Possession Work on Hosted Digital Consumption Objects as Consumer Ensnarement

Abstract

This paper extends prior critical discussions of digital prosumption by demonstrating that prosumer reliant online business models represent new ways to valorise consumer labour through the creation of multiple realities whereby digital consumption objects are simultaneously enacted as assests by companies, and as possessions by consumers. We argue that this ontological multiplicity means that consumers' 'possession work' no longer serves to separate these objects from the market sphere, as in prior work. This produces a new form of consumer lock-in, or actually ensnarement as it is consumers' own efforts to make objects meaningful that keep them in the market, similar to the psychological attachments seen in 'brand love', but also incorporating aspects of proprietary tie-ins, and access-based market systems. We further consider the implications of such a system. For companies we portray such ensnarement as an attractive, emerging mechanism for ongoing valorization of 'free labour'. Yet we also argue that this presents significant consequences for ensnared consumers who may be subject not only to the ongoing financial exploitation of their possession work, but also restrictions on possession. As a broader contribution we highlight how the examination of multiple, potentially conflicting, ontologies in markets may interact and shape one another.2

“It's MY Service, it's MY Music”: The role of psychological ownership in music streaming consumption

“…Kalyanaraman and Sundar () state that when users utilize the provided customization features of a service, “the self as source criterion will likely result in users perceiving a greater sense of ownership of portal content” (p. 113). Molesworth et al () also propose that users of services that provide digital consumption objects come to feel a sense of ownership for the digital items. Kirk and Swain () echo these notions by demonstrating that interactive elements in digital content can increase consumers' experience of control, which in turn fosters the emergence of psychological ownership of the digital content.…”

“…However, more empirical data is required, especially with regard to psychological ownership toward services (Jussila et al, ; Mifsud, Cases, & N'Goala, ) and digital technologies, including digital content (Kirk & Swain, ). While some studies have suggested that consumers can develop feelings of ownership toward digital targets (Kim, Kim, Jeon, Jun, & Kim, ; Lee & Chen, ; Molesworth, Watkins, & Denegri‐Knott, ; Watkins, Denegri‐Knott, & Molesworth, ), recent research in consumer behavior has found that digital products are less likely to elicit psychological ownership (as compared with their equivalent physical counterparts) because of lower feelings of control, and that consumers are, therefore, less willing to pay for them (Atasoy & Morewedge, ). Kirk and Swain () note that additional research is needed regarding psychological ownership in the specific context of access‐based consumption, since prior studies have suggested that users of digital technologies can experience feelings of ownership not only toward the technology itself, but also toward the products they access (Baxter, Aurisicchio, & Childs, ; Brasel & Gips, ; Kirk et al, ).…”

The digital continuum: the influence of ownership, access, control, and Cocreation on digital offerings

“…Does this effort "lock" them into the firm's ecosystem and offer greater enjoyment and/or satisfaction? Molesworth et al (2016) suggest that the model might indeed "ensnare" consumers, especially in the realm of games. Additional research is needed to extend the understanding to non-gaming Digital Services.…”

Biopolitical Marketing and Technologies of Enclosure

“…Marketing technologies of enclosure have morphed into lock in systems that both valorise and operate through consumers' psychic and financial investment in transforming digital objects into personally meaningful possessions. Within these digital enclosures, consumers own attempts to incorporate homogenous digital commodities into the domain of private possession end up facilitating their own entrapment (Molesworth, Watkins and Denegri-Knott, 2016). This enclosure also has the potential to amputate consumers from their digital possessions in ways that reduce a digital object's social utility and capacity to help develop and express personal identity.…”

“…The same applies to social media. Thus, processes of singularisation that are meant to strip objects from their commodity status are more market entangling, than severing (see Molesworth et al 2016).…”