Consumer interpretations of digital ownership in the book market

Abstract

Technological advances in electronic markets, particularly product digitization, have transformed customer-product interactions. For example, altered ownership perceptions in the digital domain affect product acquisition, usage and disposition. This study’s goal is to explore how consumers conceptualize ownership of digital possessions in order to help marketers develop tailored positioning and commercialization strategies. Comparing physical books and e-books, we contribute to the literature on electronic markets, which neglects a consumer-focused perspective on digital possessions. Using focus groups with U.S. consumers, we identify six themes surrounding perceptions of psychological digital ownership, which mainly portray a constricted sense of ownership, limiting usage experience, and value perceptions. However, we also find that ease of disposition favors e-book usage. Typical assumptions about younger consumers’ preference for digital products were not supported. Based on our findings, we offer two managerial approaches: (1) enhancing the digital product experience or (2) emancipating digital products from their physical correlates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Addis, M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customisation and experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1(1), 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akins, C. J. (2010). Conversion of digital property: Protecting consumers in the age of technology. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 23, 215–251.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amazon. (2017). Lend or borrow kindle books. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200549320&ref=cssoc_FM_RE_KLN

  4. Antόn, C., Camarero, C., & Rodríguez, J. (2017). Pleasure in the use of new technologies: the case of e-book readers. Online Information Review, 41(2), 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Atasoy, O., & Morewedge, C. K. (2018). Digital goods are valued less than physical goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1343-1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2012). Liquid relationship to possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 510–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Belk, R. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bockstedt, J. C., Kauffman, R. J., & Riggins, F. J. (2006). The move to artist-led on-line music distribution: a theory-based assessment and prospects for structural changes in the digital music market. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(3), 7–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Camerer, C. (1988) Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 180-214.

  13. Daily Mail. (2017). One in ten people do not own a single book. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4145350/One-ten-people-not-single-book.html

  14. Daniel, D., & Woody, W. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. Print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Denegri-Knott, J., Watkins, R. & Wood, J. (2012). Transforming Digital Virtual Goods into Meaningful Possessions. In M. Molesworth & J. Denegri-Knott (Eds.). Digital Virtual Consumption (76-91). Oxford: Routledge.

  16. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: St. Martin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Edmondson, D. R., & Ward, C. (2016). Students’ attitudes towards textbook types: are students really ready for e-textbooks? Atlantic Marketing Journal, 5(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 465–468.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: an exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goulding, C. (2005). Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: a comparative analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris, M. H. (1999). History of libraries of the western world (4th ed.). Landham, ME and London: Scarecrow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research, 3(3), 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Helberger, N. (2011). Standardizing consumers’ expectations in digital content. The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media, 13(6), 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hennion, A. (2001). Music lovers: Taste as performance. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(5), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hess, T., Lang, K. R., & Xu, S. X. (2011). Social embeddedness and online consumer behavior. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 157–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hines, T. (2000). An evaluation of two qualitative methods (focus group interviews and cognitive maps) for conducting research into entrepreneurial decision making. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(1), 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hodges, D., Preston, C., & Hamilton, M. J. (2010). Resolving the challenge of e-books. Collection Management, 35(3–4), 196–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hogan, H. S. (2014). A legal perspective on ‘possessions and the extended self’ in the digital age. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(2), 139–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hunt, D., Radford, S., & Evans, K. (2013). Individual differences in consumer value for mass customized products. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 12(4), 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., & Scullion, R. (2014). The messy social lives of objects: Interpersonal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and ownership. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(2), 131–139.

  32. Jiménez, F. R., Voss, K., & Frankwick, G. L. (2013). A classification schema of co-production of goods: an open-systems perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47(11), 1841–1858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education, 54(3), 722–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jussila, I., Tarkiainen, A. Sarstedt, M. & Hair, J. (2015). Individual Psychological Ownership: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications for Research in Marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 121–139.

  35. Kelle, U. (2004). Computer-assisted analysis of qualitative data. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Companion to qualitative research (pp. 276–283). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kilian, T., Hennigs, R., & Langner, S. (2012). Do millennials read books or blogs? Introducing a media usage typology of the internet generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 114–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Leimeister, J. M., Österle, H., & Alter, S. (2014). Digital services for consumers. Electronic Markets, 24(4), 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Littman, J., & Silipigni Connaway, L. (2004). A circulation analysis of print books and e-books in an academic research library. Library Resources & Technical Services, 48(4), 256–262.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2008). Gender differences in the online reading environment. Journal of Documentation, 64(4), 616–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2011). The service dominant logic: a necessary step. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1298–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Magaudda, P. (2011). When materiality ‘bites back’: digital music consumption practices in the age of dematerialization. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McCourt, T. (2005). Collecting music in the digital realm. Popular Music and Society, 28(2), 249–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mittal, B. (2006). I, me, and mine-how products become consumers’ extended selves. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5(6), 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality, 20(2), 176–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002). Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 524–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Odom, W., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2011). Teenagers and their virtual possessions: design opportunities and issues. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, BC, 1491–1500.

  49. Page, T. (2014). Skeuomorphism or flat design: future directions in mobile device user Interface (UI) design education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(2), 130–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision making, 2(2), 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sanders, A. C. (2010). Restraining Amazon.com’s Orwellian potential: the computer fraud and abuse act as consumer rights legislation. Federal Communication Law Journal, 63, 535–552.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Siddiqui, S., & Turley, D. (2006). Consumables in the CME: towards a typology of products. European Advances in Consumer Research, 7(1), 72–78.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sinclair, G., & Tinson, J. (2017). Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption. Journal of Business Research, 71, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Singh, S., Jackson, M., Waycott, J., & Beekhuyzen, J. (2006). Downloading vs purchase: music industry vs consumers. Digital Rights Management. Technologies, Issues, Challenges and Systems. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 52–65.

  58. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Stefik, M. (1997). Shifting the possible: how trusted systems and digital property rights challenge us to rethink digital publishing. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 12(1), 137–159.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stini, M., Mauve, M., & Fitzek, F. (2006). Digital ownership: from content consumers to owners and traders. IEEE Multimedia, 13(4), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: the history of America's future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  62. Swilley, E., Cowart, K., & Flynn, L. (2014). An examination of re-gifting. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 13(4), 251-261.

  63. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Thompson, C. J. (1997). Interpreting consumers: a hermeneutical framework for deriving marketing insights from the texts of consumers’ consumption stories. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(4), 438–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Thorne McCarty, L. (2002). Ownership: a case study in the representation of legal concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(1–3), 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Threlfall, K. D. (1999). Using focus groups as a consumer research tool. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5(4), 102–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang, Q., Song, P., & Yang, S. (2013). Understanding the substitution effect between online and traditional channels: evidence from product attributes perspective. Electronic Markets, 23(3), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Watkins, R. D., Denegri-Knott, J., & Molesworth, M. (2015). The relationship between ownership and possession: observations from the context of digital virtual goods. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(1–2), 44–70.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wattanasuwan, K. (2005). The self and symbolic consumption. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6(1), 179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wiegand, W. A. (1999). Tunnel vision and blind spots: what the past tells us about the present; reflections on the twentieth-century history of American librarianship. The Library Quarterly, 69(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Woody, W., Daniel, D., & Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabrina V. Helm.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Ulrike Baumöl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helm, S.V., Ligon, V., Stovall, T. et al. Consumer interpretations of digital ownership in the book market. Electron Markets 28, 177–189 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0293-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Psychological ownership
  • Digital ownership
  • Digital possessions
  • Digital products
  • E-books
  • Focus group research

JEL classification

  • M3