The online auction site eBay is a true marvel of the Internet economy. The site connects thousands of buyers and sellers each day in a giant online marketplace. This forum presents an interesting, mostly asynchronous forum for CMC interactions. One particular time on eBay, I won an auction and sent payment to the seller, expecting to receive my new computer game in the mail shortly. Sadly, this never happened.
This incident is a good, if not particularly odd, example of O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model in action. When disputes between users creep up, eBay offers several escalating steps of action. After one has waited some reasonably long period of time, the site will give you access to the other party’s contact information, including (physical) address and telephone number.
Given these rich media as options and considering the equivocal nature of the sub, the Media Richness Theory would suggest that that I should have called the other person up. However, I chose to stick to non-personal emails and digital eBay complaints because the valence of the conversation was negative. In this case, the valence overrode the “other” locus, which tends to favor non-mediated communication forms.
On the other hand, there are situations when Media Richness Theory definitely asserts itself. At the end of last semester, I was involved with a group project with four other students. Complex projects can of course be broken down into less complicated parts, many of which would be classified as trivial matters. These were dealt with consistently over mediated communications forms such as instant messaging or email rather than over the telephone or via face-to-face meetings. However, when push came to shove and the deadline came rolling around, you can rest assured that we spent several weeks in the lab face-to-face, to ensure that our project came together well.
These were two very limited examples from my own experience, obviously. However, they show that both Media Richness Theory and O’Sullivan’s model both have applications in analyzing different types of conversations. Discarding either in favor of the other would be foolish, as they don’t necessarily disprove one another.
Update
Since many of you were interested, let me tell you that the eBay situation did not end well. The deadbeat seller dissappeared with my money, and eBay/PayPal were not able to get it back from him. You've got to be careful with online purchases, that's for certain!
Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Chris,
Each of your examples were good and you provided easy-to-follow narration. You also supported your claims well, using appropriate evidence from each defined models.
The only tip i can provide is to elaborate more. Explain the outcome of each event. Was the action you decided upon most effective given the situation? Was email enough when talking with the sneaky Ebay user? Do you regret not calling? Adding some more substance will personalize the blog while also providing additional detail.
Hey Chris,
I really liked your example about eBay. I personally had never even thought about how interactions would go if someone didn’t send the item that was won (guess I’ve had good luck). I’m curious as to how the interaction turned out in the end. Was an e-mail enough to solve the problem? If not, would a phone call have been the next step? If so, does this follow the lines of Media Richness Theory? I think it probably would, as the topic would be pretty equivocal in nature thus leading you to chose a richer media like the phone.
Your second example involving group projects was also very intriguing. I thought you did a great job of exploring how a richer media such as f2f works better with group assignments. I also feel this way as it seems that CMC communication can be too lean of a media to accomplish the task. Nice work on your blog!
Chris,
You did a very good job connecting eBay complaints to O'Sullivan's theory. It is a very good example for how Media Richness doesn't always apply. The few times I've used eBay for larger purchases, I've been more confident knowing that, if something went wrong, I wouldn't have to go through a complicated process of talking with eBay representatives or anything of the sort. In terms of information, a richer channel would be better, but with something so combative, the distance between people is comforting.
I've also had very similar experiences in group projects. You're right in that it is a very good example the Media Richness Theory. Although I wonder if that communication progression is to the detriment of the project, as face-to-face communication all the way through might be a better, although more complicated, option.
I also felt this post was great since it tied both theories very well. What happened in the ebay case? Did the e-mail suffice? Also, the e-mail interaction and the face to face interaction in different situations was interesting. It's interesting that we tend to prefer the face to face environment (richer environment) when the work is critical. The e-bay example- although critical, was something that had no deadline, so it was okay to use e-mail- the asynchronous medium.
Otherwise, it was a great post! I wonder with the e-bay situation, had you used the telephone rather than an e-mail approach, could you have received better concessions or arrived to a better outcome had you negotiated? I'm only asking this because such a situation and the incorporation of a much richer media to reap better concessions was discussed in my last negotiations class and it very relevant to this subject matter.
Great job!
Hi Chris
I enjoyed your post about your two experiences. It had not occurred to me that ebay is an online space where people interact. I always thought of it as almost an online shopping place, forgetting that what you order is coming from another user, and that there may be consequences associated with that. I am left wondering how the ebay situation turned out, was the Impression Management model effective in this case? The other point that I like in your post was at the end where you said that discarding either theory for the other is foolish.
Post a Comment