1. Is Internet Marketing Really Consumer Empowering?
Individual Assignment within Internet Marketing
Mikaela Hellberg
820326-4109
Lund University

2. Introduction
Many are the scholars claiming that the new technology of web 2.0 has empowered the
customers beyond the firms´ control (Rowley 2004). According to these researchers the
brand management function has become mere than a fruitless attempt of risk management in a
world where online consumers play with brand values and supportive strategies like they were
public toys (Fournier & Avery 2011; Winer 2009). And the managerial advices and “best
practice” guidelines given are all exclamations on how to keep all customers with a laptop on
friendly foot by tiptoeing around, offering open source forums to capriciously decide the
company´s future logotype, brand values or even strategies (Winer, 2009).
But is the internet really all in favor of the consumers? Is the “People´s Web” really that?
When initially thinking about the question of how firms can become truly customer oriented
by embracing new rules of Internet marketing and when reading the articles describing the
consumer empowerment one thought re-appeared. That is not the reality I live in in, how
come I do not feel empowered? Born in the 80´s I belong to the so-called generation V
(Virtual), which is said to be used to handling digital settings (Lindgren et al, 2005). I have
shopped online, I do all my bank errands online (my bank doesn´t even have mortars-and
brick-offices) and I try to gather information online before hitting the stores.
And it is exactly that, I browse information online but when it comes down to business I leave
the sofa and go to a “real” store. Maybe I am not the sleek up to date blog-craving druggie
that is often described, or maybe the research has missed out on something?
As an unofficial pre-research I went on an asking crusade. I asked classmates, friends and
family within a broad age span and with differing internet habits if they felt empowered as
consumers and what empowered then meant to them. Once people started to think about it
they were puzzled. The commonly adapted view is that internet is empowering us as
consumers but is that really the perception we have from our own reality? Stupid irrelevant
comments from Flashback and other “open source forums” gives us a million hits when we
try to get some information out of Google, prices that vary every time we enter a certain
webpage, pirates on E-bay and Tradera trying to fool us on money and when we finally decide
on purchasing the time and effort of going through “the check out” is enough to discourage us
from repeating that action ever again. No we do not feel particularly empowered.
So how come the scholars are in a shared aw over a shift in power that none of my friends nor
I have ever experienced? Are we the odd opposite examples proving the rule or is something
missing in the equation?
Since the course literature already answer the initial question of how firms can become truly
customer oriented by embracing the new rules of Internet marketing, this study will instead
pinpoint three areas that have been commonly claimed to be key areas within the customer
empowerment movement, driven and fulfilled through the technology of the internet. These
areas are then examined and questioned by differing views.
By comparing opposed views a divergence of opinions that challenge the ”accepted” reality is
revealed. It is always important to critically examine taken for granted assumptions
(Howcroft, 2001). However since the idea of consumer empowerment through internet is
taken for granted, the number of studies showing otherwise are limited, making it more
difficult for the researcher. Hence some of the empirical data may be a little dated. This study
tries to take that into account, letting room for doubt in analysis and conclusion. However, the
question examined here, is derived from recent personal experiences of the phenomena at

3. hand (Pettigrew, 1990); online shopping, which would speak in favor for the subject´s
relevancy despite the lack of updated research supporting the findings.
Purpose
Searching for and examine divergent views on internet as a tool for consumer empowerment
in the light of the prevailing taken for granted assumptions.
Definitions used
Internet marketing
To clarify what is included when discussing internet marketing following definition by
Parsons et al, (1998) is used:
“By digital marketing, we mean two activities: first, leveraging theunique capabilities of new
interactive media (e.g.World Wide Web, on-line services, proprietary dial-up services) to
create new forms of interactions and transactions between consumers and marketers; and
second, integrating interactive media with the other elements of the marketing mix.”
Consumer empowerment
To clarify what is meant when discussing consumer empowerment, the author has used a
definition by Len Tiu Wright proponed in European Journal of Marketing (vol. 60 (9/10) as a
guest editor in the number entitled “ Consumer Empowerment”). since it is easy to grasp and
appears in other articles used in this study:
"A mental state usually accompanied by a physical act which enables a consumer or a group
of consumers to put into effect their own choices through demonstrating their needs, wants
and demands in their decision-making with other individuals or organizational bodies in the
marketplace."
Three Key Areas Central to Consumer Empowerment
1. Convenience
It is often claimed that e-tailing gives us the convenience of around the clock shopping
without leaving home. However many consumers witness about delivery delays causing
problems and horror stories about the troublesome work of trying to file a complaint to the
right department and right person within the narrow time limit proposed by the companies
themselves are circulating in media (Fournier & Avery, 2011). The delivery issue was
accentuated in US during Christmas 1999 when the often promised next-day delivery was not
kept and many customers ended up with no Christmas presents until January (Reynolds,
2000). Even if much has been approved during the last years, stories about delivery delays
and unsatisfying out-of-stock handling pop up on regular basis (Enos, 2001, Cooke, 2000).
And all in all, do we really want around-the-clock access to shopping. Does it really empower
the consumer more than the company? Communication and information technologies, such as
internet and mobile devices, are argued to be the means through which consumption and
consumerism is spread into the private lives and homes of individuals (Lyon, 1993). E-tailing
allows people the convenience to shop without leaving their home but it does also permit the
companies around-the-clock access to its target consumers.
2. Price and Information Transparency
The increased access of information from different discourses is said to be one of the most
important aspects of consumer empowerment (Pitt et al. 2002 Krishnamurthy et al, 2009;

4. Rowley, 2004). It is argued that the access to information would increase the ability to make a
more informed purchase choice leading to a greater transparency (Rowley, 2004), and
decreased online prices.
This has been challenged by many scholars. Information access in itself does not empower,
according to Harrison (2002) the consumers must also being able to evaluate and comprehend
the accessed information in order for it to be empowering. Many consumers today are
overwhelmed with the great amount of information available. It could be argued that if being
without the means to scrutinize all of the information could rather lead to a weakened position
for these consumers.
Online, much of the concern of making an informed choice and gathering the necessary
information is assigned to the customer (Pitt et al, 2002), which seems to be an advantage for
the companies instead of the consumers (Gilliatt et al. 2000; Macey, 2002). The process of
information searching can be a timely activity; the cost of this activity is now placed on the
customers instead of the companies which can cut down the costs of informed staff for
instance (Bakos, 1991). Even if scholars like Rowley (2004) claims that “customer time
becomes an asset that both parties need to learn to value..” the truth is that this is not reflected
in the online pricing.
In terms of pricing, the internet technology has rather given e-companies the means to charge
premium prices instead of leading to lowered prices (Bakos, 2001; Baker et al, 2001). Baker
et al (2001) argue that transparency serves not only consumers but companies as well. Even if
internet facilitates price comparison it also helps companies to monitor consumer behavior
and fine-tune the prices accordingly.
Even if the possibility for bargain hunting is available, very few use it, the majority of internet
shoppers turn out to be faithful and return to a few sites when purchasing online Baker et al,
2001). Price does not seem to be the most convincing criterion for online purchases. However,
companies are not getting away with everything, if the price changes are not justified properly
this could damage the trust and brand of that company (Baker et al, 2001).
But internet serves the companies in optimizing the prices to their advantages. The ability to
quickly adjust prices to fluctuations in demand are rarely questioned by customers and allows
the companies to look around for and find customer segments willing to pay even a higher
price (Baker et al, 2001). The willing buyers are found by analyzing the information of the
consumers´ internet habits, buying history, clickstream etc. Information gathered from
cookies on the consumers´ own and private computers (Baker et al, 2001). This is another
proof of what has been discussed above about around the clock access and who really gains
from it.
Even if increased transparency indeed has led to cheaper alternatives which in theory is
detectable from price comparison sites it is seldom the cheapest e-tailer that is most frequently
bought from (Brynjolfsson & Smith, 2000). Baker et al (2001) found that the majority of
online shoppers actually returned to already proven sites even if the purchased item could be
found cheaper elsewhere.
This implies that internet maybe not is the praised equalizer between consumers and
companies. If price transparency is not the most important criterion for online purchase
choice then what is. It turns out that, exactly as in the bricks-and-mortar retail setting, brand

5. recognition and trust are crucial criterion for choosing whom to buy from (Brynjolfsson &
Smith, 2000).
4. Personalization and choice
Internet and consequently, e-tailing, is claimed to lead to a greater personal choice and
personalized marketing and offers (Montgomery & Smith, 2009). “No longer does the
marketer need to speculate about customer needs; they actually know customer-purchasing
profiles” (Rowley, 2004), which was promised to lead to the death of mass marketing and its
replacement of tailored and relevant marketing, when and if permission was given by the
consumers (Peppers & Rogers, 1996; Godin, 1999; Parsons et al, 1998).
Well, many can witness about offending Viagra ads on private Facebook accounts and
“spam” flooding the mail box. Not exactly what was promised or excepted given that the
marketers now know our purchasing profiles as stated by Rowley (2004). Most of the
marketing efforts appear without the consumers´ permission which cannot be defined as
“choice”. This reality stands in sharp contrast to what Parsons et al, (1998) promised; arguing
that the new two-way interactivity was going to be the consumers´ choice of deciding who to
communicate to and when. Parsons et al, (1998) even saw it as a “right” that marketers had to
fight to earn. However, the personal information gathered about consumers, that were said to
give personalization, is sometimes even used as commodities. Robins & Webster (1988) even
argue that the information gathered, and used by companies in marketing purposes, could be
mistreated and used to exert power over the consumer instead of vice versa.
Neither the choice aspect has turned out the way that was expected from some scholars.
Internet was said to enable the consumers to choose from a variety of products and companies
all around the world. Companies, big as small, would now compete on equal grounds which
would benefit the consumers (Howcroft, 2001). However smaller companies still have less
resources to engage in web presence, develop/buy consumer information analytics and as a
consequence still has an disadvantage to the bigger players (Howcroft, 2001).
As pointed out in the section above (Price and information transparency) trust and brand
recognition are important determinants for whom to buy from. According to Brynjolfsson &
Smith (2000) this behavior is a consequence of “heterogenity of trust”. Brand recognition
simplifies the consumers´choice which could be the explanation to Baker et al´s (2004)
findings on repeating purchase with already tried company-sites. Ernst & Young (2001) also
detected the same pattern; finding that “the majority of [internet] searches for televisions,
irrespective of country, are undertaken a small portfolio of brands (two, or at the most, three),
largely related to the market share of established brands in each country” (In McGoldrick,
2002). Hence brand awareness seems to lessen the available “candidates” for consumers to
put their trust in. Basu (2000) says that despite a compelling offer trust in an internet setting
is hard to achieve if the customer has none or little prior experience of it. This lack of
consumer trust can be traced to the many frauds taking place on the internet and further
reported in mass media. Even if consumer fear is addressed through security logos, the
mistrust still prevails due to the existence of so many of them and they also have to be viewed
as trustworthy in consumers´eyes in order to function as a “fear-calmer” on other sites (Bakos,
2001). Hence consumers tend to stick with the already known and experienced brands which
in turn would lead to a decreased range of supply in the minds of the consumer and limiting
the choice. This in turn diminishes the consumer choice instead of extending it.

6. Conclusion and Further Studies
The author has in this paper, searched for and examined divergent views on the prevailing
taken for granted assumption that internet serves a tool for consumer empowerment.
The study has marked out three key areas where the assumption of internet as consumer
empowering has been focused around; Convenience, Price and information transparency and
Personalization and choice. Within these three areas the author has tried to show that the
prevailing assumption may not yet be entirely applicable.
With that said, the author of this paper does not disaffirm the ability of e-commerce to become
entirely customer empowered through the opportunities and potential the internet actually
provide in terms of information access, price transparency and communication abilities.
However for the common consumer today, that is not yet the reality.
For future research it would be interesting to monitor the development of internet as a tool for
customer empowerment, to see how, when and if it will truly become the Public´s Web that
has been claimed by Fournier & Avery, (2011).

7. References
Price Smarter on the Net (2001). Baker, W., Marn, M. & Zawada, C. Harvard Business
Review, Feb2001, vol. 79 (2): 122-127
Bakos, J.Y. (1991) A Strategic Analysis of Electronic Marketplaces. MIS Quarterly, vol. 15
(3): 295-310
Bakos, Y. (2001). The Emerging Landscape for Retail E-commerce. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol. 15 (1): 69-80
Basu, K.(2000). E-branding or Re-branding?. Moving to eBusiness, L Willcocks et al (eds),
Random House: London. In McGoldrick, P. (2002). Retail Marketing (2nd ed.). Berkshire:
McGraw Hill
Brynjolfsson, E. & Smith, M. (2000). Frictionless Commerce? A Comparison of Internet and
Conventional Retailers. Management Science, vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 563-585
Cooke, J. A.(2000). Clicks and Mortar. Logistics Management, January (39). In McGoldrick,
P.(2002). Retail Marketing (2nd ed.). Berkshire: McGraw Hill
Enos, L. (2001). Internet Flower Sites Fail Mother´s Day Test. eCommerceTimes.com, May
15th
Ernst & Young (2001). Kelkoo and Ernst & Young Launches Europe´s First E-commerce
“Brandometer”, press release, July. In McGoldrick, P. (2002). Retail Marketing (2nd ed.).
Berkshire: McGraw Hill
Fournier, S. & Avery, J. (2011). The Uninvited Brand. Business Horizons, (54): 193-207
Gilliatt, S., Fenwick J. and , A.D. (2000) Public Services and the Consumer: Empowerment or
Control? Social
Policy and Administration, vol. 34 (3): 333-349
Godin, S. (1999) Permission Marketing , London : Simon & Schuster
Howcroft, D. (2001) After the Goldrush: Deconstructing the Myths of the Dot.com Market.
Journal of
Information Technology, vol. 16, 195-204
Krishnamurthy, S. & Umit Kucuk, S. (2009).Anti-Branding on the Internet. Journal of
Business Research, vol. 62: 1119–1126
Lindgren, M., Lüthi, B., Fürth, T. (2005). MeWe Generation - What Business and Politics
Must Know About the Next Generation, Stowmarket : Bookhouse Publishing
Lyon, D. (1993). An Electronic Panopticon? A Sociological Critique of Surveillance Theory.
The Sociological
Review, nr. 4, 653-678

8. Macey, D. (2002) The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory. London: Penguin
Montgomery, A. L & Smith, M. D. (2009) Prospects for Personalization on the Internet.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 23: 130–137
Parsons, W., Zeisser, M. & Waitman, R. (1998). Organizing Today for the Digital Marketing
of Tomorrow. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 (1)
Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (1996). The One-to-One Future: Building Business Relationships
One Customer at a
Time. London: Piatkus Books
Pettigrew, T.F. (1990). How to Think Like a Social Scientist. London: Longman
Pitt, L.F., Berthon, P.R., Watson, R.T. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2002) The Internet and the Birth
of Real Consumer
Power. Business Horizons, July-August: 7-14
Reynolds, J. (2000). Retailing on the Net: I´m Dreaming of an e-Christmas. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, nr, 28 (2/3): 107-108
Robins K. and Webster, F. (1988) Cybernetic Capitalism: Information, Technology, Everyday
Life. Mosco, V. and Wasko, J., (Eds.) Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
Rowley, J. (2004). Just Another Channel? Marketing Communications in e-Business.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 22, (1): 24-41
Winer, R. S. (2009). New Communications Approaches in Marketing: Issues and Research
Directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 23: 108–117
Wright, L. T (2006) Guest Editorial. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 60 (9/10)