Buzzword or fuzzword: an event study of the metaverse in the Chinese stock market

Abstract

Purpose“Metaverse” has become a buzzword in the Chinese stock market. However, it remains unclear whether a firm's metaverse-related announcements will elicit positive stock market reactions. Whether and how stakeholder reactions are influenced by a firm's metaverse-related readiness also needs to be further explored. This study aims to discuss the aforementioned objective.Design/methodology/approachThe authors derived a set of factors based on readiness theory and business ecosystem literature and extend them into the context of the metaverse. The authors used a sample of 642 Chinese listed firms in 2021 to investigate the hypotheses through the event study.FindingsThe study’s findings show that metaverse coverage induces a positive stock market reaction, but it is subject to three moderating effects. The authors introduce the novel concepts of IT readiness, ecosystem readiness and digital infrastructure readiness as the moderators. Stakeholders perceive metaverse announcements as overhyped, and stock prices do not fluctuate significantly after a metaverse announcement when the listed firms are not ready to embrace the metaverse.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first that introduces the event study method into the metaverse research, and it reveals that different levels of readiness influence stakeholders' evaluations and reactions to corporate metaverse coverage. This provides empirical evidence on metaverse development in China from the stock market's perspective.

Guest editorial: Exploring the research opportunities and challenges in the metaverse

“…However, this impact is contingent upon the moderation of IT readiness, ecosystem readiness and digital infrastructure readiness. This study extends our understanding about metaverse developments in China (Xu et al ., 2024b).…”

Metaverse applications in education: a systematic review and a cost-benefit analysis

“…This review suggests that a number of commentators shed light on various aspects about Metaverse technologies, including on their personalization (Bühler et al , 2022; Chen, 2022; Díaz, 2020; Park, and Kim, 2022) and interactivity features (Cortés Rodríguez et al , 2022; Guo and Gao, 2022; Lee et al , 2022a, 2022b; Ratten, 2023; Siyaev and Jo, 2021a, 2021b), as well as on their gaming attributes (Barry et al , 2015; Díaz et al , 2020; Estudante and Dietrich, 2020; Garrido-Iñigo and Rodríguez-Moreno, 2015; Melendez Araya and Hidalgo Avila, 2018; Park and Kim, 2022), among other issues. Various authors classified the Metaverse into four categories: AR (Dwivedi et al , 2022; Hwang and Chien, 2022; Kye et al , 2021); lifelogging (Kye et al , 2021; Tlili et al , 2022; Xu et al , 2023); mirror world (Guo and Gao, 2022; Kye et al , 2021; Tlili et al , 2022); and virtual reality (Dwivedi et al , 2022; Hwang and Chien, 2022; Kye et al , 2021; Ng, 2022; Yu, 2022). …”

Brands are calling your AVATAR in Metaverse–A study to explore XR‐based gamification marketing activities & consumer‐based brand equity in virtual world

“…Hollebeek et al (2014, p. 154) conceptualize consumer brand engagement in a virtual environment as “a consumer's positively valence cognitive, social, and behavioural brand‐related activity during, or related to specific consumer/brand interactions.” The cognitive dimension represents the experiential value retained by the consumers in the Metaverse (Pamucar et al, 2022; Queiroz et al, 2023); the social dimension is rooted in the social exchange theory that suggests that engagement is co‐created by the brands and consumers; and the behavioural dimension, positive interaction between the consumer and brand, the which can be viewed as augmenting, co‐developing, influencing, sensorily engaging, and immersive (Fletcher‐Brown et al, 2021; Naeem & Ozuem, 2021; Bousba & Arya, 2022; Hollebeek et al, 2014; Wanick & Stallwood, 2023; Xu et al, 2023).…”