See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257797548

Understanding the do-it-yourself consumer:

DIY motivations and outcomes
Article in Academy of Marketing Science Review December 2011
DOI: 10.1007/s13162-011-0021-2

CITATIONS

READS

26

2,998

2 authors:
Marco Wolf

Shaun Mcquitty

University of Southern Mississippi

Athabasca University

13 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS

29 PUBLICATIONS 565 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Marco Wolf

Retrieved on: 22 October 2016

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

DOI 10.1007/s13162-011-0021-2

Understanding the do-it-yourself consumer: DIY motivations

and outcomes
Marco Wolf & Shaun McQuitty

Received: 15 November 2010 / Accepted: 2 December 2011 / Published online: 13 December 2011
# Academy of Marketing Science 2011

Abstract Do-it-yourself (DIY) is an increasingly popular

consumer behavior, but little is known about this large
consumer segment. We undertake a depth interview study
and review diverse literatures to develop a conceptual model
of DIY behavior that explores the reasons why consumers
DIY and the benefits they receive. The purpose of the model
is to improve our understanding of a consumer segment that,
in many ways, behaves differently from typical consumers.
Research propositions are derived and discussions of implications and ideas for future research follow.
Keywords Do-it-yourself (DIY) . Consumer behavior .
Motivations . Outcomes . Prosumption

Introduction
Marketing theory recognizes the importance of consumer
involvement in the co-creation of value (Vargo and Lusch
2004), but the consumer typically is viewed only as the
passive buyer of what others produce and not as the active
producer of goods or services (Xie et al. 2008). An exception is Kotler (1986a), who forecast that a new type of
consumer, the prosumer, would emerge from the sociocultural environment of modern society. Consistent with the
M. Wolf (*)
Department of Marketing, University of Southern Mississippi,
730 East Beach Blvd,
Long Beach, MS 39560, USA
e-mail: marco.wolf@usm.edu
S. McQuitty
Faculty of Business, Athabasca University,
1 University Drive,
Athabasca, AB T9S 3A3, Canada
e-mail: shaunm@athabascau.ca

notion of value co-creation (Lusch and Vargo 2006, p.

284), prosumption activities are defined as consumers producing products for their own consumption (Xie et al.
2008). Consumers increasingly will be drawn toward prosumption and Marketers must find methods to facilitate
prosumption activity (Kotler 1986a, p. 511). We focus on
a specific form of prosumption known as Do-It-Yourself
(DIY), which we define as activities in which individuals
engage raw and semi-raw materials and component parts to
produce, transform, or reconstruct material possessions, including those drawn from the natural environment (e.g.,
landscaping).
DIY consumer products sold by the home improvement
industry typically are unfinished and designed for use in
different formats (e.g., pieces of lumber). Thus, people who
undertake DIY projects (DIYers) go beyond the construction
of meaning of a commodity because these consumers are
both the designer of the functional specifications and the
builder. They choose among available materials and tools,
engineer the work process to complete the project, and act as
inspectors and evaluators when deciding whether the product
has achieved the desired value. The degree of involvement in
DIY behaviors distinguishes it from other self-servicing forms
of do-it-yourself where the focal benefit is time and the
convenience of service delivery (e.g., ATM, fast food, and
gasoline) (Bateson 1985; Dabholkar 1996). Self-servicing
during gasoline, fast food, and banking transactions is
a convenience for delivering the final product directly to the
consumer. A distinction that can be made between selfservice and DIY is that there is nothing convenient about
remodeling ones home or landscaping ones yard. Selfservicing also is distinguishable from DIY by the accelerated speed of product delivery. Unlike self-service banking
and gas stations, DIY home improvement projects typically
are labor intensive.

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

155

DIY also can be distinguished from Arts & Crafts activities by the types of projects, tools and materials involved,
amount of labor, and the money spent on projects. DIY
projects typically consume greater resources than Arts &
Crafts projects. The retail industry differentiates between
Arts & Crafts and DIY by providing different retail outlets
that separate the types of items sold in stores (e.g., Home
Depot vs. Michaels). The home improvement industrys
focus resides with building materials, home improvement,
and garden products, whereas Arts & Crafts retailers mostly
carry home dcor products (framed art, baskets, potpourri,
etc.) and supplies (e.g., for jewelry making, needlecraft,
knitting, soap and candle making, and plush toys). There
is little overlap in product assortments between the two
retail segments.
The retail home improvement industry has grown
steadily, with 2011 U.S.-based sales forecast to be $267
billion (Home Improvement Research Institute 2011).
Despite the size and growth of the industry, DIY behaviors have prompted few academic studies. Early DIYrelated research typically profiles the DIY segment relative to a non-DIY segment (Bush et al. 1987; Hornik and
Feldman 1982; Schwartzlander and Bowers 1989),
whereas the more recent work explores motives for
DIY behavior (Watson and Shove 2008; Williams
2008). In contrast, our goal is to examine consumers
DIY behaviors and develop a conceptual model that considers
the motivators and the outcomes of DIY behaviors. The model
shown in Fig. 1 gives insights regarding consumers DIY

behaviors and offers marketers ideas for improving their

value propositions (Gebhardt et al. 2006).
Because there is little existing theory associated with
DIY behavior, we conduct a study of DIYers using depth
interviews to gain insights. We integrate the discussion of
our interview data with a multidisciplinary review of relevant literature that informs the development of a grounded
theory of the motivations and outcomes of DIY behavior.
The multidisciplinary review highlights the importance of
DIY behavior for extending and identifying gaps in the
existing consumer behavior literature (Crittenden et al.
2011). Specifically, DIY is a consumer activity that, among
other properties, offers consumers the make-or-buy decision, extends strategies for circumventing dissatisfactory
product experiences beyond negative word-of-mouth and
complaining, enables the redistribution of household budget
items, allows individuals to build and enhance identities,
and broadens notions of material values by suggesting that
new values can be derived through crafting material goods.

Co-creation, co-production, prosumption and DIY:

consumers doing it for themselves
Marketers once assumed that a product was consumed only
after the value adding process was complete, but a shift from
a goods-centered logic to a more reciprocal service-centered
logic views producers and consumers as collaborators who
co-create and co-produce (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Co-

DIY Motivations
Marketplace
Evaluation
Preconditions for
Motivations

Lack of Product
Availability
Lack of Product
Quality
Economic Benefits
Need for
Customization

Discretionary Time
Prior DIY Experience

Identity
Enhancement
Fulfillment of
Craftsmanship
Empowerment
Community
Seeking
Need for
Uniqueness

DIY Outcomes
Accomplishment
Control
Enjoyment

Project
Satisfaction

DIY Project Planning

Browsing at Retailers
Shopping
Visualizing
Sharing ideas

Consumer Purchase
(DIY related products)

Fig. 1 A conceptual model of the motivations and outcomes of DIY behaviors

DIY Behaviors

156

creation is closely tied to usage, consumption, value in use,

and the premise that value can be determined only by the
customer. For a product to be useful, individuals have to
learn and apply skills and knowledge that create value-inuse. Examples of such value creating activities are driving
an automobile and charging and answering a cell phone
(Humphreys and Grayson 2008). Co-production, on the
other hand, means the customer participates in creating the
core offering through shared inventiveness and co-design
(Lusch et al. 2007, p. 11), and customers are engaged as
active participants in the organizations work to provide a
better core product to consumers (Auh et al. 2007). Consumers become co-producers when they perform activities
traditionally overseen by company employees. Self-serve
gas and fast food restaurants are examples of co-production.
Integrating customers in the production of goods and services
can enhance an organizations ability to compete by meeting
customers desires (Lusch et al. 2007).
Similar to co-creation and co-production is the notion of
prosumption, a term first coined by culture critic and futurist
Alvin Toffler (1980) to emphasize the novelty of people
simultaneously playing the roles of consumer and producer.
Prosumption can be defined as a value creation activity
undertaken by the consumer that results in the production of
products they eventually consume and that becomes their
consumption experience (Xie et al. 2008, p. 110). Prosumption is a process that integrates physical activities,
mental effort, and socio-psychological experiences (Xie et
al. 2008) and is similar to co-creation and co-production
because consumers become participants in producing and
creating goods.
If these forms of consumer production of goods and
services are ordered in terms of their requirements for consumer involvement and effort, then co-creation requires the
least from consumers, followed by co-production, and then
prosumption (which includes DIY). Co-creation assumes
consumer involvement is limited to using the product and
learning how it operates, co-production assumes consumers
take over functions previously performed by the company
(e.g., assembly of parts), and prosumption assumes that
consumers produce their own products for consumption
(Xie et al. 2008). This ordering is consistent with our definition of DIY behaviorsactivities in which individuals
engage raw and semi-raw materials and component parts
to produce, transform, or reconstruct material possessions,
including those drawn from the natural environmentthat
exemplify prosumption and are at the highest level of coproduction due to the typically considerable involvement
required from the DIY consumer.
Of course, there can be overlap among co-creation, coproduction, and prosumption activities in terms of a consumers involvement and the effort required to produce a
good or service. The self-servicing, Arts & Crafts, and DIY

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

behaviors described earlier also can overlap, as these all are

forms of co-production and prosumption. As evidence for
the overlap among these behaviors, some supplies for Arts
& Crafts activities can be found at home improvement
retailers (e.g., various forms of fasteners or glues), and the
reverse also is true (e.g., mirrors at Arts & Crafts retailers).
However, DIY projects typically have the highest material
costs and require greater levels of innovation, design,
knowledge, skills, and time than other forms of prosumption. These requirements set DIY apart from traditional
prosumption activities like home food production and Arts
& Crafts.

Developing and informing a conceptual model of DIY

behavior
We use a grounded theory approach to develop a conceptual
model of the motivators and outcomes of DIY behavior that
describes the underlying consumer processes involved when
creating a DIY consumption experience. Grounded theory
seeks to build theories from qualitative field data that can be
tested or extended by others (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The
purpose of the model and the discussion is to improve the
understanding of a large and important consumer market.
Because few studies have been published in this area, more
information is needed to inform the development of a model. Therefore, we conducted both formal and informal depth
interviews with DIYers to gain insights into their DIY experiences (Weaven and Herington 2006). Following several
dozen informal interviews with DIYers at DIY retail establishments, we conducted 16 formal interviews with selfprofessed DIYers (summary in Table 1).
Depth interview participants resided in the southern United States and were selected to vary the type and difficulty of
their DIY projects (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The formal
interviews ranged in length from 45 to 75 min and took
place in participants homes and garages, i.e., the places
where their DIY activities took place. One exception was
an interview held in a coffee shop, where the participant was
the owner who remodeled the shop as a DIY project. Participants were asked to tell stories about their most recent
DIY project and about projects deemed to result in positive
or less-than-positive experiences. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed by the authors resulting in
178 single-spaced typed pages.
The transcribed interviews served as text for a grounded
theory of consumers DIY behaviors (Strauss and Corbin
1998). Themes, categories, and relationships emerged
throughout the interview process, and we continued collecting interviews until our themes were saturated and no additional refinements emerged from the addition of more
participants (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Data were analyzed

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

157

Table 1 Characteristics of participant do-it-yourselfers

Participant

Gender

Age

Occupation

1
2

Jeremy
Sam

Male
Male

28
43

IT Specialist
Self-Employed

10
18

3
4
5

Simon
Tommy
Jim

Male
Male
Male

34
41
57

9
22
40

Linda

Female

42

Hairstylist
Academic
TV Network
Technician
Hairstylist

Bert

Male

31

Delivery Service

15

Bob

Male

24

Mechanic

10

9
10

Charles
Judy

Male
Female

62
52

40
22

11
12
13

Steve
Walter
Lora

Male
Male
Female

39
26
48

Retired
Business
Developer,
Manager
Cable Technician
Student/Sales Clerk
Office Manager

14

Pat

Female

45

15

Beth

Female

43

16

Carmen

Female

40

Marketing
Manager
Education
Administration
Administrative
Assistant

Years of DIY
Experience

10

21
4
5
7
10
6

using open coding, which begins with creating abstract

representations of important events, happenings, objects,
and actions and interactions (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p.
102). The next step in the open coding process involves
grouping concepts into categories (Strauss and Corbin
1998). During this phase, theory began to emerge with the
identification of the motivations and outcomes that form
dominant themes in the data.
The process of alternating between reviewing relevant
literature and collecting data is a part of the immersion
process indicative of grounded theory design (Strauss and
Corbin 1998), so the literature associated with consumer
behavior, retailing, services, consumer psychology, sociology, leisure, and gender was reviewed for reports of DIY
behaviors. For example, the literature alerted us to the
possibility of economic motivations for DIY on the basis
of income (Bush et al. 1987; Hornik and Feldman 1982;
Schwartzlander and Bowers 1989), and we found that economic savings were important for our participants decisions
to engage in DIY activities. We also noted contradictory
findings regarding consumers income and their DIY behavior, which pointed us towards the possibility of additional
motivational forces. During the process of reading the interview data closely we encountered themes not addressed in

Last Project Type

Duration of
last Project

Remodel home (flooring, tiling, fixtures)

Remodel home/workplace (flooring, tiling,
walls, facade, plumbing)
Trailer remodeling (woodwork, mechanical)
Deck, car repair (woodwork, mechanical)
Remodel home (walls, flooring, tiling,
mechanical, plumbing)
Remodel home/workplace (flooring, piping,
window treatment)
Remodel bathroom (tiling, fixtures,
windows)
Add rooms (stairs, woodwork, plumbing,
electrical)
Build Tiki-Bar (tiling, woodwork),
Remodel bathroom, demo, flooring, walls,
tiling,

5 months
2 years
4 weeks
3 weeks
1 year
2 years
2 weeks
6 months
2 months
3 months

Garage (woodwork, brick work)

Fix closet doors (mechanical)
Kitchen Remodeling (sink, ceiling, counter
top, appliances)
Bathroom remodeling (tiling, flooring,
fixtures)
Light fixtures, appliance repair

1 week
1 day
4 weeks

1 week

Painting ex/interior, kitchen remodeling

3 months

1 months

the literature, which resulted in iterative revisions and extensions to our conceptual model (Close and Zinkhan 2009).
An example of a new theme was that study participants
indicated that, when inside retail store environments, they
began to imagine solutions to their current and future projects. This was surprising to us because typical home improvement retailers warehouse-like product displays give
little attention to finished DIY projects. Insights into themes
also emerged from the authors participation in the DIY
community, such as participation in online communities
where we offered and received advice on DIY projects (e.g.,
easy2DIY.com; DIYnetwork.com; autorepair.com; homedepot.com; lowes.com).
Motivators and outcomes of DIY behavior: the conceptual
model and propositions
Our depth interview study and literature review found multiple motivations for undertaking DIY projects and several
outcomes of such behavior. The motivations for DIY behavior fall into two categories and arise from (1) marketplace
evaluations of goods and services and (2) identity enhancement. Certain conditions render these motivations more
likely to emerge: DIYers discretionary time and their prior

158

DIY experience. Once evoked, the motivations to undergo

DIY behavior typically result in the purchase of DIY related
materials and products. However, this relationship is moderated by the retail environment because it can enhance the
visualizing of projects and the sharing of ideas with others,
both of which can cause DIYers to revise their project plans
and purchase decisions. We also found that engaging in and
completing DIY projects result in outcomes beyond the direct
benefits provided by the project; these include feelings of
accomplishment, control, and enjoyment that may affect the
motivation to undertake future DIYprojects. In the subsequent
sections we elaborate on the constructs and linkages in our
model and ground these relationships in comments from study
participants. Propositions are formulated to emphasize the
relationships between constructs (Bacharach 1989).
Antecedent conditions for motivations to DIY: consumer
characteristics
Two consumer characteristics are antecedent conditions for
consumers motivations to DIY: their amount of discretionary time and their prior DIY experience. The following
quotes from interviews illustrate these conditions.
Well, time is definitely an issue. It depends if there is a
time crunch. If I have time issues then I might look
into other resources. But if it is something I have time
for I probably do it myself. Sometimes I start something knowing I will encounter time issues in the
future, like crunch time at work or school, but
then it just takes longer to finish. But thats okay.
(Judy, age 52)
As a child I hung out with my dad a lot but didnt learn
a whole bunch. He already knew how to do all
those things and just wanted to get it done. Now
that Im older he is showing me how to do things.
So, now Im catching up with the experience. It
may take me two times to get it right, but Ill get it
done. (Simon, age 34)
Discretionary time for DIY behavior is related to the anticipated time needed to complete a DIY project. Experience
informs these expectations as illustrated by the quote above
from Simon, which suggests he knows that he may have to
do it twice to get it right. When estimated time requirements
do not match discretionary time, people may abstain from or
delay DIY behavior. Judy, for example, may consider other
resources if time is unavailable. However, some DIYers also
commence projects knowing that the likelihood of delay
exists, accepting an uncertain completion date and planning
their projects accordingly. DIY experience (skills and materials knowledge) also influences the decision to undertake a
DIY project. Individuals without such experience are less

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

likely to engage in DIY behavior. For example, Simon

reports that he feels challenged by DIY projects because
he did not learn much from his fathers DIY projects. Simon
realizes that he missed out on opportunities to experience
DIY at an early age and relies on his father for DIY advice.
DIY experience can arise from an individuals socialization
(John 1999; Moschis 1981), through which the skills and
materials knowledge needed for DIY behaviors are
acquired.
Motivations to DIY: marketplace evaluations
Our study participants data suggest that DIY behavior is
driven by four types of marketplace evaluations: (1) the
relative economic benefits of DIY, (2) a perceived lack of
quality from available offerings, (3) a lack of product availability, and (4) the need for customization. DIYers carry out
marketplace evaluations by examining offerings in stores,
examining work completed by professionals, and obtaining
estimates. We describe these marketplace evaluations and
provide some examples.
Relative economic benefits
The need for saving and being better off economically is a
strong motivator for undertaking DIY activities, and we
assume that many DIYers are attempting to save money
over purchasing professional goods and services. DIYers
compare the expected economic value with the purchase of
a marketplace option for similar goods and services to assess
the relative economic benefits of DIY projects. A number of
our interview participants stated that the money saved by
doing a project themselves could be used to acquire additional or upgraded items for their projects (e.g., better fixtures or higher quality wood) or would allow them to
purchase material for future projects.
We actually prefer to do it ourselves. It may be a trust
issue but also a money issue, you know. The estimate
for the bathroom was between $3000 and $4000, but
we did it for less than a $1000. The money we saved
we can use for something else like upgraded appliances or fixtures we wouldnt have money for otherwise.
(Bert, age 31)
The DIY market effectively offers consumers the equivalent of the make-or-buy decision faced by manufacturers,
whose decisions to produce their own products becomes
practical if it results in savings relative to purchasing goods
or services. It might be expected, therefore, that individuals
with lesser incomes are more likely to engage in DIY
activities than individuals with higher incomes. However,
where some studies find a positive relationship between
income and DIY activities (Bogdon 1996; Bush et al.

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

1987), others find a negative relationship (Pollakowski

1988; Schwartzlander and Bowers 1989; Williams 2004).
The conflicting findings suggest that the economic need
deriving from income status may be an insufficient and
overly simplistic view of how consumers weigh the
economics of the DIY decision. Our study participants
have a wide range of incomes and their reports challenge the notion of income as a motivator for DIY.
Rather, participants describe their motivations to DIY
in terms of spending money wisely and not in terms
of income. The desire to save money in one place and
spend it elsewhere is not a motivation exclusively for
those of lower socioeconomic status, because frugality
cuts across individuals from different economic backgrounds (Lastovicka et al. 1999). Although DIY activities do not increase household income, the ability to
repair and maintain the household by saving on professional help enables individuals to budget for other needs
and desires, thus enhancing their overall standard of
living (Hornik and Feldman 1982).

Lack of product quality in the professional sector

Another motivation to undertake DIY projects is the perception that professional services may not achieve sufficient
quality; this possibility can influence DIYers decisions to
make the good or perform the service themselves (Brown et
al. 2005; Lusch et al. 1992).
I have seen the work some professionals have done at
my moms house and I just shook my head. See, they
may not care much about the detail, but when you do
something yourself you really take pride in it. More so
than paying somebody to do it. I always took more
pride in what I was doing when it is mine, and tried to
do the job the best. Somebody else may not care as
much and pays less attention to details like grouts and
edges. (Jeremy, age 28)
Jeremy concluded that DIY behavior was the better option
given his experience with professionals, whom he believes
lack the pride and quality of workmanship to which he
aspires in his own projects. A German study found that
60% of DIYers perceive their own production quality as
superior to professionals, thus poor quality is a motivation
for DIY behavior (Institut fr Freizeitwirtschaft 1999).
Complaining behavior, avoidance, negative word of mouth,
and boycotts are the typical responses consumers make
when product quality is perceived as lacking (Blodgett et
al. 1995; Sen et al. 2001; Voorhees et al. 2006; Yuksel and
Mryteza 2009), but DIY offers consumers another strategy
for circumventing dissatisfactory experiences that largely
has been ignored by previous research.

159

Lack of product availability

The absence of product availability is another marketplace
evaluation that can motivate DIY behavior and has an effect
similar to the perception of insufficient quality, i.e., it
encourages consumers to perform DIY activities for goods,
repairs, and maintenance.
I guess we could have gotten it done. If you put money
on the table you can get anything done. But they [the
builder] said they cant find anybody they trust to do
the stairs. He had issues with quality, reliability before.
Some were not insured, so he said we just dont do
stairs. So, you have to come up with something.
(Charles, age 62)
For example, a lack of product availability can occur when
the housing industry experiences high demand and a shortage of qualified home repair and renovation professionals.
This can be a problem for individuals who require service
for a relatively small job such as one broken tile or a leaking
faucet because professional repair services may view small
home repair jobs as less profitable and not worth servicing.
In addition, if the scheduling of the service professional
does not meet consumers needs, then they may be more
inclined to do the job themselves rather than wait.
Although reactions to inadequate product availability are
described in prior research, a consumers decision to construct, modify or repair a product him or herself has not been
studied. A lack of product availability (temporary or permanent) can cause consumers to switch to another product,
purchase from competing stores, defer the purchase to the
next shopping occasion, or completely give up the purchase
(Campo et al. 2004; Corstjens and Corstjens 1995). Geographical and cyclical unavailability and the elimination of
brands or product categories can cause consumers to switch
to other brands or cycle between brands (Martin 2002).
Unavailable products can motivate consumers to find a
competitors product or switch to a different product category (Min and West 2003; Sloot and Verhoef 2008). Studies
of out-of-stock situations and discontinued products point
toward a variety of consumer reactions such as switching
stores and brands, not returning to the same store on the next
shopping trip, spending less, or postponing the purchase
(Fitzsimons 2000; Martin 2002; Emmelhainz et al. 1991;
Sloot et al. 2005). However, although customer reactions to
product unavailability have been widely examined, the DIY
response offers another alternative to consumers and
deserves consideration by researchers.
The need for customization
A motivation closely related to a lack of product availability is
the need to customize ones products, and study participants

160

clearly indicated that they can satisfy their specific product

needs through DIY behaviors. With its infinite product applications and combinations of raw and semi raw materials, the
DIY market provides opportunities for consumers to create
their own customized products. In one example, Bert told us
about a project where market options did not satisfy his needs,
resulting in his planning, designing, and constructing a kayak.
When I built my kayak I designed it on the computer
as a hybrid wood and fiberglass structure. The design
is somewhat special, but the ideas came from fishing
and outdoor magazines. I wanted to build it according
to what I needed my kayak to do, and because I could
not get anything like that in stores. They offer either
fishing or leisure kayaks, but not both. Fishing
kayaks have a wider hull, sit-on-top, are flatter,
thus slower in the water. Leisure kayaks have more
of a V-hull and are sit-in. I combined the two structures
to use the kayak for both, fishing and river paddling.
(Bert, age 31)
The primary motivation for Bert to develop and construct
his own kayak was to ensure that the kayak would serve his
particular needs. The fact that the marketplace did not offer
a suitable alternative motivated Bert to consider building his
own. In a second example, Bob explains why he decided to
build custom shelving.
My built-in shelving for example. I have looked at a
number of samples in magazines and then built it
according to the size of the bed. Putting K-Mart
shelves up was not an option I wanted something
that goes along with the finish of the furniture and
looks like it was part of it. I built in the nightstands
with a type of book shelf across the headboard. It was
meant to look like part of the bed. It took longer
than I thought but was worth it. (Bob, age 24)
A positive benefit provided to DIYers is control over the
customization process, and the ability to implement changes
without going through a second party.
Firms that offer customization of their products typically
give customers few options or permit customers only limited
involvement in the customization of the firms products.
Customized products can generate greater benefits for customers than mass marketed products because they deliver a
better fit to customers preferences (Franke et al. 2009;
Simonson 2005; Schreier 2006), although customization
still is traded off against quality and price (Valenzuela et
al. 2009). The benefits of customization require that customers are aware of their preferences and can communicate
them to professionals (Franke et al. 2009; Tuli et al. 2007).
However, little is known about consumers willingness to
produce and customize their own products given their individual needs and preferences.

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

It cannot be assumed that all consumers who cannot find

acceptable market offerings will engage in DIY activities to
satisfy their needs, but DIY provides options for consumers
who expect economic benefits arising from DIY behaviors,
perceive a lack of product quality or availability in the
marketplace, or need customized products. Therefore, we
suggest that:
Proposition 1 Consumers who engage in DIY behavior are
motivated by marketplace evaluations that include the
a)
b)
c)
d)

relative economic benefits

lack of product quality
lack of product availability
need for customization

Motivations to DIY: identity enhancement

An important category of motivators that emerged from
participants DIY activities involved identity enhancement
and maintenance. Four sources of identity enhancement
were described as meaningful by our DIY participants,
including: (1) a sense of empowerment; (2) an identity as
a craftsman; (3) membership in a community of DIY enthusiasts; and (4) the need to be unique or different from others.
Interestingly, the salience of these motivations differed
across genders.
Achieving an enhanced sense of empowerment
Study participants felt empowered by prior DIY behavior
and motivated to undertake further DIY projects, particularly the female DIYers we interviewed. For example, while
telling a story of how she used heavy tools to create a
bathroom completely from scratch, Judy shared the
following:
It is also a very empowering and independent feelingwhenever tearing down a wall or putting up a
wall using a big hammer and crowbar, gloves and
goggles. And either breaking through a wall or concrete makes you feel pretty strong. Dont get to do this
every day. (Judy, age 52)
Judy described knocking down a wall, breaking through a
concrete floor, moving a water heater, and putting up walls
and doorframes as empowering. Walls and concrete can
symbolize lasting boundaries, and tearing down those
boundaries may instill the sense of empowerment Judy
experienced. Her remarks reveal that completing DIY tasks
can create feelings of physical strength, authority, and independence. Similarly, but less focused on physical strength,
Linda states that continually having to prove herself to Joe,

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

161

the contractor was frustrating, but her DIY experiences

provided reassurance of her capabilities.

attracts a lot of attention and acts as a conversation

starter; it shows what you can do. (Bert, age 31)

It makes you feel independent, but the matter of fact is

that I may feel stronger as a female. I still have to go
against Joe, the contractor, and convince him that I know
what Im doing. It may be a disadvantage at times
because you are so frustrated to make your point. Its a
constant reassuring yourself you know what you are
talking about, because they are going to counter with a
different way to do it. They constantly try to sell you on
the up-scale product assuming you dont know what you
are talking about. However, knowing what I know adds
a lot of confidence in dealing with that. (Linda, age 42)

Craftsmanship provides men with the opportunity to recapture the pride that went along with doing a task from start to
finish with ones own hands (Gelber 1997, p. 68). The ideal
of a craftsman is popularized in television shows such as Tim
Allens Home Improvement, which emphasizes the importance of doing construction tasks to earn acknowledgment
from friends, neighbors, and family members. The lead characters obsession with power tools reflects a desire for power
and status through crafting. Tools symbolize crafting ability
and autonomy in a setting where a man can distinguish himself from other men (Bridenbaugh 1950). Mechanized tools
and machines form a contemporary version of the craftsman
archetype, and people who identify with this archetype may
search for ways to establish themselves as someone who
exercises personal influence over all the processes involved
in the manufacture of goods by choosing the design, selecting
the materials, and then making the product (Campbell 2005).

By recognizing her knowledge of various DIY tasks, Linda

was able to boost her confidence when taking on professionals in their territory. Our female participants statements are
consistent with leisure and gender theory that suggests
womens empowerment is related to self-expression, selfesteem, and self-determination (Freysinger and Flannery
1992), increased physical strength (Brace-Govan 2004),
the acquisition and mastery of specific skills (Wheaton and
Tomlinson 1998), and the pleasure of defying gendered
expectations about appropriate leisure pursuits (Auster 2001).
Empowerment is a central characteristic of resistance that enables women to create new opportunities and identities that are
not automatically assigned by traditional gender norms (Shaw
2001). This was true for our female DIYers who stated that DIY
activities enhanced their feelings of authority in a domain
mostly occupied by men. Empowerment as a motivational
force has received scant attention in the marketing literature,
but could offer insights into DIYers make or buy decisions.
Constructing an identity as a craftsman
Female participants emphasized their achieving a sense of
empowerment through various DIY tasks, but our male participants did not mention empowerment. Instead, some men,
like Bob, felt personal fulfillment and viewed their completed
DIY projects as a reflection of their ability as craftsmen,
whereas others, like Bert, enjoyed the fact that a completed
DIY project called attention to their craftsmanship.
Its creating something, seeing the finished product.
Doing something what most people cant do. Most
people would rather pay someone to do it. And it is
involving some special skills and tools most people
dont have. It took me a while to build my stairs, but it
was cool to walk on it after it was done. (Bob, age 24)

Being part of a DIY community

Another reason that people engage in DIY behavior is
because it connects them with others. A number of our
interview participants reported that they started DIY projects
to be with family, friends, or loved ones.
I built the deck during the summer. I was outside with
some friends who helped me at various points. I ended
up going back and redoing some of their work, but it
was fun. (Tommy, age 41)
See, Im also doing things in the neighborhood like
mowing lawns and keeping things nice. We only
charge cost because we use our lawn mowers and
gas and tools. Im retired and can be active and be
outside. My wife is at work during the day so I get to
do stuff and I get to be around people. Often we tell
each other things that bring up new ideas. Oh yeah, we
always share ideas (Charles, age 62)
Another participant reported that remodeling a room in the
house counts as family time that includes husband, wife, and
their five-year-old daughter. Charles (above) stated that he
engaged in small projects in the neighborhood to communicate and spend time with neighbors while his wife was at
work. An additional benefit he derives from meeting people
through DIY is to share ideas with others about DIY projects.
The need for uniqueness

The cool thing is that I can say that I built this with my
own hands. Part of it is also pride in the ability of
building something like that. A project like that

A fourth way for consumers to enhance and maintain their

identity is by reducing the threat of being similar to others

162

by creating unique items. The desire to be unique motivated

Charles to design his project to look different from his
neighbors.
I had this idea of building a Tiki bar. For months I
have been eyeballing it and seen some of my neighbors putting up outside bars for entertaining family
and friends. But see, theirs looked all nice and cookie
cutter. I didnt want that. I didnt want the same thing
everybody has. I wanted it different, not too perfect, and
a little rough on the edges. Dont get me wrong, I
wanted it to be nice, just, not the same old stuff everybody has in their yard. And mine is different, because I
used wood and logs that I fished out of the water. It does
not get any more different. (Charles, age 62)
Conceptual models of social nonconformity recognize
behaviors that make a person different relative to other
people (Lynn and Harris 1997; Nail 1986). The motivation
for counter-conformity arises when an individual perceives
that they are very similar to others and their personal identity is threatened (Snyder and Fromkin 1977). People can
distinguish themselves from others through their behaviors,
but also through products that offer symbolic meaning beyond their functional benefits (Ligas 2000). Because possessions can act as extensions of the self, one way that
consumers satisfy their need for uniqueness is by acquiring
and possessing unique consumer products (Belk 1988).
Uniqueness can be achieved not only by acquiring and
displaying novelty and handcrafted goods, but also by personalizing items through the personal design and alteration
of common products (Tian et al. 2001; Johnson and Wilson
2005).
No matter what the project, DIY offers tremendous opportunities to personalize self-made products. For example,
by collecting building materials from the nearby river,
Charles increased the uniqueness of his project and made
imitation difficult. An interesting aspect derived from this
observation is that DIYers deliberately may choose alternative materials and designs for their projects, including materials that might otherwise be described as junk or trash.
Studying DIY behavior based on using old or used materials
could generate new insights regarding consumers innovative
behavior, sustainable consumption, and even new product
ideas and designs. Based on the information related to identity
enhancement and maintenance drawn from our literature review and depth interviews, we propose that:
Proposition 2 Consumers who engage in DIY behavior are
motivated by a desire to enhance aspects of their identity,
including:
a) achieving a sense of empowerment
b) constructing an identity as a craftsman

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

c) being a part of a community

d) a need for uniqueness

DIY purchases
After DIYers weigh the benefits and decide to undertake a
DIY project, they typically must purchase materials for their
projects. Purchase decisions for larger projects can be complex, and it can be difficult to know exactly what kinds of
materials and what quantities are needed. This is particularly
evident when projects evolve over time due to issues such as
unforeseen circumstances (e.g., more material must be
replaced or repaired than initially expected), changes in
plans or the scope of the project, or changes in the methods
used to complete a project. Multiple visits to home improvement retailers may be required, both to procure materials
and to obtain ideas for what materials are available and how
they might fit into a project. This purchase process is unlike
most traditional purchases due to the degree of consumer
involvement and the evolving nature of the project and the
materials required.
Few of our study participants reported that they finalized
plans or made purchases without first shopping at home
improvement retailers to help with plan visualization, and
nearly all reported browsing at retailers repeatedly before a
purchase was made. DIYers may need to see or feel the
actual product (Peck and Wiggins 2006) or evaluate the
sizes and types of materials. Consequently, DIY projectrelated purchases likely are moderated by a DIYers ability
to use the retail environment to stimulate ideas and project
plans, which has implications for home improvement and
other DIY retailers.
Between the decision to DIY and materials purchase:
the moderating role of project planning and visualizing
Planning the project
Media such as the Internet, books, and TV shows are used
by our DIY study participants to obtain information for
project planning. However, and as described above, during
our interviews we became aware that interactions with retail
environments also play an important role for planning DIY
projects. Customers may visit DIY retailers repeatedly to
help plan their projects, e.g., to determine available options
regarding colors, styles, materials, and measurements.
I know I have an idea but need more details. Im
limited in planning my project when Im standing in
my bathroom looking around. I might picture a new
vanity but have no clue whether other accessories fit
the style and size. I need to see whats available in

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

color, size and style. I went to three different places

[home improvement retailers] to verify that I can do all
the things I had in mind. (Bert, age 31)
Most of our participants said that visiting DIY retail environments, examining home improvement products closely,
and imagining the appearance of their DIY projects with
these products helped to focus plans.
The best ideas come from walking and looking around
in those stores. I can show you so many things in the
coffee shop [I own] and the kitchen that [resulted]
from me browsing: this countertop, the rod for the
coffee roaster, etc. I have something in my head and
dont know how to approach it. Then I just browse
through the aisles and if I see something that fits my
project, it may click. (Sam, age 43)
As other examples, Bob reported that browsing at Home
Depot makes him think about future projects in his house.
Judy states that whenever I walk into Lowes Im like a kid
in the candy storetoo many ideas come into my head for
things I want to do. Steve disclosed that
I go to Home Depot all the time and lay out a plan with
what I need and what is available. I look at all those
things and place them in my house, at least in my
head. I think this would look good here and that would
look good there. (Steve, age 39)
For our study participants, visits to home improvement
retailers are not merely for seeking information about new
products and trends (Bloch et al. 1986), nor is it merely
hedonic satisfaction, i.e., shopping as a pleasurable experience in its own right (Arnold and Reynolds 2003). Rather,
DIY retail environments offer a context for consumers to
formulate ideas about their projects. The products (raw
materials and manufactured products) available at DIY
retailers appear to encourage shoppers to visualize their
DIY projects while they are in the store. Because DIYers
often are seeking the solution to an existing problem, the
sight of specific items while browsing appears to help generate
plausible solutions, both for current and future projects.
Browsing at DIY retailers
Specialty stores often serve as a place for consumers with
similar interests to interact, and this also appears true for
DIYers in home improvement retailers. Our interview participants reported that the retail environment offered a way
to share projects and ideas with knowledgeable store personnel and other DIYers. Participants stated that their
encounters with store personnel in hardware stores often
go beyond the typical questions about finding a certain item.
Store personnel would engage in conversations by asking

163

for details about the customers project and then using their
own problem-solving experience to give advice. Such
encounters represent processes where both parties interact
and mutually co-create experiences (Payne et al. 2009).
Just the other day I went into ACE Hardware. The guy
there had a similar project as mine. So we talked about
all the troubles we were running into. The time I spent
talking I probably should have used on my project
[laughter]. (Simon, age 34)
Several interviewees told stories where, following the
exchange of ideas with store personnel or other customers,
they left the store without a purchase and postponed purchases until they could incorporate ideas from their recent
exchange. Judy for example was looking for a corner molding piece for her shower project. After retail staff suggested
a ceramic instead of a wood solution, she left the store to
consider the new information. Bert indicated that his few
first visits rarely end in a purchase. Visits to retail stores can
take place at various stages of a DIY project but are most
frequent during a projects initial stage when multiple
assessments of product options, prices, availability, and
measurements are required. These visits are shown in
Fig. 1 by a two-way arrow that reflects the sequence of
visiting a DIY retailer, obtaining information, considering
that information, making a plan, and then returning to the
retailer. This form of iterative problem solving appears to
promote consumers emotional engagement with the retail
environment and embeds the retail space into the consumption experience (Payne et al. 2009). The back and forth
interaction between retailers and consumers is a key element
of service-dominant logic that enhances co-creation and
dialog within the relationship (Ballantyne and Varey
2008). The complex nature of typical DIY projects often
create the need for numerous purchase decisions, and visits
to retail stores offer a necessary context for the interplay of
project planning, idea generation, and visualization. The
role of DIY retailers for consumers DIY projects suggests
the following proposition:
Proposition 3 The relationship between the decision to DIY
and purchases of DIY project materials is moderated by
a) project planning
b) browsing at DIY retailers

The outcomes of DIY behaviors

Consumers can create valuable experiences beyond the consumption of a tangible product by learning how to use,
maintain, and adapt the product to their unique needs and
usage situations (Vargo and Lusch 2004). All study

164

participants communicated strong emotions about completed DIY projects; it was particularly interesting that the
majority did not elaborate on the utility of the finished
product, but rather the excitement and passion they derived
from completing the project. Therefore, Fig. 1 shows that
DIY behavior is related to higher-order values that go beyond the creation of physical or monetary value (Holbrook
2006). These outcomes can be described as desired endstates such as happiness, security, and pleasure (Rokeach
1973), which are powerful forces that govern the behaviors
of individuals in all aspects of their lives (Kahle 1983).
More specifically, the DIYers in our study reported elevated
senses of accomplishment, control, and enjoyment derived
from their DIY activities. We designate these as DIY Outcomes and describe them below.

Sense of accomplishment
Each participants reaction to the finished project was an
elevated sense of accomplishment. Despite planning, designing, and constructing projects from the beginning, the complexity of their projects did not strike the DIYers until arriving
at the final stage, at which time every participant reported
feeling a sense of accomplishment due to a raised awareness
about their potential and capabilities for further DIY projects.
You feel a sense of achievement. Also, and this continues to this day, sometimes you go out and think
wow, I built this! It is something that may not outlast
me, but its certainly something thats gonna be around
for 10 or 20 years. It will probably last longer than Ill
own the house. Doing these kinds of things always
make me realize the things one can do. (Tommy, age 41)
People who seek a sense of accomplishment place themselves
in situations where this value can be attained (Kahle 1983;
Rokeach 1973) and carry an elevated sense of accomplishment and self-worth arising from the realization of ones
talents, capabilities, and potentials (Freitas and Higgins 2002).

Control
A second outcome that informants reported concerned the
mastery of their projects. By facing new projects and unforeseen difficulties without involving marketplace professionals, study participants said that DIY gave them control
of their living spaces and lives.
When I start something new, it is like climbing a hill. I
want to do this. I want to say that I did it. I think it is
more like I want to say with confidence that I did that,
that I can do that. Because some people make claims
of things they have never done. I like the idea of

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

having the confidence and knowing that I can do it

by myself. (Jim, age 57)
Control most often is associated with personal mastery of
situations, which means that one is effective at fulfilling
goals (Lusch et al. 1992, 2007). DIY allows people to take
charge of a part of their environment that typically is controlled by others. Not only does DIY imply a physical
solution to a problem within ones home, it also becomes a
part of the extended self (Belk 1988). An individual who
finishes a DIY project has affirmed mastery of the task
similar to when a mountain climber in reaching a peak
has asserted control of the mountain and the panorama it
affords (Belk 1988, p. 150).
Enjoyment
Another outcome identified by all interview participants was
that their DIY projects were enjoyable in some way, regardless of any disappointment or unexpected problem encountered during projects. Although it seemed difficult for our
participants to pinpoint specifics, enjoyment arose when the
task was completed without pressure, different from the
everyday work routine, and perceived as relaxing.
I really enjoyed every bit of it, but I wish I wasnt
under the gun to get it done so fast. Having to live in it
[the house] while you are remodeling was tough but
doable. I was trying to get the business going at the
time, but if I could do it on my terms Id enjoy it even
more. (Sam, age 43)
If occupational work becomes increasingly desk oriented
and monotonous, then people are more likely to engage in
physical activities such as the self-production that characterizes prosumers (Toffler 1980). Activities such as gardening,
gourmet cooking, personal fitness training, education, and
learning new skills offer psychic benefits that are associated
with enjoyment (Lusch et al. 2007). Consumers who engage
in DIY behavior often do so for enjoyment rather than for
receiving an external reward such as money (Deci et al.
1999; Holbrook 2006; Lepper and Henderlong 2000).
Kotler (1986a, b) describes consumers increasing their participation in the production process but does not advance the
outcomes of such engagement beyond a physical product. Xie
et al. (2008) explore the antecedents of the decision to engage in
production, but do not consider the outcomes. Therefore, we
consider the outcomes of DIY behavior and propose that:
Proposition 4 Consumers who engage in DIY behavior
obtain outcomes that include senses of
a) accomplishment
b) control
c) enjoyment

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

Between DIY behavior and outcomes: the mediating role

of project satisfaction
In a DIY context, project satisfaction can be defined as
the degree to which a completed project meets a
DIYers expectations and is predicted to mediate the
relationship between DIY behaviors and outcomes (see
Fig. 1). Participants who had their expectations for the
project confirmed tended to evaluate their experience
more positively and elaborated on their feelings of accomplishment. DIY projects that did not meet DIYers
expectations resulted in a less positive evaluation and
reduced satisfaction with the project. Less satisfied individuals did not count their experience as a great accomplishment but still were eager to undertake future
projects. A less satisfying experience was viewed as a
learning experience and simply a part of the DIY process. In
the following quote, Jim expressed his frustration about some
DIY projects and his realization that he had reached his limits
and might have to consult a professional. While it has not
prevented him from working on other projects, he evaluated
such projects as just not the same as if he had done it
himself.
I have messed up plenty of timesI accept that. I say
alright. When I was younger I threw a wrench at the
car. I would be so frustrated with not making this
happen. I would scream and blame the metal and get
angry at the screws. But thats the time when you have
to realize that you may want to get someone [a professional]. It is just not the same as if I had finished it,
though. (Jim, age 57)
Carmen shared a similar experience and stated that overly
high expectations can lead to disappointment about the
project, yet add to the experience in the long run.
I regretted that I had started a project. When I painted
the outside of my house I was much more involved
than I thought. It took much longer, was more expensive, and didnt come out as I thought it would. I
totally miscalculated it, but Ill be smarter next time.
(Carmen, age 40)
People typically use expectations regarding characteristics
such as quality and value to evaluate their satisfaction with
purchased products (Zeithaml 1988; Fornell et al. 1996),
and it is important to note that, despite producing their
own goods and services, respondents use the same evaluations for determining satisfaction with their own projects.
This observation suggests that:
Proposition 5 DIYers perceptions of project satisfaction
mediates the relationship between DIY behaviors and DIY
outcomes.

165

Discussion
DIY behavior has become an important part of many consumers lives thatbecause it offers consumers make or
buy decisionsexpands the meaning of consumerism, so
there is value to understanding what motivates consumers to
undertake DIY projects and what benefits they obtain. We
develop a model of the motivators and outcomes of DIY
behavior that is informed by a depth interview study and,
where it exists, linked to the appropriate literature. The
purpose of developing this model is to improve our understanding of a large consumer segment that behaves differently than typical consumers in many ways. In addition to
the model, this article offers further contributions to consumer theory including a definition of DIY behavior and a
depth interview study and multidisciplinary literature review
that inform an exploration of the motivators and outcomes
of DIY behaviors.
Our study of DIY behavior calls attention to an underdeveloped and understudied domain where consumers add
value to a product. DIY behavior goes beyond the interpretive process of consumer value creation that occurs when
consuming works of art, books, and films, because such
behavior involves consumers mental and physical engagement in acts of planning, designing, and fabricating for self
consumption. By physically making things, a DIYer
becomes the designer, builder, and evaluator of a project
that is experientially consumed both during production and
after its completion. Given the focal role of products for
consumer behavior, DIY behavior takes on greater meaning
than the functional value of the project and derives from a
more complex set of motivations than is recognized in
previous literature.
The conceptual framework developed in this article also
adds to the existing discussion of the co-production and cocreation of value. It confirms the central idea that exchange
is not about goods and services but rather the competencies
of the parties involved (Lusch et al. 2007). DIY behaviors
and products should be viewed as mechanisms for transferring and applying competencies. Service dominant logic
argues that value only can be determined by the user in
the consumption process (Vargo and Lusch 2004). The
DIY marketplace makes a value proposition that, when
accepted, can result in a value framework that goes beyond
material values, and thereby offers an opportunity to study
alternative consumer motivations and goals. Specifically,
the marketplace derived motivations for DIY suggested by
our study and literature review are the economic benefits, a
lack of product quality, a lack of product availability, and a
need for customization. Motivations that derive from identity
enhancement include fulfillment of craftsmanship, empowerment, community seeking, and the need for uniqueness. These
motivations present a range of reasons for DIY that go beyond

166

the notion that such behaviors arise strictly from economic

necessity. Similarly, the outcomes of DIY behavior (a sense of
accomplishment, control, and enjoyment) also extend notions
of typical consumer values.
Implications for future research
Our study and propositions suggest numerous opportunities
for future research. Because the theory associated with DIY
behavior is not well developed, our model considers only
the motivators and outcomes of DIY behaviors described
either by our depth interview study or in the scant previous
literature. Future studies could both validate the motivations
and outcomes we propose and search for additional motivations and outcomes to better understand DIY behaviors.
Similarly, the effects on purchasing patterns due to segmentation variables such as the degree of consumer engagement
with DIY activities (e.g., building furniture from scratch vs.
assembly from a kit), demographic and psychographic variables, and personal values also could be studied. Individuals may value their own products more highly than
traditional marketplace offerings due to the effort required
to build them (cf., Festinger 1957; Norton et al. 2011).
Consequently, when projects are too complicated and professionals must be hired, DIYers may be willing to pay a
premium so that they can contribute to the work on projects.
Another idea is studying trends in DIY behavior, such as
whether the DIY industry grows during periods when the
economy is weak, and the factors that encourage consumers
to continue being DIYers once they engage in these behaviors. Lastly, some of the constructs we describe are new to
consumer behavior and require the development of original
measurement scales for empirical relationship testing. This
may be challenging for DIY-related constructs because consideration must be given to consumers planning, designing,
and fabricating their own products, rather than purchasing
traditional marketplace offerings.
To expand on the idea that other variables could be used
to segment DIYers, one of the more useful examples of such
variables may be gender. For example, the female study
participants indicated that they were motivated by empowerment whereas males focused on their identities as craftsmen, which suggests gender differences in DIY outcomes
that could have implications for DIY-related consumption.
As a specific instance, viewing empowerment as a force that
guides female consumers decision making behavior has not
received attention in the business literature. Their current
role as wage earners and consumers has American women
responsible for purchase decisions worth over $4.3 trillion
annually (Silverstein and Sayre 2009). Further exploration
may reveal other consumer decisions that are based on
seeking an enhanced sense of empowerment. Similarly,
some DIYers produce their own products to differentiate

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

themselves from others, and our findings suggest that individuals may go much further when seeking uniqueness than
previously anticipated. Consumer use-innovativeness also
may be relevant for DIY, such as when DIYers who seek
high levels of uniqueness use materials that others reject to
increase the likelihood of differentiation.
The propositions we forward to describe DIYers suggest
various behavioral differences when compared to consumers
in the traditional marketplace and provide a starting point
for researchers to revisit traditional consumption models.
For example, we propose that DIYers are motivated by
market related factors, two of which are a lack of product
quality and a lack of availability in the marketplace. Consumer responses to poor quality and unavailable products
are well documented in the retailing, consumer behavior,
and operations literatures (e.g., Sloot and Verhoef 2008;
Voorhees et al. 2006), but DIY behavior is an alternative
consumer response to marketplace shortcomings that is unexplored in existing literature. The preference for customized products also is an important motivator for our depthinterview participants, yet the customization literature typically focuses exclusively on firms opportunities to provide
customized products to customers rather than their preferences. There can be a disconnect between the customers
ability to communicate preferences and the firm that provides those customized offerings (Franke et al. 2009).
Studying self-customization efforts may help marketers understand the underlying mechanisms that prevent or encourage DIYers from seeking marketplace offerings for meeting
custom needs.
Our conceptual model incorporates the proposition that
the relationship between a decision to undertake a DIY
project and subsequent purchase decisions is moderated by
planning and visualization in retail environments. Many of
our sample of DIYers browsed at retail environments prior
to beginning a project, but they rarely purchased anything
on their first visit. The visits to DIY retailers suggest that
consumers can develop an emotional engagement with the
retail environment that embeds the retail space into the cocreation experience and also may have implications for
customer engagement.
DIYers appear to create value through both the creation
and consumption of their self-production. Therefore, value
creation is not limited to consumers learning to use, maintain, and adapt goods (Vargo and Lusch 2004) but moves to
consumers learning how to produce and consume their own
products. However, other forms of value are interwoven
throughout our model and discussion. For example, we
propose a few DIY outcomes (a sense of accomplishment,
control, and enjoyment) that are not typical consumer values
but instead are higher-order outcomes (Holbrook 2006).
Economic value is a DIY motivator that also could be an
outcome of such behavior, althoughconsistent with Xie et

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

al. (2008)our study participants focused primarily on the

process of DIY projects and the higher-order outcomes
rather than the economic value and physical product. Nonetheless, the various forms of values justify further study to
better understand which motivate DIY behaviors and which
are the outcomes, and under what circumstances.
Lastly, the concept of the prosumer deserves further
attention. More than 20 years have passed since Kotler
(1986a, b) published his ideas on prosumption, yet previous
research has contributed little to understanding prosumers'
behaviors, motivations, and outcomes. Our research suggests that prosumption activities such as DIY projects have
roots beyond the traditional economic motivations, and understanding these motivations may have important implications for DIY retailers who can emphasize alternative
benefits from DIY behavior. Toffler (1980) presents several
arguments that prophesy future prosumption growth, including a decline in the workweek, scarcity of jobs, the rising
cost of skilled labor, routinized work, poor quality workmanship, and individuation of ones own products. This
growing segment deserves further study and marketing
researchers and managers should prepare for trends that
reflect shifts from purchasing goods and services to DIYing
them.
Managerial implications
Our study and model have several important implications
for marketing managers, most of which concern DIY
retailers and traditional service providers. The first implication is that consumers who produce their own goods and
services extend the traditional view of consumers as the
buyers and users of products. This suggests a range of coproduction options, such as retailers who inform and educate customers about DIY skills and home improvement
materials. Home Depot, for example, offers demonstrations
that show customers how to lay tiles or build a deck.
Another example is that contractors could work with DIYers
who want professional advice rather than having the project
done for them. Such a service would be invaluable for
DIYers because they could learn new DIY skills and attempt
more complicated projects than they might otherwise, with
the knowledge that they can hire someone to oversee a
project and give advice where needed.
Second, a trend that has consumers shifting from conventional consumption to self-production should concern
many traditional retailers and service professionals. Typical
consumer responses to stock-outs, unavailability, poor quality, and overly standardized goods and services are assumed
to include negative word of mouth, boycotts, or switching
behavior. Largely ignored is consumers ability to create
their own goods and services through DIY behaviors, and
retailers and service providers need to be aware that

167

consumers can be motivated to DIY by marketplace conditions. Although the direct loss to a firms profits may not
be serious in the short term, managers should understand
that as DIYers gain experience, they also may be more likely
to consider the DIY option for other products, so the loss to
sales could be wide spread and long term.
Third, the finding that DIYers also engage in self production for identity enhancement reasons may not be surprising.
However, current DIY marketing strategies typically focus
solely on the economic benefits of DIY projects and not
consumers identities. Marketers should consider strategies
that emphasize customers enhancing their identities through
DIY projects. For example, by outlining the characteristics
of a craftsman, retailers such as Home Depot and Lowes
may encourage customers to seek challenges in home improvement projects. The different motivations for DIY
behaviors indicate the possibility of a variety of DIYer segments. For example, marketers may find it useful to know
that our female study participants felt empowered while
doing DIY tasks. Given the central role of empowerment
and the rising trend of single female home ownership,
marketers who target women DIYers may offer new opportunities to those who seek self empowering projects. Marketing managers also could examine whether women have
different DIY product and retailing preferences (e.g., tool
sizes and brands such as Martha Stewart).
Fourth, the study results indicate that viewing the goods
and raw materials in DIY stores supports the development of
current and future DIY projects and provides solutions to
existing DIY problems. Visits to DIY retailers are important
for understanding what is possible for DIY projects. DIY
retail environments can offer consumers a place to engage
their imaginations, conceive new projects, and to visualize
the specifications and work processes needed to complete
these projects. This means that product displays are important, and partially- and fully-assembled portions of typical
DIY projects could serve to stimulate DIYers thought processes and purchase decisions. Although DIYers may not
make a purchase every visit, we expect that the more often
they visit a retailer, the more they will purchase when
project decisions are made. The interaction between DIY
customers and retailers appears unlike typical customerretailer relationships.
The DIY retail environment also provides a meeting
place for like-minded consumers to share project ideas and
experiences, and DIY retail spaces can serve as a community center for DIY enthusiasts. Store personnel, as part of
the retail environment, can engage patrons in conversations
about their projects. Both parties can exchange their ideas
and offer project-specific knowledge and solutions. That
DIYers seek out store staff with whom they can share ideas
and projects emphasizes the need to hire personnel with
DIY experience. Retail personnel who share their experience

168

and give advice can contribute to the positive completion of

and experience with DIY projects. Such interactions can
strengthen ties to the retailer and enhance loyalty and word
of mouth to create a competitive advantage (Brown et al.
2005; Lusch et al. 2007). In turn, DIYers who communicate
frequently with retail personnel can offer ideas that may
improve the retailers offerings.
A finding from our depth interviews is that DIY behavior
can take on greater meaning than the functional or aesthetic
value of the project. Study participants voiced feelings of
accomplishment, control, and enjoyment when completing
their projects. By producing their own products, DIYers
move from a concrete level of product attributes to the
positive benefits provided by co-producing and consuming
the product, and then on to a higher level of abstraction that
is personal value (Reynolds 1985). Important for the development of these outcomes is the satisfaction from completing a DIY project successfully. This suggests that managers
in the DIY industry should attend carefully to strategies for
managing customers perceptions of project satisfaction,
perhaps by emphasizing outcomes that encourage DIY
behaviors in marketing communications.

References
Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 7796.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production
and customer loyalty in financial services. Journal of Retailing,
83(3), 359374.
Auster, C. J. (2001). Transcending potential antecedents leisure constraints: the case of women motorcycle operators. Journal of
Leisure Research, 33(3), 272298.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: some criteria for
evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496515.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2008). The service dominant logic and
the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36(1), 1114.
Bateson, J. E. (1985). Self-service consumer: an exploratory study.
Journal of Retailing, 61(3), 4976.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(2), 139168.
Bloch, P. H., Ridgeway, N. M., & Sherrell, D. L. (1986). Extending the
concept of shopping: an investigation of browsing activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(1), 1321.
Blodgett, J. G., Wakefield, K. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1995). The effects of
customer service on consumer complaining behavior. Journal of
Services Marketing, 9(4), 3142.
Bogdon, A. S. (1996). Homeowner renovation and repair: the decision
to hire someone else to do the project. Journal of Housing
Economics, 5(4), 323350.
Brace-Govan, J. (2004). Weighty matters: control of womens access to
physical strength. The Sociological Review, 52(4), 503532.
Bridenbaugh, C. (1950). The colonial craftsman. New York: NY
University Press.
Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005).
Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2),
123138.
Bush, A., Menon, A., & Smart, D. (1987). Media habits of the do-ityourselfers. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(5), 1420.
Campbell, C. (2005). The craft consumer: culture, craft, and consumption in a postmodern society. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1),
2342.
Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2004). Dynamics in consumer
response to product unavailability: do stock-out reaction signal
response to permanent assortment reductions? Journal of Business
Research, 57(8), 834844.
Close, A. G., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2009). Market resistance and
valentine's day events. Journal of Business Research, 62(2),
200207.
Corstjens, J., & Corstjens, M. (1995). Store wars: The battle for
mindspace and shelfspace. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., Ferrell, L. K., Ferrell, O. C., &
Pinney, C. C. (2011). Market-oriented sustainability: a conceptual
framework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), 7185.
Dabholkar, P. A. (1996). Consumer evaluations of new technologybased self-service options: an investigation of alternative models
of service quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 2951.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. L. (1999). A meta-analysis
review of experiments examining effects of extrinsic rewards on
intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627668.
Emmelhainz, M. A., Stock, J. R., & Emmelhainz, L. W. (1991).
Consumer response to retail stock-outs. Journal of Retailing, 67
(2), 138147.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(2), 249266.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E.
(1996). The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 718.
Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Steger, C. J. (2009). Testing value of customization: when do customers really prefer products tailored to their
preferences? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 103121.
Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, T. E. (2002). Enjoying goal directed action:
the role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13(1), 16.
Freysinger, V., & Flannery, D. (1992). Womens leisure: affiliation,
self-determination, empowerment and resistance? Loisir et Societe:
Society and Leisure, 15(1), 303321.
Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F. (2006). Creating a
market orientation: a longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of
cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 3755.
Gelber, S. M. (1997). Do-it-yourself: constructing, repairing and maintaining domestic masculinity. American Quarterly, 49(1), 66112.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.
Holbrook, M. B. (2006). ROSEPEKICECIVECI vs. CCV: the
resource-operant, skills-exchanging, performance-experiencing,
knowledge-informed, competence-enacting, co-producerinvolved, value-emerging, customer-interactive view of marketing versus the concept of customer value: I can get if for you
wholesale. In R. Lusch & S. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant
logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 208223).
New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Home Improvement Research Institute. (2011). The September home
improvement products market sales forecast grew 2.8% in 2011
with an increase in 2012 to 4.0%. Retrieved October 20, 2011
from http://www.hiri.org/?page0Media.
Hornik, J., & Feldman, L. P. (1982). Retailing implications of the do-ityourself consumer movement. Journal of Retailing, 58(2), 4463.

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

Humphreys, A., & Grayson, K. (2008). The intersecting roles of
consumer and producer: a critical perspective on co-production,
co-creation and prosumption. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 118.
Institut fr Freizeitwirtschaft. (1999). Strukturwandel im deutschen
diy-markt. Retreived September 18, 2011 from http://tourismusprojekt.de/pdf/strukturwandel.pdf.
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective
look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183213.
Johnson, J. S., & Wilson, L. E. (2005). It says you really care:
motivational factors of contemporary female handcrafters. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 23(2), 115130.
Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to
life in America. New York: Praeger Publishing.
Kotler, P. (1986a). The prosumer movement: a new challenge for
marketers. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 510513.
Kotler, P. (1986b). Prosumers: a new type of consumer. Futurist, 20(5),
2429.
Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J.
(1999). Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: theory and measurement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 8599.
Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning play into work and
work into play: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic
motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and
performance (pp. 257307). New York, NY: Academic.
Ligas, M. (2000). People, products, and pursuits: exploring the relationship between consumers goals and product meaning. Psychology and Marketing, 17(11), 9831003.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service dominant logic: reactions,
reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281288.
Lusch, R. F., Brown, S., & Brunswick, G. J. (1992). A generic framework for explaining internal vs. external exchange. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 20(2), 119134.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & OBrien, M. (2007). Comparing through
service: insights from the service-dominant logic. Journal of
Retailing, 83(1), 518.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: a new individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing, 14(6), 601616.
Martin, M. A. (2002). Consumer response to discontinuance of favorite
products: an exploratory study. Advances in Consumer Research,
29(1), 249250.
Min, K. S., & West, P. M. (2003). Consumer response to product
unavailability. Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 197198.
Moschis, G. P. (1981). Patterns of consumer learning. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 9(2), 110126.
Nail, P. R. (1986). Toward an integration of some models and theories
of social response. Psychology Bulletin, 100(2), 190206.
Norton, M., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2011). The IKEA Effect:
When labor leads to love. Working Paper 11-091, Harvard Business School.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., & Knox, S. (2009). Co-creating
brands: diagnosing and designing the relationship experience.
Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 379389.
Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: customers affective
response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of
Marketing, 70(4), 5669.
Pollakowski, H. O. (1988). The determinants of residential renovation
and repair activity. Final Report Prepared for the Office of Policy
Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development: Washington, DC.
Reynolds, J. T. (1985). Implications for value research: a macro vs.
micro perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 2(4), 297305.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free
Press.

169
Schreier, M. (2006). The value increment of mass-customized products: an empirical assessment. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5
(4), 317327.
Schwartzlander, A., & Bowers, J. S. (1989). Relationships between
consumer characteristics and do-it-yourself behaviour (do-it-yourself activity). Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics,
13(1), 3951.
Sen, S., Grhan-Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: a social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 399414.
Shaw, S. M. (2001). Conceptualizing resistance: womens leisure as
political practice. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(2), 186201.
Silverstein, M. J., & Sayre, K. (2009). The female economy. Harvard
Business Review, 87(9), 4653.
Simonson, I. (2005). Determinants of customers responses to customized offers: conceptual framework and research propositions.
Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 3245.
Sloot, L. M., & Verhoef, P. C. (2008). The impact of brand delisting on
store switching and brand switching intentions. Journal of Retailing, 84(3), 281296.
Sloot, L. M., Verhoef, P. C., & Franses, P. H. (2005). The impact of
brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer
stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing, 81(1), 1534.
Snyder, R. C., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive
characteristic: the development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5),
518527.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Tian, K., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers Need
for uniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal of
Consumer Research, 28(1), 5066.
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow and
Company Inc.
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking
customer solutions: from product bundles to relational processes.
Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 117.
Valenzuela, A., Dhar, R., & Zettelmeyer, F. (2009). Contingent response to self-customization procedures: implications for decision
satisfaction and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6),
754763.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic
for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 117.
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., & Horowitz, D. M. (2006). A voice
from the silent masses: an exploratory and comparative analysis
of noncomplainers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34(4), 514527.
Watson, M., & Shove, E. (2008). Product, competence, project and
practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 6989.
Weaven, S., & Herington, S. (2006). Female franchisors: how different
are they from independent business owners? Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10(4), http://www.amsreview.org/articles/
weaven07-2006.pdf.
Wheaton, B., & Tomlinson, A. (1998). The changing gender order in
sport? The case of windsurfing subculture. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 22(3), 252274.
Williams, C. C. (2008). Re-thinking the motives of do-it-yourself
(DIY) consumers. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(3), 311323.
Williams, C. C. (2004). A lifestyle choice? Evaluating the motives of
do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 32(5), 270278.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume:
toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 109122.

170
Yuksel, U., & Mryteza, V. (2009). An evaluation of strategic responses
to consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 248
249.

AMS Rev (2011) 1:154170

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perception of price, quality, and
value: a means-end model and syntheses of evidence. Journal of
Marketing, 52(3), 2339.