Institutional logics and business models of digital niche marketplaces
Patrick Holzmann et al.
Abstract
While research on the business models of dominant digital marketplaces such as Amazon, TaskRabbit, and Uber has progressed in recent years, little is known about the business models of niche marketplaces despite their economic and social importance. Taking an institutional logic perspective, we examine how multiple logics shape the business models of digital niche marketplaces. Based on the comparative study of ten European digital niche marketplaces, we identify two business model archetypes that vary concerning problem complexity and the influence of institutional logics. The “concierge business model” is designed to efficiently solve simple location-bound problems through local networks. This model is dominantly shaped by the market logic and complemented by the corporate logic. By contrast, the “wizard business model” seeks innovative solutions to more complex problems by utilizing global networks. It is dominantly shaped by the professional logic and supplemented by the corporate and the market logic. Based on these insights, we develop a framework for the relationship between institutional logics and business models of digital niche marketplaces. Our study adds to research on the mechanisms and manifestations of institutional logics in business models and highlights the role of problem complexity, as well as contributing to better understand the distinctiveness of digital niche marketplaces. • Multiple institutional logics shape the business models of digital niche marketplaces. • Different logics exert dominant influences on individual business model components. • Market, professional, and corporate logics are prevalent. • Problem complexity acts as a filter for how logics manifest in business models. • Concierge and wizard business model patterns are introduced.
5 citations
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.41 × 0.4 = 0.16 |
| M · momentum | 0.63 × 0.15 = 0.09 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.