):5865.
Mass, N.J. (2005). The Relative Value of Growth. Harvard Business
Review 83(4):102112.
McGovern, G. and Moon, Y. (2007). Companies and the Customers
Who Hate Them. Harvard Business Review 85(6):7884.

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2006). Toward a Parsimonious Definition of Traditional and Electronic Mass Customization. Journal
of Product Innovation Management 23(2):168182.

Mei, J. and Moses, M. (2002). Art as an Investment and the Underperformance of Masterpieces. American Economic Review 92(5):
16561668.

Kleiner, A. (2003). Are You in with the in Crowd? Harvard Business


Review 81(7):8692.

Merton, R.C. (2005). You Have More Capital Than You Think. Harvard Business Review 3(11):8494.

Knud Peter Harboe (1962). Aktuelt (newspaper), February 11.


Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management (The millennium edition.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, D.J. (2006). Technological Diversity, Related Diversification,


and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal 27(7):601
619.

Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., and Cunningham, P.H. (2006). Marketing


Management, (12th ed.). Toronto: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Mizik, N. and Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading Off between Value


Creation and Value Appropriation: The Financial Implications of Shifts in Strategic Emphasis. Journal of Marketing
67(1):6376.

Kotler, P., Adam, S., Brown, L., and Armstrong, G. (2006). Principles
of Marketing, (3d ed.). Frenchs Forest, New South Wales: Prentice
Hall.
Kristensen, T. (2004). The Physical Context of Creativity. Creativity
and Innovation Management 13(2):8996.
Kumar, M.V.S. (2005). The Value from Acquiring and Divesting a
Joint Venture: A Real Options Approach. Strategic Management
Journal 26(4):321331.

Mol, J.M., Wijnberg, N.M., and Carroll, C. (2005). Value Chain Envy,
Explaining New Entry and Vertical Integration in Popular Music.
Journal of Management Studies 42(2):251276.
Molina-Morales, F.X. and Mart nez-Fernandez, M.T. (2004). How
Much Difference Is There between Industrial District Firms? A Net
Value Creation Approach. Research Policy 33(3):473486.

826

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

J.K. CHRISTIANSEN ET AL.

Moon, Y. (2005). Break Free from the Product Life Cycle. Harvard
Business Review 83(5):8694.

Priem, R.L. (2007). A Consumer Perspective on Value Creation. Academy of Management Review 32(1):219235.

Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. Relational Embeddedness, Social


Capital and Managerial Performance. Strategic Management Journal 26(12):11291151.

Rappaport, A. (2006). 10 Ways to Create Shareholder Value. Harvard


Business Review 84(9):6677.

Morrow Jr., J.L., Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., and Holcomb, T.R.
(2007). Creating Value in the Face of Declining Performance:
Firm Strategies and Organizational Recovery. Strategic Management Journal 28(3):271283.
Moller, K. and Svahn, S. (2006). Role of Knowledge in Value Creation
in Business Nets. Journal of Management Studies 43(5):9851007.
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2007). Interactions in Virtual Customer Environments, Implications for Product Support and Customer Relationship Management. Journal of Interactive Marketing
21(2):4262.
Ordanini, A. (2005). The Effects of Participation on B2B Exchanges: A
Resource-Based View. California Management Review 47(2):
97113.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., and Grewal, D. (2007). A Comparative
Longitudinal Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives of Interorganizational Relationship Performance. Journal of Marketing
71(4):172194.
Payne, A. and Frow, P. (2005). A Strategic Framework for Customer
Relationship Management. Journal of Marketing 69(4):167176.
Perks, H. (2004). Exploring Processes of Resource Exchange and Cocreation in Strategic Partnering for New Product Development.
International Journal of Innovation Management 8(1):3761.
Pesando, J.E. (1993). Art as an Investment: The Market for Modern
Prints. American Economic Review 83(5):10751089.
Pesando, J.E. and Shum, P.M. (1999). The Returns to Picassos Prints
and to Traditional Financial Assets, 1977 to 1996. Journal of Cultural Economics 23:182192.
Pesando, J.E. and Shum, P.M. (2008). The Auction Market for
Modern Prints: Confirmations, Contradictions, and New Puzzles.
Economic Inquiry 46(2):149159.
Piercy, N.F. and Lane, N. (2003). Transformation of the Traditional
Salesforce, Imperatives for Intelligence, Interface and Integration.
Journal of Marketing Management 19(5):563582.
Pettigrew, A. (1985). The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change at
ICI. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.
Pinch, P. and Reimer, S. (2007). The Great Escape? Design, Innovation
and Restructuring amongst European Motorcycle Manufacturers.
Paper presented at Regional Studies Association Annual Conference, Lisbon, April.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999). The Experience Economy. Work Is
Theater and Every Business a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Pitman, B. (2003). Leading for Value. Harvard Business Review
81(4):4146.
Polli, R. and Cook, V. (1969). The Validity of the Product Life Cycle.
Journal of Business 42(4):395400.
Poppo, L. (2003). The Visible Hands of Hierarchy within the M-Form:
An Empirical Test of Corporate Parenting of Internal Product Exchanges. Journal of Management Studies 40(2):403430.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation Experiences:
The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3):514.

Renneboog, L. and Van Houtte, T. (2002). The Monetary Appreciation of Art: From Realism to Magritte. Cambridge Journal of Economics 26(3):331357.
Rindova, V.P. and Petkova, A.P. (2007). When Is a New Thing a Good
Thing? Technological Change, Product Form Design, and Perceptions
of Value for Product Innovations. Organization Science 18(2):217232.
Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Sagot-Duvauroux, D. (2003). Art Prices. In: A Handbook of Cultural
Economics, ed. R. Towse. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 5763.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., and Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to
Create: The Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement in
Product Innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 19(4):417.
Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic Metaphor Analysis as a Method of
Qualitative Research. Qualitative Report 10(2):358394.
Sharp, D. (1991). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Architects and Architecture. New York: Quatro Publishing.
Simons, R. (2005). Designing High-Performance Jobs. Harvard Business Review 83(7):5462.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., and Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing Firm
Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking inside the Black Box. Academy of Management Review 32(1):273292.
Tau, C. and Vindum, K. (2002). Arne Jacobsen. Esbjerg: Aschehoug.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., and Pavitt, K. (2006). Managing InnovationIntegrating Technological Market and Organizational Change, (3d
ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Tushman, M. and Anderson, P. (1990). Technological Discontinuities
and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological
Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(4):60433.
Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006). Value-Based Differentiation in Business Relationships, Gaining and Sustaining Key Supplier Status.
Journal of Marketing 70(1):119136.
Verganti, R. (2006). Innovating through Design. Harvard Business Review 84(12):114122.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational And Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wasserman, N. (2008). The Founders Dilemma. Harvard Business
Review 86(2):102109.
Wood, L. (1990). The End of the Product Life Cycle? Education Says
Goodbye to an Old Friend. Journal of Marketing Management
6(2):145155.
Worthington, A.C. and Higgs, H. (2004). Art as an Investment: Risk,
Return and Portfolio Diversification in Major Painting Markets.
Accounting and Finance 44(2):257271.
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., and Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research
Agenda. Journal of Management Studies 43(4):917955.
*For additional references and background information, please
contact author.

Appendix 1. Value Concepts


To cast light on the diversity of uses of value concepts, 16 journals were selected for review, based on the
following criteria: (1) the journal publishes leading research on innovation along with other areas, such as
strategy and marketing; and (2) the journal is accredited (peer reviewed) and is among the premier journals

LIVING TWICE: HOW A PRODUCT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LIFE CYCLES

J PROD INNOV MANAG


2010;27:797827

827

within economics and business administration. Seven search terms were selected: value creation, value creating,
create value, creating value, cocreate, cocreation, and cocreating. For each author entry, Table A1 shows the type
of value concepts used in each publication, with each entry separated by a semicolon (;).
Table A1. Value Concepts in Prior Research
Journal

Author(s)

Value Concepts

Academy of
Management Review

Lepak, Smith, and Taylor (2007); Priem (2007);


Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland (2007); Kang, Morris, and
Snell (2007)

Value creation, value capture, value appropriation,


use-value, exchange value, value slippage; resource
value, use value, exchange value; value capturing;
strategic value

California
Management
Review

Ordanini (2005); Chesbrough and Appleyard (2007);


Elkington, Emerson, and Beloe (2006); Gourville and
Rangan (2004); Mahadevan (2003)

Value-added service; value creation, value capture;


economic, social, and environmental value
components; economic value; value propositions

Creativity and
Innovation
Management

Kristensen (2004)

Organizing value creation

Harvard Business
Review

Adner (2006); Christensen, Kaufman, and Shih


(2008); Doz and Kosonen (2007); Ertel (2004); Feld
and Stoddard (2004); Gourville (2006); Hughes and
Weiss (2007); Kleiner (2003); Lax and Sebenius
(2003); Mankins (2004); Mass (2005); Pitman (2003);
Rappaport (2006); Simons (2005); Wasserman
(2008); Farrell (2004); Huselid, Beatty, and Becker
(2005); McGovern and Moon (2007); Merton (2005)

Value networks, value chain, value proposition; net


present value; corporate value creation; valuable
deals; corporate values; subjective and perceived
value; financial value; company value; claim value;
market value; growth value, shareholder value;
shareholder value; shareholder value; delivering of
customer value; equity value; value chain; workforce
value; value propositions, delivering value;
shareholder value, net present value

International Journal
of Innovation
Management

Floricel and Dougherty (2007); Perks (2004)

Value creation from novel technology; resource


value, co-creation between firms

Journal of Interactive
Marketing

Nambisan and Baron (2007); Prahalad and


Ramaswamy (2004); Sawhney, Verona, and Prandelli
(2005)

Customer value co-creation; co-created value; value


creation via the Internet

Journal of
Management Studies

Bowman and Swart (2007); Levy (2005); Magnan


and St-Onge (2005); Mol, Wijnberg, and Carroll
(2005); Moller and Svahn (2006); Poppo (2003);
Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson (2006)

Use value, value capture; economic value creation;


shareholder value; value chain; value-creating
systems; economic value; value of dynamic
capabilities

Journal of Marketing

Johnson and Selnes (2004); Mizik and Jacobson


(2003); Palmatier, Dant, and Grewal (2007); Payne
and Frow (2005); Ulaga and Eggert (2006)

Lifetime customer value; value creation, value


appropriation; relationship value creation; customer
value, shareholder value; customer value

Journal of Marketing
Management

Piercy and Lane (2003)

Customer value, financial value

Journal of Product
Innovation
Management

Franke and Piller (2004); Kaplan and Haenlein


(2006)

Toolkit-generated value; economic value, value chain

Organization Science

Dyer and Chu (2003); Rindova and Petkova (2007);


Chang, Chung, and Mahmood (2006)

Economic value; perceptions of value; financial value

Research Policy

Andersen and Konzelmann (2008); Jacobides,


Knudsen, and Augier (2006); Maine and Garnsey
(2006); Molina-Morales and Mart nez-Fernandez
(2004)

Financial value and nonfinancial value; value


creation, value appropriation; value capture, value
chain; net value creation

Strategic Management
Journal

Adner and Zemsky (2006); Berry (2006); Capron and


Shen (2007); Dutta, Zbaracki and Bergen (2003);
Foss and Foss (2005); Lavie (2007); Makhija (2004);
Miller (2006); Moran (2005); Morrow, Sirmon, Hitt
and Holcomb (2007); Kumar (2005)

Value capture, consumer value; shareholder value;


financial value; appropriating value, value capture;
value creation, value appropriation; value creation,
value appropriation; economic value; value; value of
weak ties; resource value; financial value

You might also like