Electronic Markets
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00413-8
EDITORIAL
Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets
Rainer Alt 1
# The Author(s) 2020
The journal Electronic Markets is celebrating its 30th anniversary. It has experienced an exciting development
from a project newsletter to an international academic
journal. This journey had already been summarized in an
editorial after the first 25 years (Alt et al. 2015). Another
five years later the field of electronic markets has
progressed further and proves to be more relevant than
ever before. For example, worldwide electronic retail sales
have more than doubled from 1,548 billion USD in 2015
to 3,535 billion in 2019 and projections foresee a continued strong growth to 6,542 billion USD in 2023
(eMarketer 2019). Measured by market value, seven businesses among the ten largest companies worldwide were
operators of electronic platforms (Forbes 2019) and researchers stated that “digital platforms already dominate
the top 10 of the world’s most valuable firms” (Demary
and Rusche 2018, p. 4). They confirm that platforms are
mainly driven by digitalization, “the number one
megatrend at the moment” (Demary and Rusche 2018, p.
5). Digitalization is a phenomenon that influences the life
of individuals, the operation of organizations and societal
processes as a whole (Alt 2018). In fact, it might be the
largest difference compared to the situation five years ago
that digital platforms have now become visible to everybody. This editorial aims to reflect on the evolution of
digital (market) platforms in general as well as on some
more specific directions. Following an established opinion, it recognizes network effects as a major driver of the
platform evolution and presents an overview on research
topics that are considered necessary in the future evolution
of digital platforms. To allow a more diverse discussion
on the evolution, this jubilee issue has a unique format,
which will be described in more detail below.
* Rainer Alt
rainer.alt@uni-leipzig.de
1
Information Systems Institute, Leipzig University, Grimmaische Str.
12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany
Phases in electronic markets evolution
To start with, most electronic markets are digital platforms. Following a high-level understanding, a digital
platform mediates social and economic interactions online (Kenney and Zysman 2016). Looking back, this
mediation of social and economic interactions is based
on various key technologies. For example, the support
of social interactions more or less dates back to electronic mail and mailing lists in the 1960s, which were
followed by internet mail and groupware systems in the
1990s and the multimedia and social interaction services
that evolved since the 2000s. Regarding economic interactions, various technologies may be distinguished in
the area of electronic commerce and (the broader) electronic business (see Alt and Zimmermann 2015). As
explained below, electronic market platforms may be
conceived as digital platforms that link transacting
parties via a centralized information system that uses a
certain infrastructure technology. Three types of such
infrastructure technologies may be observed:
&
Proprietary infrastructure. In the 1960s, first electronic
marketplaces emerged in the airline industry (Cheng
2016) with systems in other industries such as agriculture,
banking and retailing to follow. These early electronic
marketplaces were largely based on proprietary technological infrastructures (e.g. based on so-called valueadded network services or videotex systems), which due to their proprietary nature - restricted the diffusion of
these platforms. However, they already shed light on the
advantages of the electronic marketplace concept, which
mainly reduced transaction costs due to efficiencies in
communication among multiple buyers and sellers, in
higher market transparency and more efficient
contracting as well as clearing and settlement processes.
Malone et al. (1987) summarized these advantages as
electronic communication, brokerage and integration
effects.
R. Alt,
&
&
Internet infrastructure. The limitation of proprietary infrastructures disappeared with the internet as a ubiquitous infrastructure, which was able to link businesses
and individuals alike. This constitutes the second major wave of electronic marketplaces and by the year
2000, the electronic markets database operated by the
research firm Berlecon included 1,140 entries for B2B
marketplaces with 788 originating from the US market
(Berlecon 2000). A downturn occurred after 2001 and
many internet startups founded during the so-called
“new economy” disappeared. Although the number
of electronic marketplaces decreased sharply, the marketplace model in the business (e.g. Aeroexchange,
Hubwoo) as well as in the consumer (e.g. Amazon,
Ebay) world survived. Over the years, those systems
have enhanced their scope of electronic transaction
support (e.g. payments, electronic data interchange),
which further helped in making them attractive for
buyers and sellers.
Ecosystems infrastructure. A third phase may be observed since the mid-2000s, when social media and
ecosystems appeared. Increasingly, technologies like
electronic catalogs as well as matching, scoring, payments and logistics systems were provided on various
electronic platforms. They created powerful digital
business solutions, which transformed many industries
and are now almost omnipresent. Among the wellknown platforms illustrating the broad nature of this
business model (e.g. Parker et al. 2016) are operating
system platforms (e.g. Apple iOS, Google Android,
Microsoft Windows), social networking platforms
(e.g. Facebook, Tiktok, Twitter) and many transaction
platforms (e.g. Alibaba, Amazon, JD). These different
platforms are not independent from each other, but
have emerged as ecosystems where compatible platforms are interconnected and share key services (e.g.
payments, logistics) are shared. With these ecosystem
infrastructures, the number of potential participants for
electronic marketplaces grew. They not only included
individuals and organizations as participants, but also
the applications and electronic devices that provided
and consumed data. Consequently, electronic markets
experienced another surge with numerous app stores
and multi-sided solutions as examples.
Observations on the move to markets
As confirmed in the article on disintermediation included in
this issue (Wigand 2020), the evolution of electronic markets
was driven by the attractiveness inherent in their topology and
their function as facilitators of transactions. The hub structure
reduced the complexity of relationships from n(n-1) to n and
the centralized market database together with search,
matching and settlement functionalities lowered transactions
costs. Again, the research of Malone et al. (1987, p. 492ff)
proved to be influential regarding the interpretation of these
reductions in transaction cost. They formulated stages for the
evolution of electronic markets and for the evolution of electronic hierarchies. The former comprised the move from biased to unbiased and ultimately to personalized markets, while
the latter described a shift from stand-alone to linked and then
to shared databases. Although the authors argue the benefits of
both evolution paths, they advocate an overall move towards
electronic markets (Malone et al. 1987, p. 496): “Market
forces make it likely that biased electronic sales channels
(whether electronic hierarchies or biased electronic markets)
for nonspecific, easily described products will eventually be
replaced by unbiased markets.” As it turns out, there is evidence confirming these expectations, but the explanations are
more complex and differentiated (e.g. Klein and Alt 2015,
Standing et al. 2010):
&
&
Multi-sided markets. The first development refers to the
move from single-sided platforms to multi-sided markets.
Single-sided models may be conceived as supermarkets
where one actor takes possession of goods in order to
resell them (Staykova and Damsgaard 2014). In a multisided market, other sellers are present on the platform as
well. A well-known example is Amazon, which not only
offers an assortment of goods in their own catalog, but
introduced the Amazon Marketplace in 2000 as a multisided platform (Ritala et al. 2014). Other US retailers, such
as Walmart and, more recently, Target (Green 2019) or the
German retailer Real (Ecommerce Germany 2019)
followed a similar path and their own established multisided market platforms. This move opens a new business
model, which yields these companies revenues for facilitating transactions even with competitors.
Biased markets. The development from biased to unbiased
electronic marketplaces is more difficult. Although electronic marketplaces will be unbiased after regulators imposed industry-wide rules (e.g. in the financial or the airline industry), influencing the listing is often tempting for
marketplace operators. In many B2C marketplaces, we
observe marketplace operators that place their offerings
above those of competitors, thereby significantly increasing the probability of selling them. Among the examples
at Amazon are sponsored or promoted items (“Amazon’s
Choice”) as well as AmazonBasics products. Similarly,
the travel site Booking.com lists as default setting “Our
Top Picks” first and mentions that this ranking “is created
through a complex ever-changing and evolving system
(algorithm) that considers a multitude of criteria in order
to match searchers and accommodations in an optimal
Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets
&
&
&
way.” (Booking.com 2020). At least, buyers in these and
other marketplaces are able to obtain unbiased listings
(e.g. lowest price first), but they have to actively and deliberately choose this option.
Personalized markets. Another development expected by
Malone et al. was the move from unbiased to personalized
marketplaces. Meanwhile, advances in big data and artificial intelligence technologies have led marketplace operators to personalize their offerings based on knowledge
extracted from past transactions of many participants.
For example, Booking.com notes that “The actual
ranking will be different for each customer and for each
search” (Booking.com 2020), which confirms the analysis
of Glassberg and Merhout (2007), whereas there is a move
to personalized marketplaces that offer customized interfaces and offerings in the B2C arena. However, it suggests
that biased as well as unbiased marketplaces may be personalized and that this is no linear trajectory. Obviously, a
key requirement for personalization would be that the
criteria applied are transparent and capable of being influenced by the users.
Crowdsourcing markets. In the field of B2B transactions,
several analyses have suggested that the differences point
at closer relationships between participants than in the
B2C area (e.g. Clemons et al. 1993, Glassberg &
Merhout 2007, Klein and Alt 2015). It shows that the
integration effect, which is particularly present in electronic hierarchies, is relevant for sharing risks (e.g. for joint
innovations) and safeguarding against so-called non-contractible issues (e.g. quality and flexibility). This would
rather support the “move-to-the-middle” than the pure
“move-to-the-market” hypothesis for offerings that feature
a higher specificity and complexity of product description.
At the same time, numerous crowdsourcing platforms
(e.g. Howcroft and Bergvall-Kåreborn 2019) have given
rise to a more market-like sourcing of professional services. They indicate that the vision of the e-lance economy
anticipated in 1998 (Malone and Laubacher 1998) may
slowly have become a reality and that more markets seem
to present in the B2B arena as well. There is evidence
(Berg et al. 2019) that decentralized technological infrastructures, such as blockchain, also point in this direction.
Hybrid markets. Finally, much attention was observed during the past years regarding the relationship between online
and offline business models. The analysis of Glassberg and
Merhout (2007, p. 53) mentioned that despite electronic
markets are being used for comparison shopping, there
are reasons, such as transaction security, haptic experience
or brand loyalty that lead consumers to purchase offline. In
fact, many online retailers established offline presences
(e.g. Amazon Go, Whole Foods) and offline retailers
established online presences in recent years (e.g. Target,
Walmart). Innovative combinations of both models have
loomed that define the (hybrid) “marketplaces of the future” (Böger et al. 2019). The situation resembles the relationship between paper (p) and electronic (e) books.
Although e-books were believed to substitute p-books, this
did not happen. However, the relationship changed and
“digital technology is providing mechanisms that enhance
our ability to produce and distribute both p-books and ebooks” (Phillips 2020, p. 851). Thus, it may be assumed
that electronic markets are often complementary in nature
– at least if the product or service has physical elements.
Critical mass challenges
Overall, these developments tend to confirm the growing
role of electronic markets, which is also reflected in projections whereas global revenues from marketplace platform
providers are expected to double from 2017 to 2022
(Alaimo 2018). Besides creating electronic markets where
analog markets previously existed (e.g. banking, retailing)
this also includes the creation of new market segments
(Klein and Alt 2015). For example, it applies to the multisided market model, which is a key characteristic of the
sharing economy (Puschmann and Alt 2016). However,
the evolution of electronic marketplaces has not been constant. It has rather been a rough ride for many actors in the
market. Not only did numerous initiatives exit the market in
the 2001 turmoil, but it has been observed that “the problem
is that platforms fail at an alarming rate […] despite the
huge upside opportunities that platforms offered” (Yoffie
et al. 2019). Besides flaws that may be included in every
business model, platform business models have a specific
logic that is linked with the network effect (e.g. van Alstyne
et al. 2016). The success of platforms inherently depends on
the participation on both sides of the platform. These business models follow a different logic since reaching a critical
mass of (active) participants and nurturing communities of
users is critical for competing in the platform market. A
recent editorial on platform competition elaborated on this
competition among platforms (Alt and Zimmermann 2019)
and pointed at the integration of multiple platforms within
larger ecosystems. It was suggested that a platform's competitive advantage is created by horizontally and vertically
linking meta-platforms, transaction platforms, and service
platforms, which are largely complementary in nature and
have positive mutual effects. While the notion of critical
mass may appear plausible, previous research on this topic
highlights the challenges:
&
Critical mass is a social construct. The general observation is that the critical mass is difficult to calculate. Also
defined as the so-called tipping point, it denotes the
R. Alt,
&
&
&
“minimum number of users [that] have adopted the technology solution” and it is after reaching this number that
network effects kick in (Tiwana 2014, p. 36). Although
economists have developed models to calculate the tipping point, it ultimately remains a social construct, which
is influenced by many aspects. Among these are prices
charged, platforms features and agent’s tastes (SánchezCartas and León 2019) as well as the “watching the group”
effect, which states that “individuals based their choice on
what they expect the others to decide” (Allen 1988, p.
260).
Critical mass favors successful platforms. Following
Tiwana (2014, p. 34) network effects feature two “nuanced properties […]: direction and sidedness”. The former refers to the course of the exponential curve, which
may be positive, negative or a combination of both (e.g.
when more users clog an infrastructure). The latter recognizes that network effects may occur on the same side of a
platform (e.g. more users attracting more users) or across
platform sides (e.g. more users attracting more sellers).
Both effects may also be present across platforms and
support the complementary nature of platforms within an
ecosystem. Ultimately, there is only limited space for
many successful competing platforms and critical mass
tends to crowd-out less successful platforms, thus favoring
monopolistic structures.
Critical mass needs to be nurtured. To reach critical mass,
platform providers require users on both sides of the platform and will aim to provide incentives to them. The decision, which side to subsidize (first), has been recognized
as a common procedure for digital platforms (Yoffie et al.
2019). It follows the observation of the critical mass frontier (Evans and Schmalensee 2016), whereas attaining a
critical mass does not necessarily require reaching a high
number of participants on both platform sides. In fact, “the
higher the number in one group, the smaller is the number
of users needed in the other group” (Demary and Rusche
2018, p. 13). For example, this phenomenon is present
when the provider of an operating platform decides to give
away the necessary hardware to access the platform and
the services on the platform for free or for low prices.
Critical mass needs active users. The absolute number of
participants on a platform is not sufficient in explaining
the critical mass effects since active participation is necessary for attaining liquidity. This is why many platforms explicitly report “active users” and aim to provide incentives to them (e.g. preferred membership status with cost benefits). In particular, in the business
domain it has been observed that decisions to participate in a platform are made by other individuals than
those who actually use the platform in their daily work
(see the example for transportation markets reported by
Alt and Klein (1999)).
&
Critical mass should be sustainable. Finally, Cusumano
(2020) points at the fact that despite having reached a
critical mass, platforms need to constantly enhance their
offering in view of other competitors aiming to reach or
increase their liquidity. This pressure is reflected in the
statement whereas “investors and entrepreneurs keep
looking for the next blockbuster platform” (Cusumano
2020, p. 24). Obviously, sustainability also includes that
the platform provider’s business model yields sufficient
profits once it has reached the critical mass to cover operations as well as the cost of constantly enhancing the
platform.
Research perspectives
It is striking, that despite network effects are at the heart of
platform models, they are not enjoying a similar explicit role
in the literature that has been published in recent years on
digital platforms. Based on a brief review of literature in the
field of electronic markets and digital platforms (see Table 1),
the findings of two recent papers (Asadullah et al. 2018, de
Reuver et al. 2018) serve to structure the research perspectives
in three distinct clusters. They address basic terms and concepts as well as methodological issues, but similar to the aspects discussed for the evolution of digital platforms, topics
named in the reviews are only little technological in nature.
Although digital platforms are based on advanced information
technologies, it appears that the technology itself is not a key
constraint.
The first research cluster applies to terminology (Ardolino
et al. 2016, Asadullah et al. 2018, Grieger 2003, de Reuver et
al. 2018, Sánchez-Cartas and León 2019). Despite the long
legacy of research in the field of electronic markets, there is
still a need for an improved understanding of relevant terms.
For example, de Reuver et al. (2018) call for more conceptual
clarity regarding the definition of the unit of research and
Asadullah et al. (2018, p. 11) identified a “lack of agreement
on a clear definition and conceptualization of digital platforms
in the IS literature”. One explanation may be that with the
growing attention regarding digital platform topics in the general public, more individuals and organizations are using the
terms. In many cases, the authors are not referencing the
existing body of knowledge and their argumentation is motivated from various backgrounds as well as for different purposes. For the journal Electronic Markets, the following understanding has been helpful in delineating the various terms
(see Fig. 1):
&
Digital platforms are centralized technological (hardware
and software) systems that provide core functionality
among interoperable elements (de Reuver et al. 2018, p.
Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets
Table 1
Selection of literature analyses on digital platforms and electronic markets
Authors
Contents of literature survey
Ardolino et al. 2016
• Methodology: literature analysis of 112 papers
• Perspectives in three areas: (1) conceptualization of the phenomenon, (2) categorization of different types of multi-sided
platforms and (3) effects of digitization on multi-sided platforms.
Asadullah et al. 2018
• Methodology: literature analysis of 96 papers from 2002 to 2017
• Perspectives in five areas: (1) analysis of existing definitions, (2) more methodological diversity, (3) extraction of digital
platform types and characteristics, (4) conceptualization of new technologies, (5) multi-dimensional analysis of digital
platforms.
• Methodology: literature analysis with focus on policy-making
Coyle 2016
• Perspectives in three areas: (1) theories and evidence on digital platforms, (2) formulation of key topics for researchers,
policymakers and platform providers.
• Methodology: literature analysis with focus on digital platforms in general
de Reuver et al. 2018
• Perspectives in three areas: (1) conceptual clarity on the unit of analysis, degree of digitality and the sociotechnical nature of
digital platforms, (2) analysis of platforms on different architectural levels and in different industry settings, (3) application
of methodological rigor via embedded case studies, longitudinal studies, design research and data-driven modelling and
visualization.
Grieger 2003
• Methodology: literature analysis with focus on electronic markets and supply chain management
• Perspectives in two areas : (1) choice of electronic marketplace categories for supply chain management, (2) selection of
suitable type of electronic market relationship (transactional, information-sharing, collaborative) for supply chain
management.
• Methodology: literature analysis with focus digital platform ecosystems
Hein et al. 2020
• Perspectives for research in digital platform ecosystems: (1) technical properties and value creation, (2) value capture in
digital platform ecosystems, (3) complementor interaction with the ecosystem, (4) Make-or-join decision in digital
platform ecosystems.
• Methodology: literature analysis with focus on business ecosystems in Asia
Rong et al. 2018
• Perspectives: (1) dynamics of business ecosystems, (2) embeddedness of resources in business ecosystems, (3)
internationalization.
Sánchez-Cartas and León • Methodology: literature analysis with focus on literature since 2000
• Perspectives in three areas: (1) definitions used in the literature, (2) identification and classification of multi-sided platforms,
2019
(3) specifics of platform business models (e.g. prices, coordination problems, platform structure, exclusivity and
multihoming, platforms and content and the anti-trust literature on multi-sided markets).
Setzke et al. 2019
• Methodology: literature analysis of 73 papers with focus on platform openness
• Perspectives in five areas: (1) measurement frameworks, (2) implementation mechanisms, (3) drivers for opening and
closing platforms, (4) trade-offs in designing openness, (5) impact of changing openness on ecosystems), perspectives and
areas for future research.
Standing et al. 2010
• Methodology: meta-analysis of research literature on electronic markets, 196 papers from 1997 to 2008
• Perspectives in five areas: (1) link between e-commerce and e-marketplaces, (2) the use of fundamental theories related to
electronic markets, (3) technology-focused research, (4) e-marketplace adoption and implementation issues, (5)
organizational implications of e-marketplace participation including strategic implications.
• Methodology: literature analysis of 282 papers with focus on digital transformation
Vial 2019
• Perspectives in three areas: (1) framework for digital transformation, (2) role of dynamic capabilities, (3) study of ethical
issues.
&
127, Tiwana 2014, p. 7) for the coordination among many
users. In one- or single-sided platforms one dominant user
(group) is opposed to many users on the other platform
side. Multi-sided platforms enable interactions among
multiple users on both sides. Various types of platforms
exist, e.g. innovation, social media or transaction
platforms.
Digital ecosystems are broader in nature since they include
the platform and the interoperable elements (e.g. apps) (de
Reuver et al. 2018, p. 127, Tiwana 2014, p. 7). They are
characterized by shared standards, which may also allow
&
the interoperability among various digital platforms. As
mentioned above, this may comprise meta-platforms or
specific service platforms.
Electronic markets may follow two interpretations (Alt and
Zimmermann 2014). First, electronic markets are centralized single- or multi-sided platforms, which provide functionality to fully or partially support the phases of economic
transactions (i.e. information, contracting, settlement).
Second, electronic markets may also be decentralized in
nature, when no intermediaries are present. In this case,
electronic markets would not be considered as platforms.
R. Alt,
Centralized
Digital platforms
Digital
ecosystems
Electronic
commerce
Electronic markets
Decentralized
Multiple actors
Single actor
Fig. 1 Relationship of key terms in the field of electronic markets
&
Electronic commerce also refers to electronically
supporting the phases of economic transactions. This
may occur via digital platforms as well as via electronic
markets, but in addition to the multilateral settings, electronic commerce scenarios might also be bilateral in nature. A popular example is electronic data interchange
where documents are communicated directly between
two organizations.
The second research cluster are research concepts for
analyzing and designing digital platforms (Ardolino et al.
2016, Asadullah et al. 2018, Coyle 2016, de Reuver et al.
2018, Hein et al. 2020, Grieger 2003, Rong et al. 2018,
Sánchez-Cartas and León 2019, Setzke et al. 2019,
Standing et al. 2010, Vial 2019). This cluster comprises a
broad set of factors (e.g. design factors, dynamics, effects,
benefits, risks; see also Abdelkafi et al. 2019) on various
analytical levels (e.g. network and industry, organization
and processes, systems and technologies). It is based on the
assumption that technology is agnostic of its effects and
that the same technology may be used for "good" or for
"bad" purposes. This happens in a specific application context and may be influenced by the parties involved.
Platform operators, such as the "big four" GAFA
(Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) or BATX (Baidu,
Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi), have particular influence on
this direction. Digital platforms and electronic markets
are socio-technical systems, but due to the interaction of
multiple heterogeneous actors (i.e. consumers, suppliers,
employees) the complexities are typically higher than with
intra-organizational enterprise systems. This requires not
only to focus on the organizational level when analyzing
the impact of digital transformation, but also to consider
long-term and higher-level impacts, in particular the conflicting expectations and goals of different parties contributing to the system (Vial 2019). In the same vein,
Asadullah et al. (2018) advocate a broader perspective on
digital platform research by pursuing more holistic approaches as well as by considering the multi-dimensional
nature of digital platforms. Two articles in this issue
(Osterle 2020, Clarke 2020) are examples in this direction
since they call for different research perspectives and the
inclusion of ethical issues. In view of the growing role of
digital platforms in the society, the latter are increasingly
critical to influence the development and regulation of
platforms.
Attention is also required regarding the oligopolistic and
even monopolistic consequences of critical mass effects on a
regulatory and policy level (Coyle 2016). While one direction
might be a stricter regulation of platforms and thus an artificial
protection of the position of incumbents, another might be to
utilize benefits of existing platforms and to support the evolution of new platforms. In particular, this applies to the
European market since all dominating digital platforms are
currently either US or China based. To foster the emergence
of competition against these platforms, issues of power, politics and nationality the blending of public and private goods,
as well as macroeconomic issues, e.g., taxation, labor and
social issues, need to be considered. The opinon from
Riemensperger and Falk (2020) included in this issue follows
this argumentation.
Based on prior experience and the decline of dominating
firms, the “sixty-four-thousand-dollar question” is which
disruptive next technology will give rise to new competitors. The simple extrapolation of existing trends will undoubtedly lead us to expect more technological interoperability and more autonomously acting systems with many
processes in the existing world to be digitalized. The more
disruptive transformation processes are, the more will they
involve uncertainty. Where the “next big thing” will originate is per se unknown, although many platform providers
believe that wearables and artificial intelligence technologies could provide one direction. These technologies create
new means for interacting with digital platforms and via the
platform with other individuals. So-called neuro information systems could even allow the navigation based on
thoughts, thus emphasizing the need for linking technological with non-technological disciplines.
Finally, in terms of methodological approach some authors
call for broadening the set of applied methodologies and the
object of research (e.g. Asadullah et al. 2018, de Reuver 2018,
Setzke et al. 2019, Standing et al. 2010, Vial 2019). To understand the interplay of actors on digital platforms, de Reuver
et al. (2018, p. 128) propose to apply embedded case studies
“to compare cases within the same larger ecosystem” as well
as to conduct longitudinal studies, which obtain an understanding of platform dynamics over time. Other directions
are based on the data generated from traffic on the platforms,
for example, with data mining and network analysis
Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets
techniques. While these approaches are valuable in understanding past developments or interactions that have already
happened, anticipating future developments will require prospective methodologies (Alt and Österle 2014). Established
methodologies to “invent the future” are largely based on design science (e.g. vom Brocke and Mädche 2019), which uses
prototypes and recognizes the synergies in combining of research and practice.
Articles in jubilee issue
To add to the discussion of the evolution and the perspectives in
the field of electronic markets, this 30-year anniversary issue
contains a collection of seventeen articles, excluding this editorial. They are organized in two main parts and include two innovations. The first ten papers belong to the jubilee section “evolution and perspectives of electronic markets” and were invited
from high profile individuals with profound and long experience
in the field of electronic markets. Besides a position paper and
three invited papers, six papers are discussion papers that aim at
presenting opinions in a much shorter format than regular position papers. The seven remaining papers include generalresearch
with four papers being research papers in the “classical” format
and three being research papers in a new format, called
“Fundamentals” to be introduced below.
For the anniversary issue, Electronic Markets approached
esteemed colleagues, who have worked in the field of electronic
markets for many years and have accompanied the Electronic
Markets journal on its journey. Beat Schmid was the responsible
professor at the University of St.Gallen for the research project
“Competence Center Electronic Markets (CCEM) at that time
and the first Editor-in-Chief of Electronic Markets (1996-2007).
Now retired, he contributes a critical discussion piece on “What
kind of electronic markets do we deserve?” to the present jubilee
issue (Schmid 2020). Hubert Osterle was Electronic Markets’
Editor-in-Chief from 2006 until 2014 and, meanwhile also a
retired professor from the University of St.Gallen, shares his
thought-provoking vision of “Life engineering” in an invited
paper (Osterle 2020). Another important person for Electronic
Markets who has become a successful entrepreneur is Dorian
Selz. As executive editor of the journal from 1996 to 1998 he
laid the foundation for the development towards an academic
journal. In his discussion piece, he presents the move “From
electronic markets to data driven insights” (Selz 2020).
Like Dorian, Richard Dratva, Andreas Göldi and Martin
Reck, were research assistants at the University of St.Gallen.
Together with three other colleagues, Richard founded the
Zurich-based software company Crealogix in 1996. With
some 700 employees, the company has become an important
provider of banking software, which led him to ask the question “Is open banking driving the financial industry towards a
true electronic market?” in his discussion paper (Dratva 2020).
Another critical opinion is contributed by Andreas, who
started his entrepreneurial career by founding the web development company Namics in 1995. Since then, Andreas has
initiated several other businesses and is now a venture capitalist. He reflects on “A blind spot for the dark side: the monopolies we didn’t see coming” (Göldi, 2020). Finally, after
finishing his doctoral thesis on electronic auctions, Martin
joined the German stock exchange, where he now acts as
managing director. He reports on “Xetra: the evolution of an
electronic market”, with Xetra being the software system of
the stock exchange (Reck 2020).
In addition to these former colleagues from the University
of St.Gallen, four other senior scholars from outside the
University of St.Gallen share their views. In a position paper,
Roger Clarke from the University of New South Wales and the
Australian National University analyzes the researcher perspectives of papers published in Electronic Markets (Clarke
2020). Roger has been a long-time supporter of Electronic
Markets as well as the Bled eConference, where he worked
together with Andreja Pucihar. As professor at the University
of Maribor in Slovenia, Andreja is the general chair of the
Bled eConference and a senior editor at Electronic Markets.
For this jubilee issue she has analyzed “The digital transformation journey” based on a content analysis of articles from
Electronic Markets and the Bled eConference proceedings
from 2012 to 2019 (Pucihar 2020). Another former senior
editor of Electronic Markets is Rolf T. Wigand, who is now
a retired professor at the University of Arkansas and an influential researcher on electronic commerce, in particular, the
question of disintermediation. In his invited paper, he consequently asks the question “Whatever happened to disintermediation?” (Wigand 2020).
Last but not least, the jubilee issue includes two contributions from member of Electronic Markets’ advisory
board. The first is from Hubert Osterle, who joined the
advisory board after leaving his position as Editor-inChief. The second is from Frank Riemensperger who is
the chairman of Accenture Germany. Together with his
colleague Svenja Falk, he shows “How to capture the
B2B platform opportunity” (Riemensperger and Falk
2020). This paper recognizes that digital platforms are
dominated by non-European companies and develops a
positive perspective for European competitors in particular
in the industrial B2B sector.
Perspectives in discussion papers
When reading the many different viewpoints in the discussion
papers, it is remarkable that many positions are rather critical.
One of the common issues is that electronic markets have not
R. Alt,
lived up to their hopes and expectations. Of particular interest
and in contrast to many research agendas presented in the
literature was the question of openness (i.e. only one research
listed in Table 1 explicitly focused on openness). It links to
one of the effects of critical mass mentioned above, which
sees oligopolistic or even monopolistic structures instead of
open markets as outcomes. This includes possible negative
impacts on innovation and the freedom of users, as Göldi
remarks. Schmid even uses the term ‘parasitic’ players to describe today’s electronic markets’ conditions, which are far
from being open.
To sustain the development towards open electronic
markets, the authors recognize different avenues: Göldi
sees it primarily as a responsibility for academics to assure
a more beneficial outcome of digital innovations for society
as a whole. Schmid calls for open protocols for generic
market services supporting the distinct phases of market
transactions to realize open markets. This includes the need
for a “personal data ecosystem” and self-determination of
personal data as well as a legal environment to secure privacy. In the area of banking, Dratva addresses developments of financial markets as a form of electronic markets.
Although “multibanking” solutions were already being
discussed in the 1990s, it took another two decades until
open banking concepts reached the banking industry. A
major driver in the European Union was the Payment
Services Directive (PSD2), which was initiated in 2017
and demands that banks provide other banks access to customer accounts (after authorization by customers).
However, Dratva sees a long way for open banking solutions and states that today’s “platform banking” offers a
wider variety of services to customers without really being
open in the sense of a global open market for banking.
An example that platforms in the financial industry are
protected is provided by most financial exchanges. Although
they are pioneers in introducing electronic trading systems,
the participants are financial institutions and not consumers.
Reck reports on this openness from two sides: on the one hand
by achieving a high degree of transparency for all participants
and on the other hand by safeguarding protective mechanisms
to ensure the integrity of trading in volatile market situations
and to create trustworthy electronic markets. He also points at
the need to constantly enhance the functionality to avoid being
whipsawed by competitors. Riemensperger and Falk confirm
that this is challenging in markets where monopolistic structures already exist. They observe this situation in consumer
industries with the dominating platform providers coming
from the US and China. However, they believe that opportunities exist for European businesses in the B2B sector where
smart products and its operating data are becoming important
sources of competitive advantage. For this purpose, digital
platforms need to take into account the specifics of B2B markets and use the potentials of open multi-sided platforms.
Linking to the evolution of electronic markets mentioned
above, new technologies are potential sources of disruption.
The role of artificial intelligence (AI) is mentioned in three
contributions. First, Selz argues that AI technologies will become the new “nervous system” of any company in the future.
While replacing human activities is possible, Selz sees large
potential in “augmenting intelligence”, which aims at
supporting humans in their tasks. To enable and to control
these potentials, the academic community is expected to retain
the ability for self-reflection and the openness for approaches
in favor of “a more beneficial outcome for society as a whole”
as Göldi phrases it. Osterle even demands a shift of perspective and the foundation of a new discipline “Life Engineering”
to counter the disadvantages that digital offerings are highly
intransparent and individuals are helplessly exposed to applications based on machine intelligence utilizing the vast
amount of (personal) data. Life engineering should focus on
using technology to increase people's quality of life.
A similar argumentation is provided by Clarke. His
study shows that information systems research in the field
of electronic markets is dominated by single perspective
research and is neglecting dual or even multi perspectives.
In addition to the platform provider and his concerns for
reaching critical mass, the participants as well as the nonparticipants should be considered. As (electronic) markets
are embedded in societal systems, he advocates multiperspective research considering a broader range of not
only market participants and to adopt additional views
such as a social or environmental view. This ultimately is
in line with the call for broadening research concepts in
many of the research agendas from the literature (see
Table 1).
General research articles
Besides introducing the format of shorter discussion papers,
this jubilee issue gives birth to the new section
“Fundamentals”. Contrary to general research articles, which
aim at advancing the knowledge base on digital platforms and
electronic markets by presenting new findings, Fundamentals
shall structure new topics of interest. Fundamentals should
offer an understanding of the topic’s relevance, its main characteristics, a definition, examples as well as an outlook. This
issue presents the first three Fundamentals, which are on:
&
Digital innovations. This Fundamental introduces the
broad field of digital innovations, which have brought
much disruption in the field of digital platforms. The
authors Florian Wiesböck and Thomas Hess present
four research streams, which they link to a framework
that distinguishes three elements: Developing and
implementing digital innovations, enabling digital
Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets
&
innovations and governing digital innovations
(Wiesböck and Hess 2020).
Digital platform ecosystems. The authors Andreas Hein,
Maximilian Schreieck, Tobias Riasanow, David Soto
Setzke, Manuel Wiesche, Markus Böhm and Helmut
Krcmar provide a structure on digital platform ecosystems
that comprises three key elements (platform ownership,
value-creating mechanisms, complementor autonomy)
and four main research areas (Hein et al. 2020). The
Fundamental adds to the evolution and research perspectives of digital platforms in this editorial (see Table 1).
Robotic process automation. Authored by Peter Hofmann,
Caroline Samp and Nils Urbach, this Fundamental conducts a
literature analysis in the field of robotic process automation
(RPA) and describes the main characteristics of these software
robots, including the functional classes (Hofmann et al. 2020).
The authors show that RPA have important short- and longterm effects, in particular, when assuming further developments in AI technology. Although Fundamentals papers are
not research papers in the original sense, they are literaturebased and feature a sound methodological structure. Ideally,
they establish a solid foundation for research in the field of
digital platforms and electronic markets. This leads to the four
general research articles included in this issue. These are:
&
&
&
&
“Emergence of collective digital innovations through the
process of control point driven network reconfiguration
and reframing: the case of mobile payment" by Boriana
Rukanova, Mark de Reuver, Stefan Henningsson,
Fatemeh Nikayin and Yao-Hua Tan. In their longitudinal
in-depth case study of mobile banking in the Netherlands,
the authors develop a framework that structures the process of how digital innovations are (successfully) brought
to the market.
“A taxonomy and archetypes of smart services for smart
living” by Marcus Fischer, David Heim, Adrian Hofmann,
Christian Janiesch, Christoph Klima and Axel
Winkelmann. In their two-step approach, the authors first
develop a taxonomy to structure smart services and then
empirically analyze 100 smart services in the area of smart
living to derive five archetypes.
“Regret under different auction designs: the case of
English and Dutch auctions” by Ninoslav Malekovic,
Lazaros Goutas, Juliana Sutanto and Dennis Galletta. In
an experimental setting the authors investigate the role of
regret in the bidding for hotel room reservations. They
find that regret depends on whether a Dutch or an
English auction mechanism is used.
“Buyer preferences for auction pricing rules in online
outsourcing markets: fixed price vs. open price” by
Zhijuan Hong, Ruhai Wu, Yan Sun and Kunxiang Dong.
By adopting an empirical analysis, this paper examines
whether buyers are more inclined to use open-price or
fixed-prices auction formats. They show that the buyer’s
experience is important to understand such choices.
The editorial team of Electronic Markets wishes to thank
all those who have been involved in making this jubilee issue
possible. This not only goes to the authors of the 17 papers,
but also to the many editors and reviewers who contributed in
the review process.
Development of the journal
The editorial team also wishes to recognize the development
of the journal Electronic Markets, which has been strong since
the last jubilee issue in 2015. As summarized in Table 2, the
number of submissions, papers published and final decisions
almost doubled, which implied a significantly higher workload for the journal. It is a great achievement of all editors,
board members, reviewers and authors that acceptance rate
and the cycle time more or less remained stable. Hopefully,
the increased number of institutions that have access to the
journal and the more than doubled impact factor are indicators
that research published in Electronic Markets has an impact.
This impression is supported by the Top 4 articles by citations
and downloads since 2015:
&
&
&
“Smart tourism: foundations and developments” by Ulrike
Gretzel, Marianna Sigala, Zheng Xiang and Chulmo Koo
with 281 citations, 54,000 downloads (Gretzel et al.
2015).
“Big data analytics in E-commerce: a systematic review
and agenda for future research” by Shahriar Akter and
Samuel Fosso-Wamba with 124 citations and 61,000
downloads (Akter and Fosso-Wamba 2016).
“A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in
the service marketing literature” by Kai Huotari and Juho
Hamari with 105 citations and 22,000 downloads (Huotari
and Hamari 2017).
Table 2
Key metrics of Electronic Markets from 2015 and 2019
Number of submissions
Number of papers published
Number of downloads
Number of institutions with access
Acceptance rate absolute / relative
Cycle time until first decision
Final decisions (total)
Impact factor
2015
2019
169
29
39,293
7492
26 / 16.0%
51 days
163
1.404
306
47
245,385
8481
58 / 19.1%
50.5 days
309
3.553
R. Alt,
&
“Smart technologies for personalized experiences: a case
study in the hospitality domain” by Barbara Neuhofer,
Dimitrios Buhalis and Adele Ladkin with 109 citations
and 5,168 downloads (Neuhofer et al. 2015).
For the future, we hope that the diffusion of Electronic
Markets articles will further increase. An important element is the open access option, which as become broader
availabe with RomeoGreen and compact agreements. The
former allows the free publication of author version after
a grace period of one year and the the latter grants open
access to all authors from participating institutions (at
present most universities in Austria, Germany, UK,
Sweden and The Netherlands). We are very grateful for
these developments and proud how the community has
grown over the past five years. The time and effort the
entire community has dedicated to the journal is not taken
for granted and it is an honor that many colleagues decided to assume various responsibilites. We appreciate that
our Associate Editor Robert Harmon from Portland State
University followed the invitation to the position of a
Senior Editor and that Thomas Hess from LudwigMaximilians-Universität Munich, who has been a member
of Electronic Markets’ editorial board has agreed to assume an Associate Editor position. Finally, two esteemed
colleagues, who have already contributed several reviews
and organized special issues are now members of the editorial board. We welcome Christy M.K. Cheung from
Hong Kong Baptist University, and Manuel Trenz from
University of Göttingen. With this we hope you enjoy
reading this jubilee issue! Your EM-Team.
Reviewers in 2019
Abubakar Mohammed Abubakar
Ahmad Ghazawneh
Alex Norta
Ali Hajiha
Anastasia Constantelou
Anna Kolmykova
Aseem Kinra
Baolian Wang
Benjamin Spottke
Bharat Rao
Bruce William Weber
Christer Carlsson
Adam Vrechopoulos
Albrecht Fritzsche
Alexander Pflaum
Amar Anwar
Andreas Janson
Arne Buchwald
Babak Abedin
Barbara Keller
Benjamin Yen
Boris Otto
Buvaneshwaran Venugopal
Christian Engel
Agata Filipowska
Alea Fairchild
Alfred Zimmermann
Amir Abbasi
Andreea Cristina Mihale-Wilson
Arthur Jin Lin
Bala Anand
Barbara Krumay
Bernd Skiera
Brenda Chawner
Caroline Chan
Christian Matt
Christian Schlereth
Christine Legner
Claudia Vienken
Daqing Gong
Dennis Marten Steininger
Dorina Rajanen
Eleftherios Iakovou
Esther Nagel
Fahim Akhter
Francisco-José Molina-Castillo
Giovanni Camponovo
Hannes Werthner
Harry Bouwman
Heinz-Theo Wagner
Hemang Subramanian
Henk Plessius
Ho Geun Lee
Ingrid Bauer
Christian Thiel
Christof Weinhardt
Cyrine Tangour
David Ziegler
Detlef Schoder
Doug Vogel
Eric-Oluf Svee
Eugenia de Matos Pedro
Felix Wortmann
Frédéric Georges Thiesse
Gregor Lenart
Hans Ulrich Buhl
Hassan Alsyed
Helena Alves
Hendra Zhicheng
Henry Kim
Hongxiu Li
Ivo Blohm
Christiane Lehrer
Christopher Patrick Holland
Daniel Beimborn
Dennis Kundisch
Devashish Dasgupta
Efosa Carroll Idemudia
Erwin Fielt
Fabio Lobato
Florian Lüdeke-Freund
Gerrit Küstermann
Günter Prockl
Hans-Dieter Zimmermann
Heikki Hammainen
Helmut Krcmar
Henk de Vries
Herwig Winkler
Hyunwoo Park
Jaap Gordijn
James E. Richard
James Richard Wolf
James Yae
Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets
Jan Fabian Ehmke
Jianwei Hou
Johan Versendaal
Joris Hulstijn
Jouni Similä
Jukka Ruohonen
Julia Krönung
Jürgen Anke
Katarina Stanoevska-Slobeva
Kim B. Serota
Krassie D. Petrova
Larry Shi
Lei Xu
Mahboobeh Harandi
Makoto Nakayama
Marc T. P. Adam
Marianna Sigala
Mark De Reuver
Martin Smits
Mathieu Chanson
Matthijs Berkhout
Mazen Ali
Mijalche Santa
Navin Sewberath Misser
Nils Urbach
Nora Fteimi
Pascal Mehrwald
Paulo Duarte
Petri Ahokangas
Qizhi Dai
Reinhard Jung
Robert Harmon
Rüdiger Breitschwerdt
Sabine Matook
Sam Solaimani
Sascha Weigel
Shahriar Akter
Shengnan Han
Stan Karanasios
Steven Bellman
Tao Li
Tianhang Huang
Tingting Zhang
Ulrike Baumöl
Val Anne Hooper
Victor Cheng
W. Marc Lim
Wolfgang Hommel
Yanling Chang
Yun Wan
Zhiyong Liu
Jens Poeppelbuss
Jin Kyun Lee
John Jeansson
Jörn Altmann
Judith Gebauer
Jukka T. Heikkila
Julian Bühler
Kalina Staykova
Katharina Ebner
Koen Smit
Kyle B. Murray
Lauri Wessel
Leona Chandra Kruse
Mahdi Atia
Manuele Kirsch-Pinheiro
Margherita Pero
Marijn Janssen
Markus Bick
Martin Spann
Matthias Meyer
Matthijs Smakman
Michael Moehring
Mustafa Mosa
Nestor Duch-Brown
Nitza Geri
Olaf Reinhold
Pascal Moriggl
Payam Hanafizadeh
Pramoth Kumar Joseph
Rainer Alt
Ricardo Buettner
Roger Bons
Rüdiger Grimm
Saied Mohamed
Samar I. Swaid
Sebastian Haugk
Shahrokh Nikou
Silvia Cachero-Martínez
Stefan Huch
Susanne Leist
Theo Araujo
Tilo Böhmann
Tomi Dahlberg
Ulrike E. Lechner
Valentin Holzwarth
Vivek GN
Wilfred Vincent Huang
Wolfgang Maass
Yoshiaki Fukami
Zeeshan Ahmed Bhatti
Zongwei Luo
Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the valuable contributions
and the feedback from Hans-Dieter Zimmermann, Maxi Herzog and
Dorothee Ulrich to this comprehensive jubilee editorial.
Funding Information Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
Jerry Fjermestad
João Barata
Jonas Hedman
José Parra Moyano
Juergen Moormann
Julia Boppert
June Lu
Karl Täuscher
Kazem Haki
Konstantinos Vergidis
Lailatul Faizah Abu Hassan
Lawrence Fong
Luba Torlina
Maik Lange
Marc Burkhalter
Maria Madlberger
Marikka Heikkilä
Martin Franke
Mathias Klier
Matthias Murawski
Matti Mäntymäki
Michail Batikas
Nancy Wuenderlich
Nilmini Wickramasinghe
Nivedita Agarwal
Pan Zheng
Paul H. Timmers
Peter Gomber
Priyan MK
Reima Suomi
Richard Glavee-Geo
Rogier van de Wetering
Rudolf Vetschera
Sam Leewis
Samuel Fosso Wamba
Sebastian Späth
Shahrooz Abghari
Simon Albrecht
Stefan Morana
Svenja Hagenhoff
Thomas Hess
Timo Koivumäki
Ully Gretzel
Uwe Leimstoll
Verena Dorner
Volker Bach
Wim Hulsink
Xiwei Xu
Yu Sun
Zhimin Gao
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
R. Alt,
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of
this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Abdelkafi, N., Raasch, C., Roth, A., & Srinivasan, R. (2019). Multi-sided
platforms. Electronic Markets, 29(4), 553–559. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12525-019-00385-4.
Akter, S., & Fosso-Wamba, S. (2016). Big data analytics in E-commerce:
A systematic review and agenda for future research. Electronic
Markets, 26(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-0160219-0.
Alaimo, D. (2018). Online marketplace revenues to double by 2022.
Retaildive. May 17, https://www.retaildive.com/news/onlinemarketplace-revenues-to-double-by-2022/ (accessed February 18,
2020).
Allen, D. (1988). New telecommunications services: Network externalities and critical mass. Telecommunications Policy, 12(3), 257–271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-5961(88)90024-9.
Alt, R. (2018). Electronic Markets on digitalization. Electronic Markets,
28(4), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0320-7.
Alt, R., & Klein, S. (1999). Lessons in electronic commerce: The case of
electronic transportation markets. Failure & Lessons Learned in
Information Technology Management, 3(3), 81–93. https://doi.org/
10.3727/108812899791784512.
Alt, R. & Klein, S. (2011) Twenty years of electronic markets research—
looking backwards towards the future. Electronic Markets 21 (1),
41-51, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0057-z.
Alt, R., & Österle, H. (2014). Editorial 24/1: Electronic Markets and
practice-orientation. Electronic Markets, 24(1), 1–3. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12525-014-0152-z.
Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H.-D. (2014). Editorial 24/3: Electronic Markets
and general research. Electronic Markets, 24(3), 161–164. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12525-014-0163-9.
Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H.-D. (2015). Editorial 25/3: Electronic Markets
on ecosystems and tourism. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 169–174.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0197-7.
Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H.-D. (2019). Electronic markets on platform
competition. Electronic Markets, 29(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12525-019-00353-y.
Alt, R., Militzer-Horstmann, C., & Zimmermann, H.-D. (2015). 25 years
of Electronic Markets. Electronic Markets, 25(1), 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12525-015-0185-y.
Ardolino, M., Saccani, N., & Perona, M. (2016). The analysis of multisided platforms: results from a literature review. Proceedings Spring
Servitization Conference, British Academy of Management,
Manchester.
Asadullah, A., Faik, I., & Kankanhalli, A. (2018). Digital platforms: A
review and future directions. Proceedings Pacific-Asia conference
on information systems (PACIS). https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/
248/.
Berg, C., Davidson, S., & Potts, J. (2019). Blockchain technology as
economic infrastructure: Revisiting the electronic markets hypothesis. Frontiers in Blockchain, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2019.
00022
Berlecon (2000). B2B-Marktplatzdatenbank. Berlecon Research, http://
www.berlecon.de/services/b2bdb/eingang.php. (accessed 8, August
2000.)
Böger, M., Wecht, C. H. & Stalder, C. (2019). Hybrid business platforms
– Marketplaces of the future. Marketing review St. Gallen 2, 38-44.
http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/256919 (accessed
February 17, 2020).
Booking.com. (2020). Trip terms and conditions. Amsterdam:
Booking.com B.V https://www.booking.com/content/terms.html.
Cheng, K. (2016). Firm boundary and performance in the airline ticket
distribution industry: Effects of the evolution of electronic markets.
Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism
Research Globally. 23. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2010/
Oral/23.
Clarke, R. (2020). Researcher perspectives in Electronic Markets.
Electronic Markets, 30(1). http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/RPEM.
html
Clemons, E. K., Reddi, S. P., & Row, M. C. (1993). The impact of
information technology on the organization of economic activity:
The 'move to the middle' hypothesis. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 10(2), 9–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07421222.1993.11517998.
Coyle, D. (2016). Making the most of platforms: A policy research agenda. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2857188.
Cusumano, M. A. (2020). ‘Platformizing’ a bad business does not make it
a good business. Communications of the ACM, 63(1), 23–25. https://
doi.org/10.1145/3372918.
de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2),
124–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3.
Demary, V., & Rusche, C. (2018). The economics of platforms. Research
report, German Economic Institute, Cologne. http://hdl.handle.net/
10419/182531.
Dratva, R. (2020). Is open banking driving the financial industry towards
a true electronic market? Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12525-020-00403-w.
Ecommerce Germany. (2019). 12 leading marketplaces in Europe,
Ecommerce Germany, https://ecommercegermany.com/blog/12leading-marketplaces-europe (accessed February 17, 2020).
eMarketer. (2019). Global ecommerce 2019. eMarketer Inc., New York
(NY). https://www.emarketer.com/content/global-ecommerce-2019
(accessed January, 4, 2020).
Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of multisided platforms. Boston (MA): Harvard Business
Review Press.
Forbes. (2019). The world’s largest public companies. https://www.
forbes.com/global2000/list/#header:marketValue_sortreverse:true
(accessed, January, 4, 2020).
Glassberg, B. C., & Merhout, J. W. (2007). Electronic markets hypothesis
redux: Where are we now? Communications of the ACM, 50(2), 51–
55. https://doi.org/10.1145/1216016.1216020.
Göldi, A. (2020). A blind spot for the dark side: The monopolies we
didn’t see coming. Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12525-020-00402-x.
Green, D. (2019). Target is taking a page out of Amazon's playbook —
But it could face some challenges. Business Inside, February 25.
https://www.businessinsider.com/target-debuts-marketplace-vsamazon-walmart-2019-2 (accessed February, 17, 2020).
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism:
Foundations and developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179–
188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0196-8.
Grieger, M. (2003). Electronic marketplaces: A literature review and a
call for supply chain management research. European Journal of
Operational Research, 144(2), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0377-2217(02)00394-6.
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm,
M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic
Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4.
Hofmann, P., Samp, C., & Urbach, N. (2020). Robotic process automation. Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525019-00365-8.
Evolution and perspectives of electronic markets
Howcroft, D., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2019). A typology of
crowdwork platforms. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 21–
38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018760136.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification:
Anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature.
Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525015-0212-z.
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy.
Issues in Science and Technology, 32(3), 61–69.
Klein, S., & Alt, R. (2015). B2B electronic markets. In R. Mansell & P.H. Ang (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of digital communication and society (pp. 35–46). Malden/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118767771.wbiedcs072.
Malone, T. W., & Laubacher, R. J. (1998). The dawn of the e-lance
economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 144–152.
Malone, T. W., Yates, J., & Benjamin, R. I. (1987). Electronic markets
and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM, 30(6),
484–497. https://doi.org/10.1145/214762.214766.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2015). Smart technologies for
personalized experiences: A case study in the hospitality domain.
Electronic Markets, 25(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12525-015-0182-1.
Osterle, H. (2020). Life engineering. Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00388-1.
Parker, G. G., van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform
revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy
and how to make them work for you. New York/London: Norton.
Philips, A. (2020). Does the book have a future? In S. Eliot & J. Rose
(Eds.), A companion to the history of the book (2nd ed.). Chichester:
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119018193.ch56.
Pucihar, A. (2020). The digital transformation journey: Content analysis
of electronic markets articles and bled eConference proceedings
from 2012 to 2019. Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12525-020-00406-7
Puschmann, T., & Alt, R. (2016). Sharing economy. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 58(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12599-015-0420-2.
Reck, M. (2020). Xetra: The evolution of an electronic market. Electronic
Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00399-3.
Riemensperger, F., & Falk, S. (2020). How to capture the B2B platform
opportunity. Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12525-019-00390-7.
Ritala, P., Golnam, A., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com. Industrial Marketing
Management, 43(2), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2013.11.005.
Rong, K., Lin, Y., Li, B., Burström, T., Butel, L., & Yu, J. (2018).
Business ecosystem research agenda: More dynamic, more
embedded, and more internationalized. Asian Business and
Management, 17(3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-0180038-6.
Sánchez-Cartas, J.M. & León, G. (2019). Multi-sided platforms and markets: a literature review. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
325225786 (accessed February 18, 2020).
Schmid, B. (2020). What kind of electronic markets do we deserve?
Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-02000400-z.
Selz, D. (2020). From electronic markets to data driven insights.
Electronic Markets, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-01900393-4.
Setzke, D. S., Böhm, M. & Krcmar, H. (2019). Platform openness: A
systematic literature review and avenues for future research.
Proceedings international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik
(WI). https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2019/track07/papers/9.
Standing, S., Standing, C., & Love, P. E. D. (2010). A review of research
on e-marketplaces 1997–2008. Decision Support Systems, 49(1),
41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.12.008.
Staykova, K. S. & Damsgaard, J. (2014). A model of digital payment
infrastructure formation and development: The EU regulator’s perspective. Proceedings international conference on Mobile business
(ICMB). http://aisel.aisnet.org/icmb2014/14.
Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam
etc.
van Alstyne, M. W., Parker, G. G. & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines,
platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review
94(4), 54–62.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a
research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2),
118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.
vom Brocke, J., & Maedche, A. (2019). The DSR grid: Six core dimensions for effectively planning and communicating design science
research projects. Electronic Markets, 29(3), 379–385. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12525-019-00358-7.
Wiesböck, F., & Hess, T. (2020). Digital innovations. Electronic Markets,
30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00364-9.
Wigand, R. T. (2020). Whatever happened to disintermediation.
Electronic Markets, 30(1).
Yoffie, D. B., Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2019). A study of more
than 250 platforms reveals why most fail. Harvard Business Review
Digital Articles, (May 29). https://hbr.org/2019/05/a-study-of-morethan-250-platforms-reveals-why-most-fail.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.