Grey Markets in Customer-to-Customer Transaction and Social Networking – The Case of Vietnam

Abstract

Manuscript type: Research paper Research aims: This study aims to examine the Facebook-based grey market transactions of female customers in Vietnam. Specifically, this study investigates why (the reasons) and how (the ways) Vietnamese customers purchase grey (unofficial parallel imported) products on Facebook. Design/Methodology/Approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with thirteen female customers who had purchased grey products bought in Japan. Content analysis was applied and findings were discussed. Research findings: The Vietnamese unofficial parallel imported products (UPIP) or grey market has transformed itself into an online customer-to-customer (C2C) market with all the characteristics of an e-commerce market, thanks to the development of social media platforms such as Facebook. This market is expanding because it can fulfil the diverse needs of Vietnamese consumers whose incomes are expanding but whose needs are not satisfied. Buyers enter the market after carefully consulting their own experiences and those of their acquaintances. However, due to their lack of experience in

Buying Perfume in the Digital Age: A Study on E-Shoppers’ Perceptions and Typologies

“…She was afraid the products bought online might not be similar to the ones she had bought in brick-and-mortar stores. These findings are in line with the work of Silva et al (2019) and Bình (2018) who asserted the prevalence of perceived risks associated with e-shopping, namely financial and performance risks. In relation to this issue, several participants shared that they dealt with these perceived risks by choosing national stores and buying from known online stores even if the price is not the lowest.…”

“…They highlighted the positive feelings associated with online shopping as a trigger for them to choose the digital channel. These responses appeared to be in line with studies by Bhatnagar and Ghose (2004), Menon and Kahn (2002) and Bình (2018). The responses below illustrate this point:…”

“…This study was conducted in Brazil, Iran and Portugal. The reason for selecting the three countries were based on the fact that official figures from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -Lack of physical access to the products (Dai et al, 2014;Nakayama et al, 2010;Nepomuceno et al, 2014) and consumers' inability to test products before purchase (Chiang & Dholokia, 2003;Phau & Poon, 2000;Shergill & Chen, 2005;Zhang et al, 2018;Bình, 2018) -Lack of physical contacts with sellers (Dai et al, 2014;Nepomuceno et al, 2014;Teo, 2006) -Waste of time and money (Silva et al, 2019) -Personal data security and financial transaction security (Silva et al, 2019) -Product performance, fear of buying fake and smuggled products (Silva et al, 2019;Bình, 2018) Dimensions of online -Rational, emotional, sensorial, physical, and shopping experience spiritual (Gentile et al, 2007) -Information communication, entertainment, social interactions, sensory experience (Bleier et al, 2019) -Affective, Social, emotional, cognitive, physical (Verhoef et al, 2009) -Adventure shopping, Gratification shopping, Idea shopping, Value shopping (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003) show a growing trend in terms of Internet access (Country ICT Data, n.d.) and online purchase (OECD, 2017) in these three countries. Similarly, Statista (2020) presented specific data regarding the three countries under study.…”

“…Silva et al (2019) discussed several sources of online perceived risks such as personal data and financial transaction security, product performance as well as fake and smuggled products. In the Facebook context, Bình (2018) reported several risks that the participants were concerned with, including having no basis for trying the products, low quality and fake products. The study indicated that the perceived risks associated with the products and sellers were higher when compared with the transaction and financial risks.…”

“…Table 1 summarises the literature. Childers et al, 2001;Menon & Kahn, 2002;Ganesh et al, 2010;Bình, 2018) -Authenticity, originality (Bình, 2018) -Non-functional motivations: social and emotional needs for enjoyable shopping Menon & Kahn, 2002;Ganesh et al, 2010) -Hedonism (Forsythe et al, 2006;Ganesh et al, 2010) -Enjoyment seeking (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001;Ganesh et al, 2010) -Social interactions, Recreational aspects of shopping, Variety seeking, Desirability of immediate possession (Rohm & Swaminathan, 2004;Ganesh et al, 2010;Zhai et al, 2017) Perceived benefits -Shopping convenience (Sharma et al, 2019;Vellido et al, 2000;Zhang et al, 2017) and 24-hour-access (Karayanni, 2003) -Search convenience (Ayanso et al, 2010;Rohm & Swaminathan, 2004) -Price comparison (Ayanso et al, 2010;Shergill & Chen, 2005) -Saving money (Close & Kukar-Kinney, 2010;Sharma et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2017) -Increased variety (Sharma et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2017) -Saving time (Karayanni, 2003;Rohm & Swaminathan, 2004) -Avoiding queues (Karayanni, 2003) -Ease of locating (Ayanso et al, 2010) -Product features (Shergill & Chen, 2005) -After sales services (Shergill & Chen, 2005) and customer service (Vellido et al, 2000) -Control over the shopping process…”