A Study of Sharing in Consumer Communities

Abstract: In this paper we study sharing behavior in consumer communities. Using Netnographic approach, deep interviews and focus group we propose a causal model of sharing behavior and we suggest it is constituted of three types of sharing: (1) motivated sharing, (2) spurious sharing, and (3) inadvertent sharing. In addition, motivated sharing is impacted negatively by perceptions of costs, and positively by: identification with members, user’s sense of personal responsibility, user’s overall engagement in the community, consumer’s sense of reciprocity, consumer’s belief in the organizational principles, and beliefs that one is going to gain personally from sharing.

Keywords: Consumer Networks, Sharing Behavior, Consumer Communities, Consumer Behavior

Track indication: New Technologies and e-Marketing

1 A Study of Sharing in Consumer Communities

Introduction Over the last decade or so, consumer communities have been in ascendance (e.g., Kozinets, 2002; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). These communities take many forms. Some consumer communities, such as those found on the eBay web site, have primarily commercial purposes of buying and selling gainfully. Others, such as Gnutella and BitTorrent, are peer-to- peer (P2P) networks of consumers who share digital information like music or video files, software programs, videogames, images, documents etc., with one another. Still other consumer communities are found in the chat rooms and user groups that congregate to discuss experiences, and share knowledge regarding a particular product or service. For example, in the MUSE chat- room devoted to the Apache server software (http://ws.apache.org/muse/contact_info), experienced developers help novices with specific software installation and usage issues. Similarly, Slyck.com is a popular file sharing community, offering news, reviews, and opinions, and has very active user forums. It tracks the latest versions of file sharing clients and file sharing network traffic. Others, such as MacIntosh computer enthusiasts and Star Trek “trekkie” fans, are brand communities, organized by admirers of a particular brand, that meet to engage in social interactions and accomplish joint goals (e.g., Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006). Marketers are very interested in organizing and managing consumer communities, since they offer attractive alternatives to traditional marketing programs like advertising or sales promotions (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005; McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). This is because consumer communities allow firms to identify and interact with their loyal and engaged customers (Algesheimer et al., 2005), socialize new customers to the brand ethos (McAlexander et al., 2002), and provide lower cost service support to their newer customers through the assistance of experienced community volunteers instead of paid employees (see the MUSE chat-room example above). Perhaps the most interesting aspect of consumer communities is that they rely on cooperation among members and in particular, on ongoing effortful contributions by a significant number of them, for their continued functioning (Nonnecke & Preece, 2000). For example, in eBay auctions, unless a significant number of buyers and sellers take the time to evaluate their trading partners’ performance and provide feedback, the reputation mechanism will no longer work (Dholakia, 2005). Similarly, epinions.com relies on its users to provide thoughtful and honest product reviews in large numbers, P2P networks rely on their users to upload (i.e., share) their files so that others can download them, and the MUSE chat-room relies on its experienced users to take the time and the effort to answer a majority of technical questions and solicitations for help that are posed by novice users. In the present paper, consistent with dictionary definitions, we call the effortful contributions that are volunteered by users of consumer communities as sharing. It is noteworthy that even though sharing by members is essential, a vast majority of consumer communities do not compensate users for their contributions in any tangible way. Moreover, at the individual level, users do not have to share their resources with others in order to benefit from the resources that the community already possesses (Karau and Williams 1993; 2001). For example, a user can read product reviews posted by others on epinions.com without posting a review oneself. Under such circumstances, why do consumer community members

2 share their resources with other members? In particular, what are the types and drivers of sharing in consumer communities? We attempt to answer these questions in the present research. At least two aspects of sharing in consumer communities are relevant to our subsequent analysis. The first is that in most instances, sharing involves information goods, and therefore the sharer typically does not give up the good he or she possesses, but simply shares a perfect copy, or in cases like reviews and recommendations, generates original content. In fact, this is an important argument used to encourage sharing in many consumer communities: “The community’s innovative power results from accumulating member-generated expertise and multiplying it by giving it away.” (Hemetsberger, 2002, p.354). Secondly, previous research reveals considerable variation in the amount of sharing in different consumer communities. One study of P2P networks found that over a 24 hour period, almost 70% of Gnutella users shared no files at all, whereas the top 1% shared 50% of the files (Adar and Huberman 2000). However, another study showed that 58% of Gnutella users shared at least some of their files with others (Asvanund et al. 2003). Other studies have shown that in open source development communities, only 4% of users account for more than half the responses given to help other members (Lakhani and Hippel, 2003), and 4% of developers contribute 88% of new code and 66% of code fixes (Mockus, Fielding, and Andersen 2002). In the present research, we seek to develop a better understanding of the determinants of sharing in consumer communities. Note that this paper concerns an on-going research project. We discuss the results of qualitative research involving in-depth interviews with active consumer community members, and present the proposed causal model that we developed as a result of the analysis. In the next phase of the research, to be conducted in December 2005 and January 2006, we are conducting a large-scale survey of a variety of consumer community users, to test our proposed model of sharing using Structural Equation Modeling. We hope to be able to present the results of the Structural Equation Modeling analysis testing our proposed model at the EMAC conference in May 2006 as well. Qualitative Research Methodology The initial (and completed) portion of our research was exploratory, and employed qualitative methods (Calder, 1977). We interviewed a total of 24 active users of various consumer communities. Each interview lasted between 45 minutes and an hour. We asked questions regarding which consumer communities the individuals participated in, details of their sharing activities, and their motives for doing so. In addition, we conducted a focus group of 8 active consumer community participants to elaborate on the findings of the interviews. In addition, we conducted Netnographic observation and analysis (Kozinets, 2002) of a number of prominent web sites (http://p2pnet.net, http://www.slyck.com, http://www.zeropaid.com, http://www.abxzone.com, http://www.infoanarchy.org, http://best2p.com, http://www.filesharingtalk.com, http://reviews.cnet.com , http://38.119.65.153/~p2punited). We chose Netnography since this method was designed specifically to study “the language, motivations, consumption linkages, and symbols of consumption-oriented online communities” (Kozinets, 2002, p. 70). As a marketing research technique, Netnography uses information already available in online forums to “identify and understand the needs and decision influences of relevant online consumer groups” (Kozinets, 2002, p.62). On the basis of this analysis, we developed our model of sharing (see Figure 1).

3 Main findings Our qualitative research, along with a review of the social science (economics, social psychology, sociology, and marketing) literature on sharing led us to propose a causal model of sharing behavior (see Appendix: Figure 1). In our framework, sharing behavior in consumer communities is constituted of three types of sharing: (1) motivated sharing, (2) spurious sharing, and (3) inadvertent sharing. [Insert Figure 1 about here] Motivated sharing. Consistent with goal-directed views of consumer behavior (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999), motivated sharing is the deliberate sharing of resources useful to other community members by the consumer. Consumers share their resources with others for many reasons that we briefly describe below. First, motivated sharing is impacted positively by identification with community members, i.e., a sense of belongingness to the consumer community (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Identification, in turn, may stem from different sources. Prior research has shown that emotional attachment to the community is an important component of identification (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Some members may be driven to share because they know others personally within the community. For example, one of our interviewees [K, male, age = 24] told us that he shared files through P2P networks with “... my friends that come over to watch or ask me to share whatever I dl w/ them.” Further, identification is derived from shared goals, shared values, and shared lifestyles with other community members. In describing his view of the community in a P2P network, T, m, 26, said “they typically share the culture of file swapping; mostly business with little interaction between the individuals concerned.” Another interviewee, K, f, 18, said her view of the P2P group to which she belonged to be “...i guess just a community of typical college students who download off of each other so they don’t have to pay to watch movies or music, etc”. Another user, M, m, 32, said “you can feel that in this world u are not alone, if you are online u are never alone, u can stay in front of your laptop night and day and u will always find someone to talk to…you can meet a lot of people from different parts of the world, share not only files but culture also, and u can learn different ways of living.” Second, motivated sharing is influenced positively by the user’s sense of personal responsibility. We found this repeatedly in our interviewees’ explanations. For example, Y, m, 26, who uses BitTorrent said “I usually at least maintain a 1:1 ratio basically, upload as much as i download. so for any particular file i download, i leave it up until the ratio is 1:1...(Q: Why a 1:1 ratio?)...well, a bittorrent network wouldn’t survive without sharing. The benefit of torrents lies in the number of simultaneous people sharing... it’s file-swarming more than file-sharing.” Another Emule user, M, m, 29, said “I share everything I download and then after awhile when I am sick of what I am sharing I hide everything and I start again from the beginning...so my library is always new and people can periodically find a lot of different materials.” Third, the user’s overall engagement in the community is posited to influence motivate sharing positively. This is based on prior research which has shown that the greater the consumer’s community engagement, the higher his or her participation intentions, and intentions to continue membership within the community (Algesheimer et al., 2005). A Morpheus user, L, m, 27 told us “it is unbelievable that online there are people sharing 100, 200, 500, 1000 gigs of different stuff, they are constantly in front of their laptop ready to help other people”.

4 Fourth, the consumer’s sense of reciprocity drives motivated sharing with other community members. Reciprocity, in turn, stems from a sense of obligation, i.e., the need to return favors that others have accorded one in the past, perceptions of fairness, and expectations of getting assistance in the future if one shares now. For example, in describing his perception of fairness within BitTorrent, Y, Male, 26, said “... [I picture public torrent communities as]... hmmm... kind of like a health insurance company. Paying your monthly premiums is like maintaining an upload quota. Everyone contributes to the pot and if someone needs something, it’s taken out of the pot. If no one contributes there is no pot.” Similarly, T, Male, 26 said “someone let me complete downloads from them, there shouldn’t be any reason why i don’t allow others to complete downloads from me,” indicating a sense of obligation toward community members. Another consumer, M, m, 32 who uses idc, emule, and morpheus, said “I share everything because it is a system where you have to give and take as much as u can, everything must be in equilibrium..u can have new friends and get free advice.” Another element of reciprocity is trading resources where the user chooses to share a particular rare resource, say, a rare file, in the hopes that he or she will meet someone who shares their arcane interest, and will be able to exchange hard-to-find resources with them in the future. Fifth, in our model, motivated sharing is driven by the consumer’s belief in the organizational principles on which the community is based. This follows from prior research has shown such beliefs in the founding principles for the Open Source Movement to drive participation in open source user communities (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006). An user of Ebay and other consumer communities told us “ I share and I take because everything is there for free or cheaper than everywhere else..i do it because my salary is not in line with needs we have for everyday life..i mean everything in general.. everyone tries to spend less and to get the best…communities offer exactly this… and I do not feel any regret because even if you do not use communities outside there is a lot of black market, for food we use discount..etc etc, am I clear? ..When I needed some stuff for my heating I spent 48 dollars and I found them online for 14…I need to tell everybody that they have to use communities because society is cheating us.” Sixth, perceptions of costs are likely to influence motivated sharing negatively. To the extent that sharing is seen as involving risks and/or effort, users are likely to share less. For example, one BitTorrent user, T, m, 26, told us that he was inclined to share less because “...aside from the witch hunt propaganda perpetuated by RIAA and the MPAA, .... there’s always the threat of malicious programs finding their way on your system.” Another P2P user, M, m, 32 “I do not use Limewire and Kazaa anymore because they are full of viruses even if they are faster and easier to use than other programs. It is also dangerous if they caught you but it could be even more dangerous if someone else is going to be dangerous for your computer, because when you are sharing is an open door for other users” . Seventh, and finally, the beliefs that one is going to gain personally from sharing are likely to influence motivated sharing positively. Such gains can take many forms. One is that the sharer’s reputation is enhanced due to sharing. For example D, Male, 24, a member of the mirc P2P community told us: “in most rooms, sharing on mirc can give you a higher ranking, allowing you to have a few privileges (sic) the “non-sharing leechers” don’t have”. Such privileges may involve a priority in downloading resources or in accessing information, or an increase in downloading speed, or availability of more resources than lower-ranked members. The sharer can also get economic benefits, as when some communities pay their contributors in cash or kind for their contributions. For example, epinions.com pays users for contributing high-quality

5 reviews whereas the U2 fan website offers consumers who posted reviews the opportunity to go backstage before and after the concert to meet the band. Spurious sharing. A second distinct type of sharing is one in which the consumer shares resources that are not useful to others. For example, users of a P2P community may upload a file without any useful information to satisfy uploading requirements imposed by the community. In our framework, spurious sharing is influenced positively by the beliefs that one is going to gain personally from sharing in the sense of fulfilling requirements or of raising one’s stature within the community to avail of greater resources from it. While such sharing may be detrimental to the larger community’s well-being, it is likely to benefit the user significantly. A Emule user, M, m, 29 said “My friends are real and not virtual, they are here and not online, I know them personally…sharing file does not mean to know each other or talk each other etc.. in my opinion it is only courtesy…we only divide the loot…but no one knows how I am contributing to the pot…” Inadvertent sharing. The third type of sharing is one that the consumer does unknowingly, because he or she lacks adequate knowledge about how the community’s software program works or because there is a mandatory community requirement. For example, many P2P programs set defaults which make users share information that they have downloaded. Unless the user knows to change this default setting, they will inadvertently share information with others. A Limewire user, T, m, 24, said “am I sharing resources? How can I know if I am sharing something?”

Conclusion

We will test this model through a large-scale survey of consumer community members in December 2005 and January 2006. In addition, our goal is to identify appropriate moderators of the strengths of the relationships in the model. We could not discuss the potential moderators in this paper due to space constraints. We note that the strength of our research lies in the comprehensiveness of our proposed model, which has been developed through extensive qualitative research and drawing upon existing studies of sharing behaviors. We expect it to make a significant theoretical contribution to the social psychology and marketing literatures. Perhaps as important, this research has also significant managerial implications given the increasing interest in establishing, sponsoring, and managing consumer communities in many firms.

6 References

Adar, E., & Huberman, B. A. (2000). Free riding on Gnutella. First Monday, 5 (10). Retrieved July 25, 2005 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/adar/

Algesheimer R., Dholakia U. M., and Herrmann. A. (2005). "The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European Car Clubs." Journal of Marketing 69 (3) 19-34

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Utpal M. Dholakia. (2005). "Open Source Software User Communities: A Study of Participation in Linux User Groups." Management Science Forthcoming.

Bagozzi, Richard P & Utpal M. Dholakia. 2002. "Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities." Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (2) 2-21.

Bagozzi, Richard P., and Utpal M. Dholakia. 1999. "Goal-setting and goal-striving in consumer behavior." Journal of Marketing 63 19-32

Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S. (2003). “Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies”. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88.

Calder, Bobby J. (1977), "Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Research," Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 353-364.

Dholakia, Utpal M.. 2005. "The usefulness of bidders’ reputation ratings to sellers in online auctions." Journal of Interactive Marketing,19 (1) 31-40.

Giesler Markus (2006) “Consumer Gift System: Netnographic Insights from Napster Forthcoming” Journal of Consumer Research, June 2006.

Hemetsberger, Andrea (2002), “Fostering Cooperation on the Internet: Social Exchange Processes in Innovative Virtual Communities,” in Advances of Consumer Research, 29, 354-356.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993).“Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4), 681-706.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). “Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.)”, Groups at Work: Theory and Research (pp. 113-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Komter, Aafke (2005), “Social Solidarity and the Gift”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kozinets, R. V. (1998), "On Netnography: Initial Reflections on Consumer Research Investigations of Cyberculture," Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 366-371.

7 Kozinets R.V. (2002), "The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communications," Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 61-72.

Lakhani, K. R., & Hippel, E. V. (2003). “How open source software works: "Free" user to user assistance”. Research Policy (Special issue), 32 (6), 923-943.

Lee Karen (2004). “Prepared for quantitative methods in advertising and brand communication at the University of Texas at Austin”. http://www.ciadvertising.org/SA/spring_04/adv391k/karen/Header.html

Mailath, G., and A., A. P. 2000. “Asymmetric information bargaining problems with many agents”. Review of Economic Studies 57:351–367.

McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten and Harold J. Koenig(2002),“Building Brand Community,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 (January), 38-54.

Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., & Andersen, H. (2002). “Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla.” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11 (3), 309-346.

Morgan D.L. (1997, 2nd Edition) “Focus groups as qualitative research”. London: Sage.

A.M. Muniz and T.C. O'Guinn, 2001. "Brand Community," Journal of Consumer Research, volume 27 (March), pp. 412-432.

Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). “Lurker demographics: Counting the silent”. CHI 2000, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI Letters, 4 (1), 73-80.

8 Appendix: Figure 1

9