Acerca da ontologia da proposta de valor

No último Naples Forum on Services, Heli Holttinen, apresentou este interessante artigo "Contextualizing value propositions: examining how consumers experience value propositions in their practices"
.
A primeira vez que li algo sobre a proposta de valor foi nos livros de Kaplan e Norton, daí cheguei ao livro de Treacy e Wiersema "The Discipline of Market Leaders". Durante anos considerei a proposta de valor uma opção fundamental que as empresas tinham de fazer para se concentrarem num mosaico capaz de gerar uma vantagem competitiva.
.
Depois, lentamente, comecei a calçar os sapatos do cliente e a fugir dos atributos que o fornecedor queria oferecer e a pensar no que os clientes-alvo queriam sentir. No ano passado, com Michael Lanning e o seu precioso "Delivering Profitable Value : A Revolutionary Framework to Accelerate Growth, Generate Wealth, and Rediscover the Heart of Business" consolidei o salto seguinte: a proposta de valor tem tudo a ver com a experiência na vida dos clientes-alvo que eles procuram e valorizam.
.
A descoberta da Service-Dominant Logic foi o passo seguinte no enriquecimento do conceito, e como há dias relatei em "Como se chega a Mongo" esta perspectiva de encarar o que é uma proposta de valor faz explodir o número de potenciais propostas de valor no mercado, porque uma proposta de valor vai ao encontro de um conjunto de experiências percepcionadas no decurso das práticas seguidas pelos clientes-alvo. (Os clientes não são alvo por causa de algo que são mas por causa de algo homogéneo que fazem em busca de consequências na sua vida que procuram e valorizam)
.
Julgo que Holttinen sobe a parada sobre o conceito de proposta de valor:
.
"Value propositions are firms‟ proposals for consumers‟ resource integration that is guided by practice-tied meanings. They include an offering(s) and suggestions of how to integrate the offering(s) with other consumer resources. Purchasing an offering is an explicit sign of accepting a value proposition. The acceptability of the value propositions depends on their ability (1) to address valuable practice-tied meanings, and (2) to assist the consumers to materialize these meanings into use. The scope of the value propositions varies according to the need to integrate offerings with other resources in order to put valuable meanings into use. In resource integration, consumers can choose to follow the firms‟ suggestion or pursue their own plan. The firms‟ skills and knowledge assist the consumers in putting the valuable meanings into use.
...
“The customer determines who the business is”. In the language of contemporary marketing one can rephrase Drucker‟s suggestion as follows: firms can only offer value propositions - it is always a customer or any other beneficiary who accepts them. Thus firms get an opportunity to co-create value with their customers with the help of the value propositions. As the value proposition ties firms and their beneficiaries together, it becomes one of the central concepts of marketing.
...
I regard the value propositions as signs to which consumers ascribe intersubjective meanings while experiencing them in different socio-cultural and spatio-temporal contexts. Thus the consumers are perceived as socio-cultural interpreters who assign intersubjective meanings to signs and act upon them. I look for conceptual explanations to three questions: (1) what is the essence of the value propositions as signs that are experienced and evaluated by the consumers in their practices; (2) on what basis do the consumers evaluate the value propositions as signs; and (3) what implications can been drawn to the concept of a value proposition.
...
“A value proposition can be thought of as a promise the seller makes that value-in-exchange will be linked to value-in-use. When a customer exchanges money with a seller s/he is implicitly assuming the value-in-exchange will at least result in value-in-use that meets or exceeds the value-in-exchange”. In other words, from the customers‟ viewpoint, the value proposition is a firm‟s promise that the value derived from offerings in use is at least as high as its financial sacrifice.
...
I argue that for consumers the value propositions are firms‟ proposals on how the consumers can derive value from integrating offerings with their other resources.
...
I suggest that for consumers the primary source value in the value propositions is their meanings: from their own subjective viewpoint the consumers experience and evaluate the value propositions in terms of their meanings which they may use (or may not use) for their own value-creation purposes. The potential array of meanings of the value propositions makes them dynamic consumer resources.
The consumers mould the meanings of the value propositions to fit to their value creation.
...
I argue that it is the meanings of the value propositions which determine whether the consumers want to benefit from the firms‟ skills and knowledge, and how they want to benefit from them.
...
Sign value. The primary source of value for value propositions are their meanings. The sign value is about the ability of the value propositions to address valuable practice-tied meanings and make them realistic for the beneficiaries to achieve. The value propositions can obviously include meanings that are not experienced as valuable by beneficiaries.
...

Use value. According to S-D logic, offerings possess no value per se but instead they “derive their value through use”. ... I argue that beneficiaries experience the use value of the value propositions in relation to their practice-tied sign value. The use value depends on the ability of the value propositions to materialize valuable practice-tied meanings into use. Hence use value is about materialized sign value. Since the use of the value proposition-related offerings can include pre-purchase, during-purchase, and post-purchase activities, the beneficiaries can experience the use value (the lack of the use value) before purchasing an offering, that is, before accepting the value proposition.
...
Resources. In order to derive sign value and use value from the value propositions, the beneficiaries integrate the offerings with their other resources according to the firms‟ proposal or their own plan. In addition, the beneficiaries are dependent on the suppliers‟ operant resources which make the value propositions available for them. In most cases, the beneficiaries are not skilled enough or lack other relevant resources such as time so that they could materialize their desired value into use by themselves. Therefore, the beneficiaries are willing to accept the value propositions proposed by firms.
.
Exchange value. Exchange value refers to the price of an offering which is related to a specific value proposition. The purchase of an offering indicates that the beneficiaries accept the value proposition. The exchange value is always subordinate to the sign value and use value; it is not worth the beneficiaries accepting the value proposition when the exchange value exceeds the sign value and the use value.
...
I argue that the customers‟ perspective is a starting point for designing value propositions that will eventually be capable for materializing reciprocal value. Unless the customers‟ experienced sign value and use value exceed the exchange value, the customers will not accept the value proposition and thus there will be no value co-creation. However, at the same time, value propositions need to address and materialize the valuable practice-tied meanings of the other stakeholders beyond customers, (Moi ici: Balanced centricity? Alinhamento da cadeia da procura?) such as firms and their suppliers. Otherwise  these stakeholders are not willing to invest their knowledge and skills in designing and creating value propositions for their beneficiaries. Consequently, from the value co-creation design perspective, I introduce the value propositions as design architecture for reciprocal sign value, use value, exchange value, and resource integration."