Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2020.8.3.1

N-ary Information Markets: Money, Attention, and Personal Data as Means of Payment  

Stock, Wolfgang G. (Karl Franzens University Graz, Institute for Information Science and Information Systems)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.8, no.3, 2020 , pp. 6-14 More about this Journal
Abstract
On information markets, we can identify different relations between sellers and their customers, with some users paying with money, some paying with attention, and others paying with their personal data. For the description of these different market relations, this article introduces the notion of arity into the scientific discussion. On unary information markets, customers pay with their money; examples include commercial information suppliers. Binary information markets are characterized by one market side paying with attention (e.g., on the search engine Google) or with personal data (e.g., on most social media services) and the other market side (mainly advertisers) paying with money. Our example of a ternary market is a social media market with the additional market side of influencers. If customers buy on unary markets, they know what to pay (in terms of money). If they pay with attention or with their personal data, they do not know what they have to pay exactly in the end. On n-ary markets (n greater than 1), laws should regulate company's abuse of money and-which is new-abuse of data streams with the aid of competition (or anti-trust) laws, and by modified data protection laws, which are guided by fair use of end users' attention and data.
Keywords
information markets; search engines; social media; influencers; competition law; data protection law;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Abdelkafi, N., Raasch, C., Roth, A., & Srinivasan, R. (2019). Multi-sided platforms. Electronic Markets, 29, 553-559.   DOI
2 Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.
3 Baran, K. S., Fietkiewicz, K. J., & Stock, W. G. (2015, May 19-21). Monopolies on social network services (SNS) markets and competition law. In F. Pehar, C. Schlogl, & C. Wolff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science (ISI 2015) (pp. 424-436). Verlag Werner Hulsbusch.
4 Chiang, H.-S., & Hsiao, K.-L. (2015). YouTube stickiness: The needs, personal, and environmental perspective. Internet Research, 25(1), 85-106.   DOI
5 Crabtree, A., Lodge, T., Colley, J., Greenhalgh, C., Mortier, R., & Haddadi, H. (2016). Enabling the new economic actor: Data protection, the digital economy, and the Databox. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 20, 947-957.   DOI
6 European Data Protection Board. (2020). Eighteenth EDPB plenary session. Retrieved September 14, 2020 from https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2020/eighteenth-edpbplenary-session_en.
7 Curran, K., Graham, S., & Temple, C. (2011). Advertising on facebook. International Journal of E-Business Development, 1(1), 26-33.
8 Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9 Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyerseller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11-27.   DOI
10 Elvy, S.-A. (2017). Paying for privacy and the personal data economy. Columbia Law Review, 117(6), 1369-1459.
11 Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of multisided platforms. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
12 Fietkiewicz, K. J., Dorsch, I., Scheibe, K., Zimmer, F., Stock, W. G. (2018, July 15-20). Dreaming of stardom and money: Micro-celebrities and influencers on live streaming services. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), SCSM 2018: Social computing and social media. User experience and behavior (pp. 240-253). Springer.
13 Fietkiewicz, K. J., & Ilhan, A. (2020, January 7-10). Fitness tracking technologies: Data privacy doesn't matter? The (un)concerns of users, former users, and non-users. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3439-3448). HICSS (ScholarSpace).
14 Lanier, J. (2014). Who owns the future? New York: Simon & Schuster Paperback.
15 Fietkiewicz, K. J., & Lins, E. (2016). New media and new territories for European law: Competition in the market for social networking services. In K. Knautz, & K. Baran (Eds.), Facets of facebook: Use and users (pp. 285-324). Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
16 Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92.   DOI
17 Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry-Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 19(3), 215-229.   DOI
18 Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017). Self-branding, 'microcelebrity' and the rise of Social Media Influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191-208.   DOI
19 Kulik, B., & Fridman, A. (2018). N-ary relations for logical analysis of data and knowledge. Hershey: IGI Global.
20 Linde, F., & Stock, W. G. (2011). Information markets: A strategic guideline for the i-commerce. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
21 Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100-126.   DOI
22 McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. New York: Norton & Company.
23 Pressman, R. R. (2008). Fair use: Law, ethics and librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 47(3-4), 89-110.   DOI
24 Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-1029.   DOI
25 Senft, T. M. (2013). Microcelebrity and the branded self. In J. Hartley, J. E. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 346-354). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.
26 Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: A progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645-667.   DOI
27 Rogers, J., Bater, J., He, X., Machanavajjhala, A., Suresh, M., & Wang, X. (2019). Privacy changes everything. In V. Gadepally, T. Mattson, M. Stonebraker, F. Wang, G. Luo, Y. Laing, & A. Dubovitskaya (Eds.), Heterogeneous data management, polystores, and analytics for healthcare (pp. 96-111). Springer.
28 Ruhrberg, S. D., Kirstein, G., & Baran, K. S. (2017). User acceptance of personalized and context-specific online advertising. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 223-232.   DOI
29 Scheibe, K., Fietkiewicz, K. J., & Stock, W. G. (2016). Information behavior on social live streaming services. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 4(2), 6-20.   DOI
30 Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity & community in the age of social networks. New York: Peter Lang.
31 Stange, M., & Funk, B. (2014). Real-time advertising. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6, 305-308.   DOI
32 Symons, T., & Bass, T. (2017). Me, my data and I: The future of personal data economy. Brussels: European Union.
33 Varnali, K. (2019). Online behavioral advertising: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Communications, in press, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2019.1630664.
34 Zhao, J., Ma, M., Gong, W., Zhang, L., Zhu, Y., & Liu, J. (2017, June 14-16). Social media stickiness in Mobile Personal Livestreaming service. In IEEE/ACM 25th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS) (pp. 2). IEEE.
35 Zimmer, F., Scheibe, K., & Stock, W. G. (2018). A model for information behavior research on social live streaming services (SLSSs). In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), SCSM 2018: Social Computing and Social Media. Technologies and Analytics (pp. 429-448). Springer.
36 Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Kruikemeier, S., Boerman, S. C., & Helberger, N. (2017). Tracking walls, take-it-or-leave-it choices, the GDPR, and the e-privacy regulation. European Data Protection Law Review, 3(3), 353-368.   DOI