The aim of the research is to explore how the face-to-face (FTF) and online conference experience differs. This will be achieved by exploring perceptions of value and value co-creation behaviour (VCCB) in relation to FTF & Online conferences. This research has refined and extended knowledge in the field of service marketing and conferences, theoretically discovering and developing concepts creating four models ready for use, further to further refinement. Service Dominant Logic (SDL) and consumption value research is based on the foundational premises (Vargo & Lusch 2016; Werner et al., 2017) that value is contextual and only realised by the beneficiary. However, existing research in this field appears to adopt the assumption that value is generalisable with authors in this tradition seeking to construct measurable dimensions of value that can be applied across contexts. Quantitative design is challenged throughout the current research which uses an interpretivist and qualitative approach to place the conference delegates at the centre of the research. This research advanced knowledge in the field of conferences/event marketing by providing a conference specific multidimensional understanding of perceived value for FTF and online conferences based on Holbrooks (1999) typology of consumer value (Model 4 & 5). Acknowledging the reactive and active, intrinsic, extrinsic, self-orientated and other-orientated indices of value which is neglected in service marketing literature. Research in conferences is vast and inter-disciplinary, exploring a range of topics including motivations and decision making (;Cassar et al., 2020; Cavusoglu et al. 2023; Jung & Tanford, 2017; Mair & Thompson, 2009; Opperman & Chon, 1997; Mair et al., 2018), marginalisation and issues of EDI (Ali, 2018; Black, 2020; Dashper & Finkel, 2020; Henderson, 2018; Jarvis et al., 2023; López-Bonilla et al., 2023; Mair & Frew, 2018; Walters et al. 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). However, perceived value is used to better understand consumption value in the service industry, although there are a few emerging studies in the conference context (Hashemi et al., 2020; Min Ho et al., 2022; Seidenberg et al., 2021), conferences are under-represented (Min Ho et al., 2020; Werner et al., 2017), with more studies in exhibitions, hospitality or tourism context (Fu et al., 2018; Gallarza et al., 2017; Gallarza et al., 2023; Prebensen & Xie, 2017). Min Ho et al. (2022) pointed out that conference attendee value is still debatable due to differing dimensions in the literature. Therefore, this research has addressed this context gap in the literature by providing a model of perceived value in the FTF conference context (Model 4)In addition, although there has been a recent increase in online conference research this has been based in the field of the research rather than event marketing. Typically investigating organisers’ viewpoints (Sa et al., 2019) or wider stakeholders such as production and IT organisations (Hamm et al., 2018) rather than the attendees themselves. The current research addresses this neglected gap in the literature by providing a model of perceived value for online conferences (Model 5) and the event attributes that underpin the value dimensions. Within service marketing literature there are several instances where value dimensions are omitted due to their multidimensionality (Lee & Min, 2013b; Min Ho et al., 2022). However, by adopting a qualitative approach, the current research has been able to explore the multidimensionality and interrelationship of the value dimensions. The current research claims that value dimensions are hierarchal including many interrelationships between the dimensions and underpinning event attributes (model 6). Zeithaml et al.., (2020) highlighted the need to understand how different dimensions relate to one another and sit within a hierarchy. The current research extends knowledge in the field of consumption value and service marketing by exploring two discourses of value (perceived value & VCCB) in one holistic model (Model 7). Addressing the how (process - VCCB) and the what (context - perceived value). There are a limited number of studies that integrate the value of co-creation into consumption values theory (Prebensen & Xie, 2017; Min Ho et al., 2022; Gallarza et al., 2023). Whilst these studies provided a unique view in conceptualising consumer value none consider the process of creating value (VCCB) and how the value-in-context can influence this. Methodology: A case study approach was used sampling employees (professional and academic) from the University of Huddersfield. A sequential design of four focus groups (16 participants) and seven interviews were conducted. The key sample used in the study are Generation Y (Gen Y, born between 1985-1999). Gen Y are an important sample group, they will contribute to 75% of the global workforce by 2025 (Pryor, 2019). Although there was extensive research from 2009-2015 investigating motivations, social media, and communication use of Gen Y delegates at conferences, recent studies (Kim et al., 2020b; Scott et al., 2020) acknowledge there is a gap in understanding the specific characteristics of this generation as they are now moving from early career to management and leadership. The sample was heterogeneous and segmented by sub-set within the Gen Y cohort, type of attendee (academic or professional) and industry type to ensure a representative sample was achieved. Theoretical and context findings: The multidimensional models of perceived value in FTF (model 4) and online (model 5) conferences confirmed that conference value is transactional not experiential, and that value is driven by extrinsic factors not intrinsic addressing the confusion caused in the existing literature. In addition, the intrinsic value for conferences is phenomenological consisting of epistemic, play and ethical value. Being the first model of conference value to include an other-orientated and self-orientated dimensions of intrinsic value. Moving away from the inadequate limiting measures of satisfaction. Through the intimate knowledge of the data the relational dynamics amongst the concepts are also made visible allowing the development of the structure of value in the conference context (Model 6). Conceptually created an innovative model to explain the inference of importance emerging from the data and experience of the participants in real terms (Model 6). Concluding that Efficiency (Money/Time) is a primary value dimension, and all event attributes are reflected by a perception of Quality. The current research produced an inductive model (Model 7) that is grounded in data, capturing the participants experience in theoretical terms. Concluding that VCCB does influence perceived value in both a positive, negative and neutral way. Demonstrating that value is both intra-subjective (individual) and inter-subjective (social) concluding that value-in-context (Edvardsson et al., 2011; Scarlett et al., 2022; Vargo & Lusch, 2008) emphasise the actor to actor (A2A) relationships which are a key source of value. The practical and managerial findings: The key differences between FTF and online conferences are the reduced opportunities for networking and career development in online conferences, meaning the importance of knowledge creation and professional development increases. The research uncovers that the Gen Y key characteristics influencing the conferences experience is their desire for authentic experiences, and the need for transparency in communication. This leads to a low tolerance of gimmicks and errors during their experience, in both FTF and online. Therefore, association conference organisers should focus on achieving high quality programmes that deliver professional development, career opportunities, networking, and knowledge exchange. The functional quality i.e., venues, catering, services is less important to a cohort who are career and outcome focused. Although it is acknowledged that practitioners and academics have different intentions when attending conferences (Burford &Henderson, 2023) there is little to no categorisation of such a difference within the conference literature. The current research has addressed this neglect of research to understand the difference between the academic and professional attendee. Providing a revelatory understanding which will have huge practical utility in the context of association conference organisers. Key differences between the perceived value of PACs and AACs were found in Social Value & Knowledge creation. The research supports that value co-creation is contextual and varies across individuals and circumstances (Gallarza et al., 2023). Supporting Grönroos and Voima (2013) who confirmed value co-creation is affected by consumers characteristics. This is achieved by showing that Gen Y delegates do not actively seek extra-role or extra-ordinary value within the conference experience that Citizenship Behaviour provides. Supporting existing literature Gen Y’s characteristics, behaviours, digital preferences (Kim et al., 2020b; Lee & Lee, 2014; Ogbeide et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2020; Sox et al., 2014) and career focus (Benckendorff et al., 2010; Howe & Strauss, 2009) influences participation behaviour positively. The findings of this research will be useful for association conferences organisers to guide how they develop their annual conferences and events programmes. Limitations and future research: The study could be improved by increasing the sample size, replicating it across different universities or conducting longitudinal research. Recommendations for future research: The models created throughout this research have in turn generated several testable propositions which can be developed through statistical analysis. Future practical research could explore the difference between generational cohorts including research into Gen Z as they enter the workplace. Or research into the motivations and behavioural intentions for domestic and international association conference of both AAC and PAC attendees.
| Date of Award | 5 Feb 2026 |
|---|
| Original language | English |
|---|
| Supervisor | John Nicholson (Main Supervisor) |
|---|