See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351949176

Social Commerce: A Concept Explication

Chapter · May 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-77246-8_37

CITATIONS READS

12 1,606

1 author:

Maryam Almahdi
American University of Bahrain
13 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maryam Almahdi on 26 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Social Commerce: A Concept Explication

Maryam Husain Almahdi

Ahlia University, Bahrain
[email protected]

Abstract. Attention to social commerce has been growing in research and prac-
tice in recent years. Many industry articles and academic papers have been dedi-
cated to defining the concept, outlining its components, and highlighting its po-
tential, producing varying and often conflicting findings. This literature review
paper contributes to this conversation by introducing a framework of three core
themes of social commerce (i.e., social, commercial, and technological). The
framework is utilized to offer a tentative definition of social commerce and
shed light on what distinguishes it from two closely related concepts: social me-
dia and e-commerce. The paper concludes with highlighting persisting gaps in
the conceptualization of social commerce and offers recommendations for future
research to further our understanding of the concept.
Keywords: Social Commerce, Social Media, E-commerce, Digital Marketing
2

1 Introduction

Social Commerce (SC) is defined in the literature as “the delivery of e-commerce

activities and transactions via the social media environment”[1, p.6]. SC is a growing
phenomenon and novel area of research [2-4]. It is expected to redefine the consumer
shopping experience and assume an increasingly important position among competing
shopping channels [5, 6]. Indeed, according to eMarketer, social commerce sales in the
US are expected to climb to 36.09 billion US dollars in 2021, growing by 34.8% from
the previous year [7].
Some SC tools and mechanisms have been around since the 1990s [8], but the term
(as it is known today) was introduced in late 2005 in a blog post by Beach and Gupta.
The two former Yahoo! Shopping managers used the term ‘social commerce’ to de-
scribe their marketplace’s newly added shopping features that facilitate consumer par-
ticipation and content creation, an example of which is shopping lists that customers
can create and share. However, it is only recently that SC has started to attract the at-
tention of marketers and academics [9], particularly because of the growth in popularity
and influence of social media technologies [3, 10]. Indeed, social media is taking an
increasing role in the daily routines of millions of users, guiding their buying and shop-
ping preferences, along with other aspects of their lives [11].
SC is shaping up to become “one of the greatest opportunities—and challenges—the
retail industry has ever faced” [11, p.2]. It, consequently, represents a thriving research
area [1, 10], as scholars endeavor to understand the consumers’ interactivity with the
SC platforms as well as with other consumers using them [12]. However, despite its
promise, social commerce research is still in its early stages [4], as a consensus is yet
to be reached on a precise meaning of the concept, what it involves, and how it differs
from related concepts such as e-commerce and social media [13-17].
These limitations in delineating the essence and boundaries of SC make up the main
research gap this paper is addressing. It is important to address this gap because limita-
tions in understanding the concept of social commerce translate to limitations in defin-
ing the empirical settings in social commerce research. Specifically, research contexts
in the SC literature are often chosen with little justification, as researchers seem to take
liberties in what type of platforms they regard as SC. These conceptualization short-
comings similarly bleed into limitations in practice that render practitioners uncertain
about the potential of SC as a marketing tool or how capitalize on it to understand and
satisfy their customers [2, 6, 13, 15, 18].
To address these conceptual shortcomings, a framework of three core themes (i.e.,
social, commercial, and technological) is proposed in this paper to reconcile the past
definitions of SC. The framework is additionally utilized to distinguish social com-
merce from three related concepts, namely: social media, electronic commerce (e-com-
merce), and social shopping. This is followed by introducing a tentative definition of
social commerce as being the result of the convergence of social media and e-commerce
technologies. Finally, gaps in the extant conceptualizations of SC are discussed and
recommendations for future research are provided.
 3

2 Three Core Themes of Social Commerce

A close examination of SC definitions in past academic literature [1, 2, 10, 13-15,

19, 20] reveals three recurring themes, namely, social interactions, commercial activi-
ties, and technological infrastructures. Indeed, a key theme of SC in prior research is
the support of the consumers’ social interactions, with an emphasis on their communi-
cation and relationships with others in the online environment [1, 13, 21]. A second
major theme covers the customers’ commercial activities throughout the different
stages of their online shopping journey [13, 14, 20]. Finally, the literature sheds light
on the technological infrastructure essential in facilitating the social and commercial
activities, specifically in terms of being built on and enabled by the Internet and its
interactive mechanisms [1, 2, 20]. In the context of SC, the social, commercial, and
technological themes are closely interrelated. Researchers explain that the interactive
capabilities of the online environment not only support the consumers’ online shopping
and buying activities [22, 23]; they further facilitate their social interactions as they
transform from passive audiences to active communicators [24]. The consumers’ online
social interactions, an example of which is seeking product recommendations from their
online social network, can in turn influence their shopping experiences and buying de-
cisions in SC [5, 13]. These experiences and decisions, whether positive or negative,
will consequently guide the consumers’ own opinions and reviews that they might share
with others online [2, 16, 21], thus repeating the cycle.
In light of this discussion, SC can be described as the fruit of the interrelation be-
tween the technological infrastructures, social interactions and commercial activities.
Interestingly, examining the overlapping areas of each two themes presents a useful
tool for understanding three concepts closely related to the study of SC, namely, social
media, e-commerce, and social shopping. Specifically, social media is observed in the
overlap between the technological and social themes, while e-commerce is reflected in
the overlap between the commercial and technological themes. Similarly, social shop-
ping is the result of the overlap between the social and commercial themes. An over-
view of each of these concepts and how they relate to SC is discussed next.

Social media

Social media is the result of the overlap between the technological and social themes in
the framework [25]. It is, therefore, defined as a range of online platforms and applica-
tions that facilitate their users’ social activities [24]. These social activities, according
to Fuchs [25], are manifest in communication, collaboration, and community building.
These activities can be observed in the variety of social media platforms available to-
day, from social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Instagram), ephemeral messaging
apps (e.g., Snapchat), video-sharing apps (e.g., TikTok, YouTube), collaborative com-
munities (e.g., Wikipedia), and even virtual gaming worlds (e.g., Second Life).
It is interesting to note that, while being distinctive for enabling social interactions be-
tween its users (i.e., interpersonal communication or human-to-human interactivity),
social media is equally able to facilitate one-to-many mass communication models (e.g.
in the form of online adverts) [25]. Additionally, social media inherently incorporates
4

human-to-website interactive tools and mechanisms (e.g. links, search, and customiza-
tion) with the aim of engaging its consumers and enhancing their navigation experi-
ences [25].

Electronic commerce

Conducting commercial exchanges online are other words to describe e-commerce

[22]. Some scholars suggest that for an e-commerce activity to be considered as such,
a full financial transaction has to have transpired online [21]. However, other research-
ers consider any and all of the transactional and non-transactional activities related to
the consumers’ online shopping experiences a part of e-commerce [22].
For the purposes of presenting a more inclusive view of the term, and in line with the
general direction in SC research [14], the researcher follows the second path of using
e-commerce to involve to “any kind of [online] activity that leads to commercial bene-
fits” [1, p.7]. Accordingly, the concept of e-commerce includes online presences that
support commercial exchanges occurring between businesses, between consumers, be-
tween businesses and consumers, and between other types of organizations (e.g. gov-
ernments) and their consumers [21, 22]. Examples are consumer-to-consumer market-
places (e.g., Etsy), business-to-consumer marketplaces (e.g., Amazon), brand websites
(e.g., Dell.com), news websites (e.g., BBC), online banking services (e.g., TSB.com),
and online telecommunication services (e.g., O2.com). Notably, while it often enables
basic human-to-human interactivity (e.g. reviews, questions), traditional e-commerce
largely facilitate human-to-website interactivity and mass communication models [23].

Social shopping

The combination of commercial activities and social interactions will result in social
shopping. Indeed, shopping in its core is a social experience [6], and social shopping
can be understood as the social activity that consists of shopping with other people,
whether in the real world or online [23]. It is worth highlighting that some authors use
the terms ‘social shopping’ and ‘social commerce’ interchangeably [26], while others
describe its online form (i.e., online shopping with other people) as a subset of SC [27].

3 SC as the Result of the Convergence between Social Media

and E-Commerce Technologies

The discussion, thus far, has highlighted the three main themes of SC and how they
join forces to shape the concept of SC. Moreover, the three-theme framework has been
employed to shed light on concepts of particular importance to the understanding of
SC, including social media and e-commerce. According to the framework, social media
is represented in the overlap between the technological and social themes, while e-com-
merce is the result of the overlap between the technological and commercial themes.
It is then reasonable to suggest that both social media and e-commerce can transform
into SC if they utilize the appropriate interactive tools to facilitate their consumers’
 5

commercial and social interactions, respectively, thus encapsulating all three themes of
the framework. Indeed, social media is often viewed as a type of SC [1-3, 6]; particu-
larly when its consumers’ social interactions influence the different stages of their buy-
ing decision process [2, 13, 18, 28]. This can involve connecting with and purchasing
from firms via their social media, carrying out buying and selling activities with other
consumers on social platforms, and sharing opinions about products in social commu-
nities [14-16]. Similarly, SC is closely related to e-commerce, and some definitions go
as far as describing the first as a development of the latter [16]. Indeed, the two are
similar in respect to facilitating their consumers’ online shopping and buying activities
but differ in regard to allowing their social interactions [20, 27]. As discussed earlier,
e-commerce does not typically incorporate social experiences to their customers’ shop-
ping journeys [1, 16]. However, when they do (e.g., by adding communication, collab-
oration, and relationship-building tools), they become a type of SC [6, 14, 15, 20, 23].
Based on the previous discussion, SC can be described in terms of the convergence
between social media and e-commerce technologies and activities. This is further evi-
dent in the fact that SC can support both human-to-human and human-to-website inter-
activity. Indeed, SC is created when an online platform is made up of interactive mech-
anisms that facilitate both the consumers’ social interactions and shopping and buying
activities along the different stages of their buying decision process [1, 13, 14].

4 Limitations in Conceptualizing SC

The versatility of SC as a concept comes with its own challenges, especially in respect
of narrowing it down, categorizing it, and drawing a sure line between SC and e-com-
merce on the one hand, and between SC and social media on the other hand. Indeed, e-
commerce websites have capitalized on the sociality of their consumers by enabling
reviews and social sharing for many years now, and social platforms been created
around brands and products for quite some time (e.g., Facebook commerce) [8, 10, 15,
19, 25]. This poses the question of whether SC has existed all along [10], or if the
concept should be reserved to describe platforms that harbor certain levels of sociability
and interactivity? For example, while Amazon enables social interactions in the form
of customer reviews and questions, it offers very limited personal profiles and no built-
in direct messaging options. In contrast, the users on Etsy can create detailed and vivid
profiles that include information about their followers, favorite items, groups, and col-
lections in addition to liking and direct messaging options.
Along the same lines are shortcomings relating the categorizations of SC platforms
presented in the literature, which are for the most part arbitrary, contradictory, and un-
scientific. A rare example of an empirical classification of SC was presented by
Saundage and Lee [29], who based it on a study of a mere 15 websites and presented
two simple categories; pre- and post-transactional SC. Evidently, these two categories
do not offer much information on SC types that can be utilized in future research or
practice. A more detailed typology was presented in a conference paper by Almahdi et
al. [30], but requires further statistical analyses to validate it. Therefore, a major short-
coming in the literature is the ambiguity concerning SC, particularly its precise meaning
6

and its different types [13, 14, 16]. These difficulties in pinning down the concept are
reflected in the wide range of empirical settings used in prior SC research, and conse-
quently in the types of respondents and subjects used. SC studies are set in contexts as
varied as social networking sites [18, 28], online shopping platforms [39], and websites
identified as SC without a clear justification [19, 31]. Several other researchers resort
to targeting general respondents who happen to be online shoppers or social media users
[23]. Consequently, when the term ‘SC’ is used in empirical research, it can be referring
to one of many concepts, presenting a problem that could affect the reliability of re-
search outcomes [17].
The conceptualization shortcomings are additionally translated into a real-life problem
which finds the potential of SC unclear, with marketers uncertain of the future success
of their SC investments [2, 13, 16, 18]. On the one hand, a direction of investigation
maintains that SC is a promising business model and growing phenomenon [2, 16], and
both reports and predicts a note-worthy increase in use and sales [7]. On the other hand,
some warn of overhyping the concept [32], and point out reports of exaggerated finan-
cial performance [33]. These contradictions are possibly a result of the inconsistency
in defining what SC means and the types of activities it involves. Indeed, when disclos-
ing SC statistics, some experts might be referring to sales from actual purchases using
social media buy-buttons [33], while others could be including the outcomes of other
types of SC activities, such as word-of-mouth and referrals [16, 34].
This paper highlighted attempts of prior research at conceptualizing SC and contributed
to the conversation with a three-theme framework (i.e., technological, social, commer-
cial) to synthesize prior definitions of the concept. It discussed how SC relates to social
media and e-commerce, and then defined the concept in terms of the convergence be-
tween the two, which facilitates different modes of communication. Several conceptual
limitations that exist in the literature were stressed, with their implications highlighted.
Based on the discussion in this paper, it is recommended that future researchers con-
tinue empirically examining the concept of SC from different perspectives, especially
as it is expected to evolve and change with the constant changes in technology and
customer behaviors [3]. Additionally, a typology of different SC websites, one that is
rooted in theory and conducted systematically, is much needed to shed a clearer light
on the concept. Such research efforts will be beneficial in informing both research and
practice in digital and social media marketing.

References
1. Liang, T.-P. and E. Turban, Introduction to the special issue social
commerce: a research framework for social commerce. International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, 2011. 16(2): p. 5-14.
2. Stephen, A.T. and O. Toubia, Deriving value from social commerce
networks. Journal of marketing research, 2010. 47(2): p. 215-228.
3. Llewellyn, G. Social commerce 2021 trends : Tactics and tools to grow your
e-commerce strategy through social media. 2020 [cited 27/01/21; Available
from: https://www.smartinsights.com/ecommerce/ecommerce-
strategy/social-commerce-trends/.
 7

4. Busalim, A.H. and F. Ghabban, Customer engagement behaviour on social

commerce platforms: an empirical study. Technology in Society, 2021. 64:
p. 101437.
5. Anderson, M., et al., Turning “Like” to “Buy” Social Media Emerges as a
Commerce Channel. Booz & Company Inc, 2011.
6. Cecere, L., The rise of social commerce. 2010, Altimeter Research Report.
7. Lipsman, A. Social Commerce 2021: Media and Commerce Convergence
Creates Growth Opportunity for Brands. 2021 [cited 09/03/21; Available
from: https://www.emarketer.com/content/social-commerce-2021.
8. Indvik, L. The 7 Species of Social Commerce. 2013 [cited 11/03/21;
Available from: https://mashable.com/2013/05/10/social-commerce-
definition/.
9. Baethge, C., J. Klier, and M. Klier, Social commerce—state-of-the-art and
future research directions. Electronic Markets, 2016: p. 1-22.
10. Lin, X., Y. Li, and X. Wang, Social commerce research: Definition,
research themes and the trends. International Journal of Information
Management, 2017. 37(3): p. 190-201.
11. Howard, R. Let's Get Social: How Commerce Transform Retail. 2016 [cited
09/03/21; Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lets-get-social-
how-commerce-transform-retail-robert-howard/.
12. Wang, C. and P. Zhang, The Evolution of Social Commerce: The People,
Management, Technology, and Information Dimensions. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, 2012. 31.
13. Yadav, M.S., et al., Social Commerce: A Contingency Framework for
Assessing Marketing Potential. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2013.
27(4): p. 311-323.
14. Shen, J., Social comparison, social presence, and enjoyment in the
acceptance of social shopping websites. Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, 2012. 13(3): p. 198-212.
15. Turban, E., J. Strauss, and L. Lai, Social Commerce. 2016: Springer.
16. Mullin, S. Social Commerce: What It Is, What It Isn’t and Why You Should
Care. . 2016 [cited 9th of March 2021; Available from:
https://cxl.com/social-commerce/.
17. Osatuyi, B., et al., When it comes to Satisfaction… It depends: An empirical
examination of social commerce users. Computers in Human Behavior,
2020. 111: p. 106413.
18. Li, X., C. Wang, and Y. Zhang, The dilemma of social commerce. Internet
Research, 2020.
19. Curty, R.G. and P. Zhang, Social commerce: Looking back and forward.
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 2011. 48(1): p. 1-10.
20. Huang, Z. and M. Benyoucef, From e-commerce to social commerce: A
close look at design features. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 2013. 12(4): p. 246-259.
 8

21. Laudon, K.a.C.T., E-Commerce 2020–2021: Business, Technology and

Society, Global Edition. 2020, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
22. Turban, E., et al., Electronic commerce 2018: a managerial and social
networks perspective. 2017: Springer.
23. Huang, Z. and M. Benyoucef, User preferences of social features on social
commerce websites: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 2015. 95: p. 57-72.
24. Kietzmann, J.H., et al., Social media? Get serious! Understanding the
functional building blocks of social media. Business horizons, 2011. 54(3):
p. 241-251.
25. Fuchs, C., An alternative view of privacy on Facebook. Information, 2011.
2(1): p. 140-165.
26. Wang, C., Social shopping development and perspectives. Studies in Virtual
Communities, Blogs, and Modern Social Networking: Measurements,
Analysis, and Investigations: Measurements, Analysis, and Investigations,
2013: p. 97.
27. Marsden, P. Social Commerce: Monetizing Social Media. 2010 [cited
11/03/21; Available from:
https://digitalwellbeing.org/downloads/White_Paper_Social_Commerce_EN.
pdf.
28. Leong, L.-Y., et al., Predicting the antecedents of trust in social commerce–
A hybrid structural equation modeling with neural network approach.
Journal of Business Research, 2020. 110: p. 24-40.
29. Saundage, D. and C.Y. Lee. Social commerce activities–a taxonomy. in ACIS
2011: Identifying the information systems discipline: Proceedings of the
22nd Australasian Conference on Information Systems. 2011. ACIS.
30. Almahdi, M., C. Archer-Brown, and N. Panteli, Developing a Typology of
Social Commerce Websites: An Exploratory Study, in Academy of Marketing
Conference: The Magic in Marketing. 2015: Limerick, Ireland.
31. Bugshan, H. and R.W. Attar, Social commerce information sharing and their
impact on consumers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020.
153: p. 119875.
32. PYMENTS. RETAILSolving Social Commerce’s Conversion Problem. 2020
[cited 10th of March 2021; Available from:
https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2020/solving-social-commerce-
conversion-problem/.
33. eMarketer. As a Direct Response Tool, Social Commerce Is Still Lacking.
2016 [cited 09/03/21; Available from:
https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Direct-Response-Tool-Social-
Commerce-Still-Lacking/1014866.
34. Amblee, N. and T. Bui, Harnessing the influence of social proof in online
shopping: The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales of digital
microproducts. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2011. 16(2):
p. 91-114.

View publication stats