IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v40y2023i2p378-397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How institutional logics shape fairness in crowdsourcing: The case of Threadless

Author

Listed:
  • Grant, Annetta
  • Weijo, Henri
  • Dacin, Peter A.

Abstract

Fairness is essential for successful crowdsourcing. Without it, companies run the risk of consumers not participating, or worse, sabotaging the crowdsourcing initiative. Yet little is known about how consumers determine what is fair in crowdsourcing. Building on theories of organizational justice and institutional logics, and using a longitudinal netnography of Threadless, a popular crowdsourcing platform, this paper shows how experiences of fairness stem from the interaction between two conflicting crowdsourcing logics: the logic of renewal and the logic of community. The two logics inform notions of fairness in crowdsourcing contests across procedural, distributive, and interactional justice dimensions. A balance between the two logics is ideal for maintaining fairness among a crowdsourcing community. We show the conditions in which crowdsourcing participants tolerate transgressions to each justice dimension, consequently emphasizing one logic over the other. Overall, our study advances theory on crowdsourcing logics and how they guide notions of procedural, distributive, and interactional fairness in crowdsourcing. Our study also offers new guidance on how to manage fairness in crowdsourcing.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant, Annetta & Weijo, Henri & Dacin, Peter A., 2023. "How institutional logics shape fairness in crowdsourcing: The case of Threadless," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 378-397.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:40:y:2023:i:2:p:378-397
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811622000714
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.10.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vargo, Stephen L. & Lusch, Robert F., 2017. "Service-dominant logic 2025," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 46-67.
    2. Spiggle, Susan, 1994. "Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 491-503, December.
    3. Gebauer, Johannes & Füller, Johann & Pezzei, Roland, 2013. "The dark and the bright side of co-creation: Triggers of member behavior in online innovation communities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1516-1527.
    4. Kannan, P.K. & Li, Hongshuang “Alice”, 2017. "Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 22-45.
    5. Weijo, Henri & Bean, Jonathan & Rintamäki, Jukka, 2019. "Brand community coping," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 128-136.
    6. Ramaswamy, Venkat & Ozcan, Kerimcan, 2016. "Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An integrative framework and research implications," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 93-106.
    7. Chou, En-Yi & Lin, Cheng-Yu & Huang, Heng-Chiang, 2016. "Fairness and devotion go far: Integrating online justice and value co-creation in virtual communities," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 60-72.
    8. Johanna F. Gollnhofer & Katharina Hellwig & Felicitas Morhart, 2016. "Fair Is Good, but What Is Fair? Negotiations of Distributive Justice in an Emerging Nonmonetary Sharing Model," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(2), pages 226-245.
    9. Gry Høngsmark Knudsen & Yun Mi Antorini, 2021. "Hard Work: Unanticipated Collaboration in Co-creation Processes," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(4), pages 435-446.
    10. Nishikawa, Hidehiko & Schreier, Martin & Ogawa, Susumu, 2013. "User-generated versus designer-generated products: A performance assessment at Muji," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 160-167.
    11. Darren W. Dahl & Christoph Fuchs & Martin Schreier, 2015. "Why and When Consumers Prefer Products of User-Driven Firms: A Social Identification Account," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1978-1988, August.
    12. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    13. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Lars Frederiksen, 2006. "Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, February.
    14. Fournier, Susan & Avery, Jill, 2011. "The uninvited brand," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 193-207, May.
    15. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alain Debenedetti & Déborah Philippe & Delphine Dion, 2024. "Balancing exclusivity and inclusivity through the strategic domestication of the luxury retail experience," Post-Print hal-04593576, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    2. Cambier, Fanny & Poncin, Ingrid, 2020. "Inferring brand integrity from marketing communications: The effects of brand transparency signals in a consumer empowerment context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 260-270.
    3. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    5. Yang, Mu & Ooi, Yat Ming & Han, Chunjia, 2022. "Lead users as idea supplier in online community platform: How to choose the right ideas to implement?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    6. Elina H. Hwang & Param Vir Singh & Linda Argote, 2019. "Jack of All, Master of Some: Information Network and Innovation in Crowdsourcing Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 389-410, June.
    7. Donthu, Naveen & Reinartz, Werner & Kumar, Satish & Pattnaik, Debidutta, 2021. "A retrospective review of the first 35 years of the International Journal of Research in Marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 232-269.
    8. Renton, Michelle & Richard, James E., 2020. "Entrepreneurship in marketing: Socializing partners for brand governance in EM firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 180-188.
    9. Jiao, Yuanyuan & Wu, Yepeng & Lu, Steven, 2021. "The role of crowdsourcing in product design: The moderating effect of user expertise and network connectivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    10. Salgado, Stéphane & Hemonnet-Goujot, Aurelie & Henard, David H. & de Barnier, Virginie, 2020. "The dynamics of innovation contest experience: An integrated framework from the customer’s perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 29-43.
    11. Gielens, Katrijn & Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., 2019. "Branding in the era of digital (dis)intermediation," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 367-384.
    12. Wang Kai & Tao Yu & Wang Hui, 2017. "Combining Ideas in Crowdsourced Idea Generation," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 203-212, February.
    13. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Piepponen, Amanda & Ritala, Paavo & Keränen, Joona & Maijanen, Päivi, 2022. "Digital transformation of the value proposition: A single case study in the media industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 311-325.
    15. Jones, Scott & Cronin, James & Piacentini, Maria G., 2022. "Celebrity brand break-up: Fan experiences of para-loveshock," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 720-731.
    16. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 168-180.
    17. Maria Vernuccio & Tiziano Vescovi, 2016. "Branding in the digital era," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(4), pages 15-22.
    18. Borner, Kathrin & Berends, Hans & Deken, Fleur & Feldberg, Frans, 2023. "Another pathway to complementarity: How users and intermediaries identify and create new combinations in innovation ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    19. Sahi, Gurjeet Kaur & Devi, Rita & Gupta, Mahesh C. & Cheng, T.C.E., 2022. "Assessing co-creation based competitive advantage through consumers’ need for differentiation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Lee, Chu-Heng & Hsieh, Ming-Huei, 2023. "Market innovation as an institutional reconciliation process: Two individual-level case studies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    21. Gerald C. Kane & Sam Ransbotham, 2016. "Content as Community Regulator: The Recursive Relationship Between Consumption and Contribution in Open Collaboration Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1258-1274, October.
    22. Lars Hornuf & Sabrina Jeworrek, 2018. "How Community Managers Affect Online Idea Crowdsourcing Activities," CESifo Working Paper Series 7153, CESifo.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:40:y:2023:i:2:p:378-397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.