Consumer interpretations of digital ownership in the book market

  • Sabrina V. Helm
  • Victoria Ligon
  • Tony Stovall
  • Silvia Van Riper
Research Paper

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.

Keywords

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

JEL classification

M3 

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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atasoy, O., & Morewedge, C. K. (2018). Digital goods are valued less than physical goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1343-1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2012). Liquid relationship to possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belk, R. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camerer, C. (1988) Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 180-214.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Daniel, D., & Woody, W. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. Print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: St. Martin Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 465–468.Google Scholar
  18. Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: an exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, M. H. (1999). History of libraries of the western world (4th ed.). Landham, ME and London: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Hennion, A. (2001). Music lovers: Taste as performance. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(5), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hess, T., Lang, K. R., & Xu, S. X. (2011). Social embeddedness and online consumer behavior. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 157–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodges, D., Preston, C., & Hamilton, M. J. (2010). Resolving the challenge of e-books. Collection Management, 35(3–4), 196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hunt, D., Radford, S., & Evans, K. (2013). Individual differences in consumer value for mass customized products. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 12(4), 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leimeister, J. M., Österle, H., & Alter, S. (2014). Digital services for consumers. Electronic Markets, 24(4), 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2008). Gender differences in the online reading environment. Journal of Documentation, 64(4), 616–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2011). The service dominant logic: a necessary step. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1298–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magaudda, P. (2011). When materiality ‘bites back’: digital music consumption practices in the age of dematerialization. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCourt, T. (2005). Collecting music in the digital realm. Popular Music and Society, 28(2), 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mittal, B. (2006). I, me, and mine-how products become consumers’ extended selves. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5(6), 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality, 20(2), 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002). Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 524–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.Google Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision making, 2(2), 107–114.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Sinclair, G., & Tinson, J. (2017). Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption. Journal of Business Research, 71, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Stini, M., Mauve, M., & Fitzek, F. (2006). Digital ownership: from content consumers to owners and traders. IEEE Multimedia, 13(4), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: the history of America's future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc..Google Scholar
  61. Swilley, E., Cowart, K., & Flynn, L. (2014). An examination of re-gifting. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 13(4), 251-261.Google Scholar
  62. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thorne McCarty, L. (2002). Ownership: a case study in the representation of legal concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(1–3), 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Threlfall, K. D. (1999). Using focus groups as a consumer research tool. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5(4), 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Wattanasuwan, K. (2005). The self and symbolic consumption. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6(1), 179–184.Google Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Woody, W., Daniel, D., & Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Retailing & Consumer SciencesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Take Charge America InstituteUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of MarketingTowson UniversityTowsonUSA

Personalised recommendations