Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactivity in the electronic marketplace: An exposition of the concept and implications for research

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely recognized that a better understanding of interactivity and its implications is essential for facilitating research focused on the emerging electronic marketplace. However, deficiencies persist in our understanding of this important concept. Building on research in various fields of study (e.g., information systems, marketing, and computer-mediated communication), this article presents a conceptualization of interactivity from a marketplace perspective that is missing or inadequately articulated in the literature. Specifically, interactivity is conceptualized as a characteristic of computer-mediated communication in the marketplace that increases with the bidirectionality, timeliness, mutual controllability, and responsiveness of communication as perceived by consumers and firms. The article concludes with a research agenda focusing on issues relating to measurement, conceptual refinement, and management of interactivity in the electronic marketplace.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alba, Joseph W., John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard Lutz, Alan Sawyer, et al. 1997. “Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces.”Journal of Marketing 61 (July): 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, Dan. 2000. “Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers’ Decision Making and Preferences.”Journal of Consumer Research 27 (September): 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, Arthur and John Hagel III. 1996. “The Real Value of On-line Communities.”Harvard Business Review 74 (3): 1345–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakos, J. Yannis. 1991. “A Strategic Analysis of Electronic Marketplaces.”MIS Quarterly 15 (September): 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1997. “Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic Marketplaces.”Management Science 43 (December): 1676–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn Iacabucci. 1998. “New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising.”Journal of Advertising Research 38 (4): 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biocca, Frank. 1992. “Communication Within Virtual Reality: Creating a Space for Research.”Journal of Communication 42 (4): 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, Robert C. and John Deighton. 1991. “Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of Addressability.”Sloan Management Review 33 (1): 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, Rudy. 1983.Media for Interactive Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Jacqueline Johnson and Peter H. Reingen. 1987. “Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 21 (September): 332–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, Judee K., Joseph A. {FnBonito}, Bjorn Bengtsson, Artemio Ramirez Jr., E. Norah Dunbar, and Nathan Miczo. 1999. “Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work.”Journal of Management Information Systems 16 (3): 33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • , David B. Buller, and Kory Floyd. 2001. “Does Participation Affect Deception Success? A Test of the Interactivity Principle.”Human Communication Research 27 (4): 503–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairncross, Frances. 1997.The Death of Distance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culhan, M. J. and M. L. Markus. 1987. “Information Technologies.” InHandbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. F. M. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, and L. Porter. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 420–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, Richard L. and Robert H. Lengel. 1986. “Organization Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Determinants.”Management Science 32 (5): 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, Richard A. 1999. “Strategic Supremacy Through Disruption and Dominance.”Sloan Management Review 40 (3): 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deighton, John. 1997. “Commentary on ‘Exploring the Implications of the Internet for Consumer Marketing’.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (Fall): 347–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and Rashi Glazer. 1998. “From the Editors.”Journal of Interactive Marketing 12 (1): 2–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes, Edward J. and Sally J. McMillan. 2000. “Defining Interactivity: A Qualitative Identification of Key Dimensions.”New Media & Society 2 (2): 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, Jerome T. 1987. “A Typology for Interactive Media.”Communication Yearbook 10:743–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidler, Roger. 1997.Mediamorphosis: Understanding the New Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin, David R. 1997. “The Impact of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness in the New Media.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Rhode Island.

  • Frankos, Cassandra E. 2000. “Interactivity and Community: Social Interaction in an Online Community.” Thesis. California State University, Dominguez Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenzen, Jonathan K. and Harry L. Davis. 1990. “Purchasing Behavior in Embedded Markets.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (June): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghose, Sanjoy and Wenyu Dou. 1998. “Interactive Functions and Their Impacts on the Appeal of Internet Presence Sites.”Journal of Advertising Research 38 (2): 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony. 1984.The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, Rashi. 1991. “Marketing in an Information-Intensive Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset.”Journal of Marketing 55 (October): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel, Stephan H. 1998. “About the Nature and Future of Interactive Marketing.”Journal of Interactive Marketing 12 (1): 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagel, John, III and Jeffrey F. Rayport. 1997. “The Coming Battle for Customer Information.”Harvard Business Review 75 (January/February): 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haubl, Gerald and Valarie Trifts. 2000. “Consumer Decision Making in Online Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeter, Carrie. 1989. “Implications of New Interactive Technologies for Conceptualizing Communication.” InMedia Use in the Information Age. Eds. Jerry L. Salvaggio and Jennings Bryant. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeter, Carrie 2000. “Interactivity in the Context of Designed Experiences.”Journal of Interactive Advertising 1 (1). Online journal: http://jiad.org.

  • Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak. 1996. “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations.”Journal of Marketing 60 (3): 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1997. “A New Marketing Paradigm for Electronic Commerce.”Information Society 13 (1): 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Huei-Ling. 1996. “Interactivity of Human-Computer Interaction and Personal Characteristics in a Hypermedia Learning Environment.” Dissertation. Stanford University.

  • Iacabucci, Dawn. 1998. “Interactive Marketing and the Meganet: Networks of Networks.”Journal of Interactive Marketing 12 (1): 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, Michael J. 1995. “Media Interactivity, Cognitive Flexibility, and Self-Efficacy.” Dissertation. University of Michigan.

  • Jarvis, Cheryl Burke, Scott B. Mackenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff. 2003. “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 30 (September): 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric J. 2001. “Digitizing Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 28 (2): 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, Steven and Mohanbir Sawhney. 2000. “E-Hubs: The New B2B Marketplaces.”Harvard Business Review 78 (May/June): 97–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Helen. 2000. “Interactivity in 2000: An Industry Viewpoint.”Journal of Interactive Advertising 1 (1). Online journal: http://jiad.org.

  • Kiesler, Sara, J. Siegel, and T. W. McGuire. 1984. “Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication.”American Psychologist 39 (10): 1123–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, Dean M. 1985. “Evaluating the Audiences of the New Media.”Journal of Advertising 14 (4): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1988. “Telecommunication Services and Advertising: A Review of the Audiences and Research.”Current Issues & Research in Advertising 11 (2): 331–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litan, Robert E. and William A. Niskanen. 1998.Going Digital. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press and Cato Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Alice M. Rivlin. 2001. “Projecting the Economic Impact of the Internet.”The American Economic Review 91 (2): 313–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Yuping and L. J. Shrum. 2002. “What Is Interactivity and Is It Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness.”Journal of Advertising 31 (4): 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, Matthew and Theresa Ditton. 1997. “At the Heart of it All: The Concept of Presence.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (n2). Online journal: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc.

  • Lombard, Matthew and Jennifer Snyder-Duch. 2001. “Interactive Advertising and Presence: A Framework.”Journal of Interactive Advertising 1 (2). Online journal: http://jiad.org.

  • Lynch, John and Dan Ariely. 2000. “Wine Online: Search Costs and Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, Thomas W. 1997. “Is Empowerment Just a Fad? Control, Decision Making, and IT.”Sloan Management Review 38 (2): 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree, and Mary Jo Bitner. 2000. “Self-Serve Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction With Technology-Based Service Encounters.”Journal of Marketing 64 (3): 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclnnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1991. “Enhancing and Measuring Consumer’s Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information From Ads.”Journal of Marketing 55 (October): 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, Sally J. and Jang-Sun Hwang. 2002. “Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity.”Journal of Advertising 31 (3): 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundorf, Norbert and Jennings Bryant. 2002. “Realizing the Social and Commercial Potential of Interactive Technologies.”Journal of Business Research 55 (8): 665–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nass, Clifford and Youngme Moon. 2000. “Machines and Mindfulness: Social Responses to Computers.”Journal of Social Issues 56 (1): 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • , John Morkes, Eun-Young Kim, and B. J. Fogg. 1997. “Computers Are Social Actors: A Review of Current Research.” InHuman Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Ed. Batya Friedman. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, Thomas P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Yiu-Fai Yung. 2000. “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 22–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odlyzko, Andre. 2001. “The Myth of ‘Internet Time’.”Technology Review, 104 (3): 92–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Ronald J. Faber. 1991. “Mass Communication and Consumption Behavior.” InHandbook of Consumer Behavior. Eds. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 349–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, Jim R. 1996. “A Machine-Learning Approach to Automated Negotiation and Prospects for Electronic Commerce.”Journal of Management Information Systems 13 (3): 83–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Robert A., Sridhar Balasubramanian, and Bart J. Bronnenberg. 1997. “Exploring the Implications of the Internet for Consumer Marketing.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (Fall): 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postemes, Tom, Russell Spears, and Martin Lea. 1998. “Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? Side Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication.”Communication Research 25 (6): 689–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli, Sheizaf. 1988. “Interactivity: From New Media to Communication.”Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science 16:110–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli, Sheizaf and Fay Sudweeks. 1997. “Networked Interactivity.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2 (4). Online journal: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/.

  • Reeves, Byron and Clifford I. Nass. 1996.The Media Equation. Stanford, CA: SSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, Ronald E. 1987. “Computer-Mediated Communication and Organizational Innovation.”Journal of Communication 37 (4): 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Everette M. 1986.Communication Technology: The New Media in Society. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, Ron and Joseph T. Mahoney. 1996. “Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design.”Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter): 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, Claude E. and Warren Weaver. 1949.The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, John A. 1974. “Effect of Medium of Communication on Experimental Negotiation.”Human Relations 27:225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, E. Williams, and B. Christie. 1976.The Social Psychology of Telecommunication. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • {FnSinha}, Indrajit. 2000. “Cost Transparency: The Net’s Real Threat to Prices and Brands.”Harvard Business Review 78 (March/April): 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soukup, Charles. 2000. “Building a Theory of Multi-Media CMC.”New Media & Society 2 (4): 407–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spar, Debora and Jeffrey J. Bussbang. 1996. “Ruling the Net,”Harvard Business Review 74 (May/June): 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler. 1986. “Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication.”Management Science 32 (11): 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer, Jonathan. 1992. “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence.”Journal of Communication 42 (Autumn): 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, David and Paul A. Pavlou. 2002. “From Consumer Response to Active Consumer: Measuring the Effectiveness of Interactive Media” [Special issue].Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (4): 376–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedlow, Richard S. 1990.New and Improved: The Story of Mass Marketing in America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, Linda Klebe, Richard L. Daft, and Robert H. Lengel. 1990. “Understanding Managers’ Media Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” InOrganizations and Communications Technology. Eds. Janet Fulk and Charles Charles Steinfield. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 71–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, Glen L. 2004. “The Emerging Era of Customer Advocacy.”Sloan Management Review 45 (2): 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Manjit S. Yadav. 2002. “Marketing Strategy and the Internet: An Organizing Framework.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (4): 296–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther, Joseph B. 1992a. “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction.”Communication Research 19 (1): 52–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1992b. “Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction.”Human Communication Research 19 (1): 50–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1994. “Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects on Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction.”Human Communication Research 20 (4): 473–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1996. “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction.”Communication Research 23 (1): 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Jefferey F. Anderson, and David W. Park. 1994. “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Meta-Analysis of Social and Antisocial Communication.”Communication Research 21 (4): 460–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, James, Judity Gebauer, Amir Hartman, and Malu Roldan. 1998.The Search for Digital Excellence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, Manjit S. and Rajan Varadarajan. 2005. “Understanding Product Migration to the Electronic Marketplace: A Conceptual Framework.”Journal of Retailing 81 (2): 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A & M University, Texas, USA

    Manjit S. Yadav & Rajan Varadarajan

Authors
  1. Manjit S. Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajan Varadarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Manjit S. Yadav (yadav@tamu.edu) is an associate professor of marketing and Mays Research Fellow, Department of Marketing, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University. He obtained his Ph.D. in marketing from Virginia Tech. His current research focuses primarily on strategic issues related to the Internet and the electronic marketplace. He has published in a number of journals including theJournal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, andSloan Management Review. He is a member of the Editorial Review Board of theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science and theJournal of Interactive Marketing. He is a recipient of the Faculty Distinguished Achievement Award in Teaching (Mays Business School, Texas A&M University). He cochaired the American Marketing Association’s Faculty Consortium on Electronic Commerce held at Texas A&M University.

Rajan Varadarajan (varadarajan@tamu.edu) is a distinguished professor of marketing and holder of the Ford Chair in Marketing and E-Commerce in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. His primary teaching and research interest is in the area of strategy. His research on strategy has been published in theJournal of Marketing, theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, theAcademy of Management Journal, theStrategic Management Journal, and other journals. He served as editor of theJournal of Marketing from 1993 to 1996 and theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science from 2000 to 2003. He currently serves on the Editorial Review Boards of theJournal of Marketing, theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, theJournal of International Marketing, theJournal of Interactive Marketing, and other journals. He is a recipient of a number of honors and awards including the Academy of Marketing Science Distinguished Marketing Educator Award (2003), the American Marketing Association Mahajan Award for Career Contributions to Marketing Strategy (2003), and the Texas A&M University Distinguished Achievement Award in Research (1994).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yadav, M.S., Varadarajan, R. Interactivity in the electronic marketplace: An exposition of the concept and implications for research. JAMS 33, 585–603 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305278487

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305278487

Keywords

Search

Navigation