Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 March 2010
Received in revised form 1 September 2010
Accepted 1 October 2010
Available online 16 November 2010
Keywords:
Online auctions
Engagement
Social exchange
Community
Business relationships
a b s t r a c t
This paper provides emic and etic interpretations of engagement with a consumer-to-consumer (C2C) online
auction site, based on in-depth interviews with buyers. The study exposes three misconceptions about online
C2C auctions; that the interaction between parties occurs exclusively online, that the relation between buyers
and sellers is purely transactional in nature, and that the interaction between buyers and sellers does not lead
to ongoing business relationships. The paper reveals the utilitarian, hedonic and social benets that are the
bases of engagement with the auction site. Social benets materialize for auction buyers during ofine
exchanges. The paper also reveals marketer incentives and structural disincentives for consumers' ongoing
use of the auction site.
2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Online consumer-to-consumer (C2C) auctions are marketplaces
from which millions of consumers worldwide acquire goods. These
auction sites provide an alternative source of goods to bricks-andmortar and online retail stores. The world's largest online C2C auction,
eBay, is ve times the size of the largest online retailer, Amazon.com
(Chong, 2004). At rst blush online C2C auctions may appear to be
pure marketplaces where transactions between buyers and sellers,
who are strangers, focus on establishing the price and true value of
goods (Wilcox, 2000). Online C2C auctions may appear not to lead to
ongoing business relationships between buyers and sellers, as the two
parties are anonymous, their exchanges are discrete, and the parties
are unlikely to transact with each other again in the future (Rauniar
et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2009).
Engagement refers to a consumer's ongoing attention to an object
of consumption such as a website or brand. Engagement is a state of
being involved, occupied, fully absorbed, or engrossed in something
sustained attention (Higgins and Scholer, 2009, p. 102). Online
auction sites are highly engaging for many of the consumers who visit
them. The popular press regularly reports stories of consumers who
devote excessive attention to online auctions (Herschlag and Zwick,
2002). The stories reveal aspects of compulsive consumption, with
consumers losing track of the amount of time and money they are
spending on auction sites (Cameron and Galloway, 2005; Peters and
Bodkin, 2007). The study here seeks to clarify the bases of consumer
engagement with online C2C auction sites.
Online C2C auctions demonstrate an amalgam of the characteristics of a C2C marketplace, a traditional auction house, and an online
retail store. A literature review on consumer behavior reveals some of
the likely bases for consumer engagement with online auction sites.
Online auctions likely deliver specic utilitarian, hedonic, and
social benets to consumers. The paper proceeds with an explanation
of the operation of C2C online auctions. Section 2 explores the
theoretical foundations for the study, engagement, social exchange,
C2C markets, utilitarian and hedonic benets to consumers. Section 3
presents the methods of the study. Section 4 presents emic and etic
interpretations of engagement with an online C2C auction site, based
on in-depth interviews with a broad sample of buyers. Section 5
draws managerial implications from these ndings.
2. Theoretical foundations
2.1. Online C2C auctions
An online auction site acts as a consumer-to-consumer (C2C)
marketplace, bringing together buyers and sellers who are typically
ordinary citizens and end-consumers (Turban and King, 2003). Until
recently, only retail stores offered the wide selection of goods a
consumer sought. However, the advent of online auctions transforms
this business model. As C2C online auctions grow in size, more and
more consumers view online auctions as a source for the goods they
require. Online auction sites extend the life of goods, maintain goods
in circulation for longer periods, and have the potential to reduce
2.2. Engagement
Engagement is employed widely in advertising and marketing to
describe a consumer's sustained attention to a market offering, yet has
only recently received the attention of academics (Calder et al., 2009;
Mollen and Wilson, 2010). Engagement shares some commonality
with other concepts describing consumer attention or interest,
including involvement, ow and interactivity (Calder et al., 2009;
Mollen and Wilson, 2010).
More generally, involvement describes consumer interest in a
product category, whereas engagement describes consumer commitment to an active relationship with a specic market offering.
Engagement with an object of consumption requires paying attention
to and developing feelings for that object (Scott and Craig-Lees, 2010).
Engagement applies to a consumer's connection with media (Calder
et al., 2009), advertising (Higgins and Scholer, 2009), entertainment
(Scott and Craig-Lees, 2010) or brands (Bowden, 2009; Sprott et al.,
2009).
1061
1062
Table 1
Property space analysis for selection of research participants.
Gender
Male
Female
Age
b 30 years
3049 years
50+ years
b 30 years
3049 years
50+ years
Usage
b5 years
5+ years
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
1063
You'd be on until late at night and you would totally lose track
of time. You'd be so engrossed. (Female, 3539 years).
1064
I think it only becomes real when you have completed a sale and
then you start entering into negotiations about how to pay, where
you live, posting, collecting, what time suits. And then it often
goes from the computer to phone ... So then it becomes much
more engaging and personal. At the sort of virtual phase there's
not a lot of human contact there, no face-to-face, no voice. As soon
as it steps out of that then it becomes much more engaging.
(Female, 3539 years).
Enduring business relationships form between buyers and sellers
following an initial trade. Aspects of social exchange with sellers can be
rewarding for buyers. Buyers may nd sellers helpful and professional to
deal with. The goods sold are of good quality, closely match buyer needs,
or are difcult to obtain elsewhere. These experiences encourage buyers
to maintain contact with a seller. Sellers encourage ongoing relationships by exchanging contact details with buyers, and offering buyers
access to rare merchandise. Many business relationships initiated
online, persist ofine.
People have reached the status quo where, I'm not going to rip you
off, you don't rip me off. And it seems to work. (Male, 3539 years).
Consumers endorse the system of buying and selling from other
consumers, and believe that society should demonstrate such trust
(Cook, 2005). Consumers perceive that buying from other consumers
provides income to householders like themselves.
I really think the rating tool keeps people honest. I sort of think
that it's how society should be built on trust and ethics and the
right thing to do The other thing is I like supporting individuals
rather than big franchises and corporates cottage industry
women with a new business, I like supporting that. (Female, 35
39 years).
Consumers derive further social benets from participation in the
auction. Consumers receive praise from friends on the style, quality or
brand of goods purchased, and praise for bargain prices (Homans,
1974; Lawler, 2001). Talking about auction experiences provides
socially-satisfying conversation with friends, and endows membership of a peer-group of auction users. Being an auction user can
contribute to a consumer's self-image (Higie and Feick, 1989).
Continued use of the auction site builds consumer competence and
pride in their ability to buy cleverly and skillfully (Lawler, 2001; Ryan
and Deci, 2000).
I am the Trade Me Queen. Everyone knows me I suppose that's
part of who I am. (Female, 3539 years).
4.6. Disincentives
Disincentives reduce consumer engagement with the auction site.
Buyers experience remorse if they overspend to win an item at
auction (Bajari and Hortacsu, 2003).
5. Conclusion
Online consumer-to-consumer auctions are barely fteen years
old, yet millions of consumers worldwide source goods from these
marketplaces. This research has sought to clarify the bases of
consumer engagement with one online auction site. Those bases are
the utilitarian, hedonic and social benets afforded consumers. The
research also identies marketer incentives and structural disincentives for buyer engagement with the auction site.
Online C2C auctions may appear pure markets involving transactions between strangers, without ongoing business relationships
(Wilcox, 2000; Zhou et al., 2009). The study here nds otherwise. The
study shows that initial contact between buyers and sellers on the
auction site leads to long-term exchange relations in the ofine
environment. Such relations are not purely transactional exchanges
but social exchanges.
The utilitarian benets afforded consumers at online auction sites
are similar to the benets afforded consumers at online retail sites:
convenience, ease of use, selection of goods, low prices, and
information on the market. Online retail sites have yet to penetrate
the consumer market in New Zealand; the largest online retailer
ceased operations in 2009, failing to deliver expected sales volumes
(Bennett, 2009). One reason for this lack of success is the ability of the
Trade Me auction site to deliver the goods consumers desire, at low
prices. Online retail sites and online auction sites share a number of
hedonic benets for consumers: browsing, hunting and owning. The
unique hedonic benet afforded consumers at auction sites is the
thrill of competing to win (Cameron and Galloway, 2005).
Research on consumer behavior in auction sites emphasizes
bidding behaviors, and neglects behaviors that occur after auctions
close (Cui et al., 2008). This paper is the rst to reveal the social facets
of consumer behavior associated with online auctions. Engagement
with the auction site provides consumers with social benets
including satisfying social exchanges ofine, membership of a
community, acceptance by a group of peers, praise and admiration
from friends, and satisfaction from sharing stories of auction
experiences. A large ofine community of auction users exists who
share common interests, norms, values and practices (Schau et al.,
2009).
Social exchanges between buyers and sellers outside the auction
site are similar to social exchanges that occur at other C2C marketplaces (Belk et al., 1988; Sherry, 1990). Exchanges include the
pleasures of social bonding with strangers in an atmosphere of trust
(Cook, 2005). Social reinforcement is absent from consumer engagement with online retail sites, yet online auctions are highly social.
Interactions at online retail sites are humancomputer interactions,
while interactions at online auction sites are humanhuman interactions with website mediation.
The ndings of the study have implications for business practice.
Online auction companies can encourage ofine communities of
users. One means is convening regular conferences of auction users, as
the eBay company does, as fora to share practices, provide support and
encouragement for community members (Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001).
Trust is crucial to the longevity of any auction user community. Online
auction companies need safeguard the trust amongst auction users, by
exposing fraudulent practices where they arise, and seeking public,
punitive action against fraudulent traders. Sellers on auction sites can
encourage business relations with buyers through prompt, efcient
delivery of product, and generous returns policy (Chia-Hui and HsiPeng, 2008; Finch and Huang, 2009). Ofine business relationships
develop where sellers are honest, obliging, and friendly in interaction
with buyers.
Future research should investigate the norms, values and practices
of auction communities. The means by which community practices
create value for members needs to be understood (Schau et al., 2009).
Research can develop a scale to measure consumer engagement with
1065
1066
Denegri-Knott J, Molesworth M. I'll sell this and I'll buy them that: eBay and the
management of possessions as stock. J Consum Behav 2009;8:30515.
Eriksen AM. Quarter of workers' time online is personal. New Zealand: Herald; 2008.
Retrieved 9/26/08 from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?
c_id=1&objectid=10534055.
Finch BJ. Customer expectations in online auction environments: an exploratory study
of customer feedback and risk. J Oper Manage 2007;25:98597.
Finch BJ, Huang X. Predictability of impending online auction business failure: A p-chart
analysis. Qual Manag J 2009;16(2):2533.
Formanek R. Why they collect: collectors reveal their motivations. In: Pearce SM, editor.
Interpreting objects and collections. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 32735.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction; 1967.
Gregg DG, Walczak S. Dressing your online auction business for success: an experiment
comparing two eBay businesses. MIS Q 2008;32(3):65370.
Haubl G, Popkowski-Leszczyc PT. Bidding frenzy: intensity of competitive interaction
among bidders and product valuation in auctions. Adv Consum Res 2004;31:913.
Herrmann GM. Garage sales make good neighbors: building community through
neighbourhood sales. Hum Organ 2006;65(2):18191.
Herschlag M, Zwick R. Internet auctions popular and professional literature review.
Q J Electron Commer 2002;1(2):16186.
Higgins ET, Scholer AA. Engaging the customer: the science and art of the value creation
process. J Consum Psychol 2009;19(2):10014.
Higie RA, Feick LF. Enduring involvement: conceptual and measurement issues. Adv
Consum Res 1989;16:6906.
Holbrook M, Hirschman EC. The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun. J Consum Res 1982;9(2):13240.
Homans G. Social behavior as exchange. Am J Sociol 1956;63:597606.
Homans G. Social behavior: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich; 1974.
Kingshott RP. The impact of psychological contracts upon trust and commitment within
supplierbuyer relationships: a social exchange view. Ind Mark Manage 2006;35
(6):72439.
Lambe CJ, Wittmann CM, Spekman RE. Social exchange theory and research in
business-to-business relational exchange. J Bus Bus Mark 2001;8(3):1-36.
Lastovicka J, Fernandez KV. Three paths to disposition: the movement of meaningful
possessions to strangers. J. Consum. Res. 2005;31(4):81322.
Lawler EJ. An affect theory of social exchange. Am J Sociol 2001;107(2):32152.
Lazarsfeld PF. Some remarks on typological procedures in social research. In: Lazarsfeld
PF, Boudon R, editors. Paul Z. Lazarsfeld: on social research and its language.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1993. p. 15867.
Lee MY, Kim YK, Kim HY. Segmenting online auction consumers. J Customer Behav
2008;7(2):13548.
Li JJ. How to retain local senior managers in international joint ventures: the effects of
alliance relationship characteristics. J Bus Res 2008;61(9):98694.
Luo X. Trust production and privacy concerns on the Internet: a framework based on
relationship marketing and social exchange theory. Ind Mark Manage 2002;31(2):
1118.
MacManus R. TradeMe: big sh in a small pond; 2006. Retrieved 3/18/06 from http://
www.readwriteweb.com/archives/trademe_big_sh_small_pond.php.
McKee D, Wang G. Economic versus social exchange in marketing places: an empirical
study among manufacturing rms. J Bus Res 2006;59(4):397406.
Mollen A, Wilson H. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. J Bus Res 2010;63
(910):91925.
Muniz AM, O'Guinn TC. Brand community. J. Consum. Res. 2001;27(4):41232.
Nissanoff D. FutureShop: how the new auction culture will revolutionize the way we
buy, sell and get the things we really want. New York: The Penguin Press; 2006.
Owen WF. Interpretive themes in relational communication. Q J Speech 1984;70:
27487.
Perreault WD, Leigh LE. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments.
J Mark Res 1989;26:13548.
Peters C, Bodkin CD. An exploratory investigation of problematic online auction
behaviors: experiences of eBay users. J Retailing Consum Serv 2007;14(1):1-16.
QSR-International. QSR NVivo 8 [software]; 2008.
Rafaeli S, Noy A. Online auctions, messaging, communication and social facilitation: a
simulation and experimental evidence. Eur J Inf Syst 2002;11:196207.
Rauniar R, Rawaski G, Crumbly J, Simms J. C2C online auction website performance:
buyer's perspective. J Electron Commer Res 2009;10(2):5675.
Reynolds KE, Gilkeson JH, Niedrich RW. The inuence of seller strategy on the winning
price in online auctions: a moderated mediation model. J Bus Res 2009;62(1):
2230.
Rheingold H. Introduction to the virtual community. In: Gelder K, editor. The
subcultures reader, 2nd edNew York: Routledge; 2005. p. 51829.
Richard OC, Ismail KM, Bhuian SN, Taylor EC. Mentoring in supervisorsubordinate
dyads: antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of mentorship.
J Bus Res 2009;62(11):11108.
Rohm AJ, Swaminathan V. A typology of shoppers based on shopping motivations. J Bus
Res 2004;57(7):74857.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of instrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 2000;55(1):6878.
Sahlins M. On the sociology of primitive exchange. In: Banton M, editor. The relevance
of models for social anthropology. Routledge: London; 1965. p. 139236.
Schau HJ, Muniz AM, Arnould EJ. How brand community practices create value. J Mark
2009;73(5):3051.
Scott J, Craig-Lees M. Audience engagement and its effects on product placement
recognition. J Promot Manage 2010;16(1/2):3958.
Sherry JF. A sociocultural analysis of a Midwestern American ea market. J Consum Res
1990;17(1):1330.
Simonson I. Buying or playing? Behavior in online auctions. Adv Consum Res 2002;29
(1):2612.
Solomon MR. Consumer behavior: buying, having and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall; 2008.
Sprott D, Czellar S, Spangenberg E. The importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale. J Mark Res
2009;46(1):92-104.
Stern BB, Stafford MR. Individual and social determinants of winning bids in online
auctions. J Consum Behav 2006;5:4355.
Taylor SJ, Bogdan R. Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and
resource. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
To PL, Liao C, Lin TH. Shopping motivation on Internet: a study based on utilitarian and
hedonic value. Technovation 2007;27(12):77487.
Turban E, King D. Introduction to e-commerce. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall;
2003.
WebsiteTrafcSpy. Trademe.co.nz overview; 2010. Retrieved 9/21/10 http://www.
websitetrafcspy.com/trademe.co.nz.
Webster FE. The changing role of marketing in the corporation. J Mark 1993;56(4):
1-17.
Welsh E. Dealing with data: using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. Forum
Qual Soc Res 2002;3(2) Retrieved 3/3/09 from www.qualitative-research.net/fqs.
Wilcox R. Experts and amateurs: the role of experience in Internet auctions. Mark Lett
2000;11(4):36374.
Wolnbarger M, Gilly M. Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun. Calif Manage
Rev 2001;43(2):3455.
Woodside AG. Case study research: theory, methods, and practice. Bingley, UK:
Emerald; 2010.
Yen CH, Lu HP. Factors inuencing online auction repurchase intention. Internet Res
2008;18(1):7-25.
Zhou M, Dresner M, Windle R. Revisiting feedback systems: trust building in digital
markets. Inf Manage 2009;46(5):27984.