Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this commentary we explore how, in a market system that increasingly demands the participation of consumers as co-creators through self-service technologies, these technologies pose significant challenges to various consumers. We call this increase in demand the ‘everyday-ification’ of co-creation and consider its effect on consumers who are either unwilling or unable to co-create value. We look at how marketers are motivated to persistently replace human labor with technologies, not to primarily benefit consumers, but to discipline consumer labor and to maximize profits and shareholder value. Through this lens we examine five key issues with self-service technologies. First, we discuss how costs and benefits associated with self-service technologies are unequally allocated, before addressing how consumers’ choices are managed, consumers’ rising sense of powerlessness and increased vulnerabilities, consumers’ service failure responsibilization, and the cybernetic bureaucracy of life through self-service technologies.

Keywords

self-service technologies SSTs self-service failure value co-creation choicelessness governmentality and marketing consumer responsibilization algorithmic marketing

Introduction

In this commentary we consider the important role of emerging self-serve technologies (SSTs) in the fundamental reorganization of a wide variety of production and consumption processes (Ritzer 1993). These increasingly ubiquitous SSTs replace traditional customer-to-employee service interactions as they require consumers to produce the service via interactions with technology (Bitner, Ostrom, and Meuter 2002; Zhu et al. 2007). SSTs are both characteristic and symptomatic of a wider transformation in the mode of capitalist value creation where marketers must now increasingly act as providers of resources to facilitate consumers’ own value creation via technologies, and where consumers are responsibilized (Foucault 2008; Giesler and Veresiu 2014; Huston, Cruz, and Zoppos 2023) to perform an increasing number and array of value co-creating actions (Ritzer 1993). In our commentary we consider five keys ways that SSTs differentially impact consumers and discuss how SSTs, as a form of co-creation, are ultimately designed to put consumers to work in the production and service delivery processes as part of marketers’ efforts to increasingly systematize and rationalize processes in their unceasing quest for efficiencies (Ritzer 1993; Zwick, Bonsu, and Darmody 2008).

Beyond common physical SSTs like vending machines and ATMs, are interactive terminals at gas stations, banks, hotels, airports, supermarkets, and new tools like self-serve parcel lockers. These are transaction-related SSTs (Meuter et al. 2000) and are typically for placing orders, scanning, or paying. Other types of SSTs are customer-service or information-related technologies that are increasingly aimed at delivering information to allow for the provision of customized services to customers (Zhu et al. 2013). These include interactive phone systems, information kiosks, vocal response systems, mobile shopping assistants, and website self-service.

Not surprisingly, the marketing literature examining SSTs’ impact on consumers, businesses, and society is broadly supportive (e.g., Bitner, Ostrom, and Meuter 2002; Collier and Barnes 2015; Salomann et al. 2007; Sugathan, Ranjan, and Mulky 2017; Zhu et al. 2007). Consumer research shows how SSTs attract consumers for their convenience, reliability, reduced need for employee interaction and assistance, and even fun (e.g., Oh, Jeong, and Baloglu 2013; Weijters et al. 2007). Consumers’ positive perceptions of SST service quality are often based on their personal input and feelings of independence and empowerment (Zhu et al. 2013). In marketing research, SSTs are touted as cost-saving devices based on requiring fewer employees and increasing productivity (Kokkinou and Cranage 2015; Weijters et al. 2007). SSTs can also improve service delivery by offering greater efficiencies and consistency of the value proposition (Meuter et al. 2000) and giving marketers greater flexibility and scope to expand service offerings (Kokkinou and Cranage 2015), which can contribute to greater customer satisfaction and loyalty. Representative of the general optimism of marketing scholars regarding the diffusion of SSTs, Salomann and colleagues (2007, p. 66) suggest that:

“Nowadays, the combination of self-service and technology is believed to transform the service economy in much the same way that mass production transformed manufacturing, by allowing services to be delivered at low cost in large volumes.”

Our goal in our commentary is not to dispute research that demonstrates how SSTs can offer advantages to various consumers. Rather, we first show how the costs and benefits associated with SSTs are not shared equally among consumers. We next discuss how SSTs are proliferating across a range of categories, to the point where they almost universalize the injunction to co-create value. This oftentimes curtails consumers’ freedom to choose to co-create (Cao et al. 2022; Dholakia et al. 2021), thus increasing consumer powerlessness and exposing vulnerabilities. We next discuss how marketers’ motivation to replace human labor with SSTs is not, primarily, to benefit consumers, but to discipline labor and to maximize profits and shareholder value (Zwick, Bonsu, and Darmody 2008). Finally, we argue that SSTs are heightening a sense of cybernetic administration of life.

Allocation of Costs

Consumers are often pressured or compelled – directly or indirectly – to co-create in the increasingly unavoidable self-service spaces erected by interactive technologies (Dholakia et al. 2021; Ritzer 1993) and an inability or failure to do means they lose out on the many benefits and advantages afforded exclusively to others. SSTs are often rather mundane – navigating a digital menu to order a meal, designing a travel package online, making a payment via an automated phone service, etc. –yet constitute maybe the greatest number of co-creation activities, and thus overall co-created value, today. These activities typically occur away from public view and can be sites of consumer struggle, failure, loss, and feelings of inadequacy when one is unable to reap the benefits of SSTs.

An obvious cost associated with SSTs is financial, specifically when marketers charge for the privilege of the human touch. Consider Ryanair, a company who is relentless at cost-cutting and is unequivocal and unapologetic in its intention to impose on consumers the responsibility to use SSTs or face steep costs. From the Ryanair website:

Ryanair recommends all passengers to either print their boarding pass prior to arriving at the airport, or to access their mobile boarding pass on their phone in order to save time and money at the airport. Customers that do not check-in before arriving at the airport are required to pay the Airport Check-in Fee of €/£55 (Ryanair 2023, see also The Independent 2023).

This is a prime example of a ‘push policy’ (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012), where customers are not explicitly coerced into adopting SSTs, but subtle or less subtle nudges are applied for them to ‘work’ by using SSTs over having a full-service experience. Beyond airlines, customers in other fields (e.g., financial services), can choose between free self-service or traditional options for a fee (Zwick 2015).

SSTs come with other costs, like temporal ones (Andrews 2018; Glazer 1993). In stores customers can pay with their time by ‘choosing’ between the plentiful self-service lines (or, in Walmart's terms, a “customer-led self-checkout experience” [CTV 2023]) to which they are often directed, or the human-operated checkouts that are now often less plentiful and slower with longer lines (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012). Although evidence about the increased efficiency and speed of self-checkout options remains mixed (e.g., Andrews 2018), they become the relatively quicker option when they are added at the expense of full-service lines staffed by store clerks. As human service levels are reduced, requesting it can mean significantly longer wait times.

Another cost, and ethical question that arises from a marketplace of services increasingly operated through machines, is whether marketers should consider how their actions contribute to consumers’ well-being and quality of life (e.g., Hill, Felice, and Ainscough 2007; Sirgy 2021). Although proliferating SSTs can isolate, reduce engagement with others, and increase challenges and stress for many, quality of life considerations seem largely absent from marketers’ decision-making about their implementation. People generally can feel overwhelmed and paralyzed by the constant demand for communication and participation (Dean 2010), which gets amplified by the everyday-ification of co-creation and the increasing spread of automation into service interactions. Suggestive of a wider set of losses being suffered by more people, co-creation, as an injunction for consumers to work, fits neatly within capital as the aim is to totally subsume labor by extending productive labor into all facets of life. Lambert 2015, in the context of proliferating SSTs and the increasing obligations they impose on people, describes the gradual creep of “shadow work” to describe how people are socialized to take on more time-consuming consumer “work” roles. In this “middle-class serfdom” consumers’ time, energies, capacities are increasingly captured by marketers for profit (Lambert 2015).

Finally, marketers often tout lower prices by way of cost savings as a benefit of more SSTs. Many such cost savings stem from the problematic large-scale elimination of employment (e.g., Brynjolfsson and McAfee 2014). Thus, a facet of much co-creation simply means that specific service tasks have become sufficiently deskilled for most consumers to perform them and make paid workers redundant (Ritzer 1993). And importantly (for consumers and marketers in different ways), cost savings that materialize from implementing SSTs are not all passed on to consumers (Zwick 2015), so even those successful in navigating SSTs are likely saving less than the revenue potential of replaced labor for savvy marketers.

Choice Administration

Choicelessness, “is the inability, extreme difficulty, or the impossibility to adequately exercise choice [and] … can be understood primarily as a stark reality for many underprivileged and marginal groups” (Dholakia et al. 2021, p. 66). A significant aspect is marketers’ ability to manipulate consumers’ choice-making contexts and create choice sets from which consumers choose in ways that are skewed in the marketer's favor (Bilić 2018; Darmody and Zwick 2020). Consumer choice scholars advocate for consumer autonomy and for consumers to be empowered to make unfettered choices (Schwarzkopf 2011). Frequently however, consumers are restricted in their choices and must acquiesce to using SSTs for service delivery (e.g., Cao et al. 2022). SST consumers do not have their choices limited absolutely, insomuch as they are still being offered the chance to share in the fruits of capitalist production, but when SSTs are required for use, not everyone can share in them equally (Jokisuu et al. 2016; Viswanathan and Gau 2005).

Consider the case of the Canadian national pharmacy chain Shoppers Drug Mart, part of the Loblaw Companies Ltd, which has come under fire for its policies related to SSTs. In recent years, rolling out self-service checkouts has been a pillar of corporate strategy (CBC News 2019). Numerous news reports over several years have covered customer complaints (supported by employee statements) about consumers being “pushed” (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012) to use self-checkout machines, with the limited in-person lines only available for cash-paying customers (e.g., CBC News 2019, 2021). Some customer sentiments are captured in the following three statements:

They’re forcing me to use it and I don’t think that's fair.

I hate these new blasted self-checkouts, because they talk to you and I can’t figure out what they’re saying [hard of hearing customer].

When they basically say, ‘If you don't have cash, we’re not even taking you at our cashier’ … that's where it started to be a bit of a line in the sand for myself. I want the option to deal with a real human being… They’re trying to maximize their profits by having [customers] do the work.

These stories have captured the public imagination, based on the high number of reads and thousands of comments on the CBC website. Additionally, when one considers that Shoppers Drug Mart is the largest Canadian retail pharmacy chain, often with limited or no local competition, it further highlights how choice is being restricted when consumers are directed to SSTs. And, while Loblaws publicly claims it is not looking to remove choices but rather offer greater choice and convenience (CBC News 2019), in earnings calls it has emphasized the “efficiency initiatives” (CBC News 2021) that SSTs provide in its ongoing cost-cutting efforts (Ritzer 1993).

Other settings in which consumer choices are attenuated are when they are required to engage with automated technologies that are based on algorithmic choice-guiding techniques (Dholakia et al. 2021). To date, automation has mostly been considered in online service interactions, where consumers receive inimitable service offerings based on the personal data that they provide to machines, which are part of massive algorithmic architectures (Darmody and Zwick 2020). When choice is mediated and aided by algorithmic decision-making technologies, the consumer can receive hyper-relevant offerings, which represents “a mélange of meaningfulness, personalization, and appropriateness, with marketers needing to connect with consumers contextually and at their precise moments of need or want” (Darmody and Zwick 2020, p. 6), yet is founded on often problematic methods of continuous surveillance (Andrejevic 2019; Gekker and Hind 2020), and ultimately presents a delimited set of choices.

These algorithmic decision-making techniques are increasingly being applied to self-service delivery, where consumers’ accumulated data are used for SSTs to individualize service offerings (current and future). Every choice that a consumer makes with such SSTs provides the marketer with further data to better hone individuated choice contexts (Andrejevic 2019; Darmody and Zwick 2020). Two arch surveillance capitalists operating in this space are Amazon and Alibaba. In Amazon Go stores, customers simply walk the aisles putting their choices into their bags as they go, and leave without scanning when done, with these frictionless transactions facilitated by cameras, sensors, and pre-approved access to customers’ payment and other personal details. Alibaba's travel arm Fliggy have their Flyzoo test hotel, where every conceivable aspect of the hotel experience has been automated: there are no check-in counters, receptionists, or concierges; check-in is via facial recognition, as is the keycard-less room access; every room is serviced by a virtual voice assistant; while robotic arms serve at the bar and robot porters provide room-service (CNBC 2019). Each example is as much a test case of technologies to sell as they are solely direct extensions to the corporate behemoths’ retail and hospitality operations, but they are characteristic of how data management principles popularized online will increasingly come to underpin SSTs’ face-to-machine transactions. Marketers will seek ways to make SSTs evermore hyper-relevant to consumers based on their personal data, while likely treating privacy, security, unfettered consumer choice, and price fairness with the same disregard as do current digital marketers.

Powerlessness and Consumer Vulnerability

In a similar vein to choicelessness is “powerlessness,” where consumers feel that events are not within their control (Rucker and Galinsky 2008) regarding marketers imposing SSTs (Cao et al. 2022; Feng et al. 2019). Feelings of powerlessness can lead to resistance from consumers and result in negative attitudes toward SSTs, perceptions of poor service quality, negative attitudes toward and lower levels of satisfaction with the marketer, and an increased likelihood of switching (Reinders, Dabholkar, and Frambach 2008). In addition, powerlessness can increase consumer complaints about SSTs and result in them having unfavorable attitudes toward the marketers (Blut, Wang, and Schoefer 2016; Feng et al. 2019). Finally, when consumers perceive their powerlessness as being unfair, they show their intent to decrease future spending, and increase their negative word-of-mouth and switching intentions (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012). However, if suitable alternative choices are not readily offered, per choice-attenuated examples like Shoppers Drug Mart, possibilities for consumer resistance are limited.

SSTs present a complicated idea, as their widespread distribution means some consumers are empowered as others are exposed to new vulnerabilities (Baker et al., 2005; Shultz and Holbrook 2009). As stated in Baker and colleagues (2005, p. 134, italics in original):

Consumer vulnerability is a state of powerlessness that arises from an imbalance in marketplace interactions or from the consumption of marketing messages and products. It occurs when control is not in an individual's hands, creating a dependence on external factors (e.g., marketers) to create fairness in the marketplace. The actual vulnerability arises from the interaction of individual states, individual characteristics, and external conditions with a context where consumption goals may be hindered and the experience affects personal and social perceptions of self.

This fluid state of powerlessness takes many forms in SST transactions, and consumers can be invulnerable in some settings as they are vulnerable in others (Shultz and Holbrook 2009). Marketing system thinkers have long understood the need to critically investigate how marketing innovations impact the distribution of costs and benefits for all market actors (Klein 2008; Laczniak and Murphy 2008). This system creates distributed injustices as some consumers can get better deals by performing service work, while others cannot (Klein 2008; Laczniak and Murphy 2008). Consider how SSTs are not universally accessible. Consumers are required to learn and operate commercial technologies, direct operations, and even recover from mistakes, not unlike employees. A consumer that feels greater levels of control, competence, and efficiency than they might when interacting with a human can benefit from the switch to SSTs (e.g., Collier and Barnes 2015). Yet for many others, including consumers who are technologically averse (Blut, Wang, and Schoefer 2016), illiterate (or low literate) (Viswanathan and Gau 2005), or who have physical or visual impartments (Jokisuu et al. 2016), using SSTs can cause negative effects. As SSTs change how services are produced and distributed, consumers that fail to properly operate within strict cybernetic rules of machines (Blalack 1976) become prone to increased service failures and get levied with various higher costs.

The more SSTs become part of the fabric of service delivery, the greater the degree of responsibility gets placed on the co-creating consumer to fulfill their service obligations (Laczniak and Murphy 2008). For marketers, SSTs offer cost savings, efficiency improvements, greater customization of service offerings, and an expansion of the range of services offered. Of course, many consumers benefit from these forms of value, but most SSTs in their current state of development remain inferior to human service providers on important factors such as anticipation, flexibility and adaptation to unforeseen circumstances, and emotional intelligence (Robertson et al. 2016). Consumers can lose out as they perceive the quality of service delivery to be less when it is co-created with machines (Lee, Fairhurst, and Cho 2013) and suffer other sources of dissatisfaction such as technological flaws, a lack of human interaction and support, slowness in use or delivery, and having to navigate hard to use interface designs (e.g., Lee, Fairhurst, and Cho 2013; Meuter et al. 2000).

Service Failure Responsibilization

Despite the many setbacks and disappointments encountered by consumers when using SSTs, marketers and researchers are constantly striving to learn how they can progressively encourage consumers to use more of these technologies (e.g., Cao et al. 2022; Zhu et al. 2013). As we see from market-shaping consulting groups like McKinsey, having more SSTs is considered a net positive for consumers and retailers alike.

Gone are the days when consumers were willing to wait in longer lines so that a cashier could weigh produce or bag groceries. Instead, customers increasingly value the safety, speed, and convenience offered by self-checkout, which can reduce friction for consumers and—crucially—free up employees for other operational tasks such as stocking and ad hoc customer assistance. When properly implemented, tech-enabled self-checkout can improve in-store productivity by 6 to 12 percent by reducing the labor hours required for operation (Harris, Kuzmanovic, and Pandrangi 2022, p. 34).

The more consumers are encouraged or compelled to use SSTs, the more opportunities there are for service failure, with consumers often suffering most. When setbacks and letdowns occur in self-service delivery, oftentimes consumers assume responsibility by attributing failures to themselves (Sugathan, Ranjan, and Mulky 2017; Zhu et al. 2013). As participation levels increase (as is the case in co-creation), consumers’ propensity to blame themselves for service failures also increases (Harris, Mohr, and Bernhardt 2006), with those who consider themselves less able to successfully execute tasks often self-recriminating more (Chen 2018). Failures can also encourage consumers to work harder on the marketer's behalf by becoming even more motivated to co-create in the future as self-attributed failures mount (Sugathan, Ranjan, and Mulky 2017; Zhu et al. 2013). Sugathan, Ranjan, and Mulky (2017) propose such findings as significant managerial wins because:

[T]he increase in the degree of co-creation increases internal failure attribution and reduces firm failure attribution … [so] firms will avoid the need to be solely responsible for recovery efforts and be able to draw from customer resources as well as safeguard against external attribution, negative customer emotions, and retaliatory behavior (p. 72).

In this light, SSTs – and forms of service delivery that increase consumer participation and encourage consumers to assume greater personal levels of responsibility (including responsibility for failures) – represent a form of government insomuch as marketers look to shape consumer actions in the design, format, and rollout of SSTs (Foucault 2008; Zwick, Bonsu, and Darmody 2008). This increased responsibilization is a form of self-government in which consumers regulate and control themselves (Yngfalk and Fyrberg Yngfalk 2015), in this case, increasing self-governance through self-service. Consumers have come to internalize the logic of co-creation and seek to leverage their resources, including technical, social, and cultural competences in the provision of services (Bonsu and Darmody 2008; Campbell, O’Driscoll, and Saren 2013). It is therefore unsurprising that SSTs remain popular with marketers. Through increasing the presence of SSTs, marketers can continue to shift the locus of responsibility onto consumers to self-discipline to be good and successful consumers.

Cybernetic Administration of Consumer Life

If pushed to extreme limits, the combination of the widespread proliferation of SSTs and progressive elimination of human service provision has the potential to erect what Blalack (1976), in his classic essay on automation and dehumanization, refers to as cybernetic bureaucracy. Living in a cybernetic bureaucracy means that commercial interactions have all been converted into fully automated mechanisms and systems that are inflexible, impersonal, and impervious if not hostile to elements not accommodated by pre-set rules (Blalack 1976). Rather than act as an autonomous agent, the consumer is corralled into technological engagements on others’ terms (Bilić 2018; Dholakia et al. 2021). This is akin to MacKenzie's (2005) notion of performativit[ies] of circulation, where consumers are emplaced in cybernetic loops that blur boundaries between the ability to make autonomous decisions and ‘conduct of conduct’ (Foucault 2008). To thrive in this cybernetic bureaucratic environment requires that the consumer subject anticipates and internalizes the rules (or more appropriately for the digital age, the code) of the machine and system and acts accordingly (Deleuze 1992). Consumers unable to configure interactions to the logic of the machine face many marketplace failures and added costs, financial and otherwise.

If we consider SSTs based on dividing consumers into those who can and those who cannot deliver their own services – more quickly, cheaply, efficiently, etc. – we overlook the larger-scale impact of all consumers being compelled to co-create with technologies. Blalack's (1976) conclusion of his analysis of automation and technological rationalization posits that cybernetic bureaucracy must entail dehumanization on the one hand and the creation of a cyborg on the other. In other words, in a world where humans are consistently confronted with the structured rigidity of machine logic (Bassett 2007), cognitive processes become assimilated to this logic and humans become like machines to marketers (e.g., Lazzarato 2014).

In his integrative review of dehumanization, Haslam (2006) theorizes that a widespread anxiety toward computers comes from a general sense that human contact has been lost and that social relations, from personal dealings to commercial transactions, have become increasingly formatted by technology. Haslam also suggests that as computers come to increasingly mediate every aspect of our lives, computers’ lack of flexibility, emotion and personal faults ends up dehumanizing human relationships (Floridi 2014). Taking this viewpoint to the extreme, if unchecked, technological progress ultimately leads to social anesthesia (McSwain, White, and Bruce 1989). In terms of the ultimate cost for consumers, the current proliferation of SSTs is perceived by many as an encroaching form of cybernetic bureaucracy. Rather than feeling rewarded by the promised or suggested potential efficiencies and process innovations that SSTs offer, many consumers perceive the growing absence of oftentimes mundane interpersonal service interactions with service providers as isolating, discouraging, and ultimately dehumanizing (Meuter et al. 2000). Some miss what once was, yet for a growing number of others, they may never experience the regular human contact and complex interactions that services once provided.

Concluding Thoughts

In this commentary we argue that in the age of self-service by compulsion, there comes a universalized injunction to co-produce. All consumers are increasingly expected to understand and maximize the value of their own accumulated human capital, which marketers ceaselessly try to have them put to use (e.g., Zwick, Bonsu, and Darmody 2008). This injunction represents a form of consumer government, in Foucault's sense of the word, that “responsibilizes” all consumers, regardless of their ability or inclination to co-create. Not everyone wants, or has the capacity, to be a constantly producing consumer. We hope to encourage empirical studies related to consumer equity and SSTs. We must better understand how marginalized or vulnerable consumers fare in situations where co-creation is compelled, as well as the effects of SSTs, and co-creation more generally, on consumer quality of life and well-being (Sirgy 2021). In studies on co-creating consumers, as well as investigating outcomes like satisfaction, speed, success, or consumers’ willingness to rectify failed encounters, other factors should be considered. These include one's willingness to co-create and contextual factors, consumers’ technological anxiety and its effects, and multi-dimensional examinations of the skillsets and abilities that consumers are (or are not) able to draw on in their interactions with SSTs.

Marketing practitioners are encouraged to critically interrogate the effects of co-creation technologies on various consumer groups. The trend for companies to use information technology to depopulate the customer interface and reduce the costs of managing customer relations may benefit some, but it hurts many others in ways that marketers seem unequipped or unwilling to grasp. We echo calls for more critical consideration of the social impact of new technologies (e.g., Laczniak and Murphy 2008). The transition toward an increasingly cybernetic marketplace that universalizes co-creation is well under way. It behooves us as marketing theorists to understand and investigate the implications of this transition on all market actors, not just its supposed winners.

Footnotes

Associate Editor

M. Joseph Sirgy

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Aron Darmody

Author Biography

Aron Darmody is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. His research explores consumer freedoms and control, consumer work, and cultural perspectives on digital marketers and marketing practices. He is currently working on a grant funded project through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada (SSHRC) to advance knowledge and theoretical development relating to digital marketing practices, marketer behavior, and technology use in marketing. He received his PhD in Marketing from York University, Toronto.

Detlev Zwick is Dean and the Tanna H. Schulich Chair in Digital Marketing Strategy at the Schulich School of Business, York University, Canada. His research explores modern marketing practices as new forms of consumer surveillance, capture and manipulation. His research has been published widely in marketing, communication, media culture, and sociology journals, as well as in several edited collections. His edited volume (with Julien Cayla) entitled Inside Marketing (Oxford, 2011) explores the ideological function of marketing thought as well as marketing practice as ideological work. He received his Ph.D. in from the University of Rhode Island.

References

Andrejevic

Mark

(2019), “Automating Surveillance,” Surveillance & Society, 17 (1/2), 7-13.

Andrews

Christopher K

(2018), The Overworked Consumer: Self-Checkouts, Supermarkets, and the Do-It-Yourself Economy. London: Lexington Books.

Baker

S. M.

Gentry

James W.

Rittenburg

Terri L.

(2005), “Building Understanding of the Domain of Consumer Vulnerability,” Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (2), 128–139.

Bassett

Caroline

(2007), The Arc and the Machine: Narrative and the New Media. New York: Palgrave.

Bilić

Pasko

(2018), “A Critique of the Political Economy of Algorithms: A Brief History of Google’s Technological Rationality,” TripleC, 16 (1), 315-331.

Bitner

Mary Jo

Ostrom

Amy L.

Meuter

Matthew L.

(2002), “Implementing Successful Self-Service Technologies,” Academy of Management Executive, 16 (4), 96-108.

Blalack

Richard O

(1976), “Dehumanization and Cybernetic Bureaucracies,” Business & Society, 16 (2), 29-34.

Blut

Markus

Wang

Cheng

Schoefer

Klaus

(2016), “Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Self-Service Technologies: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Service Research, 19 (4), 396-416.

Bonsu

Samuel K.

Darmody

Aron

(2008), “Co-Creating Second Life: Consumer Cooperation in Contemporary Economy,” Journal of Macromarketing, 28 (4), 355-368.

10.

Brynjolfsson

Erik

McAfee

Andrew

(2014), The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: W. W. Norton.

11.

Campbell

Norah

O’Driscoll

Aidan

Saren

Michael

(2013), “Reconceptualizing Resources: A Critique of Service-Dominant Logic,” Journal of Macromarketing, 33 (4), 306-321.

12.

Cao

Zhongpeng

Xiao

Qian

Zhunag

Weiling

Wang

Lina

(2022), “An Empirical Analysis of Self-Service Technologies: Mediating Role of Customer Powerlessness,” Journal of Services Marketing, 36 (2), 129-142.

13.

CBC News (2019), “Superstore, Shoppers Drug Mart Customers Say they were Forced to Use Self-Checkout,” (accessed April 5, 2023), [available at https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/shoppers-drug-mart-superstore-self-checkout-loblaws-1.5056800].

14.

CBC News (2021), “More Shoppers Drug Mart Customers Complain they were Pushed to Use Self-Checkout,” (accessed March 24, 2023), [available at https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/shoppers-self-checkout-cashier-1.6038423].

15.

Chen

Chia-Yi

(2018), “How Customer Participation Influences Service Failure Attribution: The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy,” Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 28 (3), 298-314.

16.

CNBC Travel (2019), “Facial Recognition is Coming to Hotels. I stayed at Alibaba’s Hotel of the Future,” (accessed August 16, 2023), [available at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/alibaba-china-flyzoo-hotel-uses-facial-recognition-tech-and-robots.html].

17.

Collier

Joel E.

Barnes

Donald C.

(2015), “Self-Service Delight: Exploring the Hedonic Aspects of Self-Service,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (5), 986-993.

18.

CTV News (2023), “Walmart Tests ‘Full Service’ Self-Checkout Plan at Ottawa Location,” (accessed August 17, 2023), [available at https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/walmart-tests-full-service-self-checkout-plan-at-ottawa-location-1.6502243].

19.

Darmody

Aron

Zwick

Detlev

(2020), “Manipulate to Empower: Hyper-Relevance and the Contradictions of Marketing in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” Big Data & Society, 7 (1), 1-12.

20.

Dean

Jodi

(2010), Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

21.

Deleuze

Gilles

(1992), “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” October, 59 (Winter), 3-7.

22.

Dholakia

Nikhilesh

Darmody

Aron

Zwick

Detlev

Dholakia

Ruby Roy

Fuat Firat

(2021), “Consumer Choicemaking and Choicelessness in Hyperdigital Marketspaces,” Journal of Macromarketing, 41 (1), 65-74.

23.

Feng

Wenting

Rungting

Tim

Zhou

Zhimin

(2019), “Understanding Forced Adoption of Self-Service Technology: The Impacts of Users’ Psychological Reactance,” Behaviour & Information Technology, 38 (8), 820-832.

24.

Floridi

Luciano

(2014), The Fourth Revolution. How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

Foucault

Michel

(2008), The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Gekker

Alex

Hind

Sam

(2020), “Infrastructural Surveillance,” New Media & Society, 22 (8), 1414-1436.

27.

Giesler

Markus

Veresiu

Ela

(2014), “Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes and Consumer Subjectivity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 840-857.

28.

Glazer

Nona Y.

(1993), Women's Paid and Unpaid Labor: The Work Transfer in Health Care and Retailing. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

29.

Harris

Katherine E.

Mohr

Lois A.

Bernhardt

Kenneth L.

(2006), “Online Service Failure, Consumer Attributions and Expectations,” Journal of Services Marketing, 20 (7), 453-458.

30.

Harris

Tyler

Kuzmanovic

Alexandra

Pandrangi

Jaya

(2022), “Tech-Enabled Grocery Stores: Lower Costs, Better Experience,” in Navigating the Market Headwinds: The State of Grocery Retail 2022: North America, Aull

Bill

Kohli

Sajal

, eds. McKinsey & Company, 32-36.

31.

Haslam

Nick

(2006), “Dehumanization: An Integrative Review,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (3), 252-264.

32.

Hill

Roland Paul

Felice

William F.

Ainscough

Thomas

(2007), “International Human Rights and Consumer Quality of Life: An Ethical Perspective,” Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (4), 370-379.

33.

Huston

Clarice Yi

Cruz

Angela Gracia B.

Zoppos

Eloise

(2023), “Normalizing the Toxic Consumer Subject: Sustaining Neoliberal Logics Within Online Gaming,” Journal of Macromarketing, 0 (0).

34.

Jokisuu

Elina

McKenna

Mike

Smith

Andrew W. D.

Day

Phil

(2016), “Touchscreen Accessibility in Self-Service Terminals,” The Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities Scientific/Research Proceedings, 4 (22), 114-132.

35.

Klein

Thomas A.

(2008), “Assessing Distributive Justice in Marketing: A Benefit-Cost Approach,” Journal of Macromarketing, 28 (1), 33-43.

36.

Kokkinou

Alinda

Cranage

David A.

(2015), “Why Wait? Impact of Waiting Lines on Self-Service Technology Use,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27 (6), 1181-1197.

37.

Laczniak

Gene R.

Murphy

Patrick E.

(2008), “Distributive Justice: Pressing Questions, Emerging Directions and the Promise of Rawlsian Analysis,” Journal of Macromarketing, 28 (5), 5-11.

38.

Lambert

Craig

(2015), Shadow work: The Unpaid, Unseen Jobs that Fill your Day. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint.

39.

Lazzarato

Maurizio

(2014), Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).

40.

Lee

Hyun-Joo

Fairhurst

Ann

Cho

Hyeon Jeong

(2013), “Gender Differences in Consumer Evaluations of Service Quality: Self-Service Kiosks in Retail,” The Service Industries Journal, 33 (2), 248-265.

41.

MacKenzie

Adrian

(2005), “The Performativity of Code: Software and Cultures of Circulation,” Theory Culture & Society, 22 (1), 71-92.

42.

McSwain

Cynthia J.

White

Orion

Bruce

Willa

(1989), “Transforming the Golem: Technicism, Human-Relations Technology, and the Human Project,” Public Administration Review, 49 (2), 197-199.

43.

Meuter

Matthew L.

Ostrom

Amy L.

Roundtree

Robert I.

Bitner

Mary Jo

(2000), “Self-Service Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction with Technology-Based Service Encounters,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 50-64.

44.

Haemoon

Jeong

Miyoung

Baloglu

Seyhmus

(2013), “Tourists’ Adoption of Self-Service Technologies at Resort Hotels,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (6), 692-699.

45.

Reinders

Machiel J.

Dabholkar

Pratibha A.

Frambach

Ruud T.

(2008), “Consequences of Forcing Consumers to Use Technology-Based Self-Service,” Journal of Service Research, 11 (2), 107-123.

46.

Ritzer

George

(1993), The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Pine Forge Press.

47.

Robertson

Nichola

McDonald

Heath

Leckie

Civilai

McQuilken

Lisa

(2016), “Examining Customer Evaluations Across Different Self-Service Technologies,” Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (1), 88-102.

48.

Rucker

Derek D.

Galinsky

Adam D.

(2008), “Desire to Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 257-267.

49.

Ryanair (2023), “Boarding Passes Information,” (accessed April 1, 2023), [available at [https://help.ryanair.com/hc/en-us/articles/360017824878-Boarding-Passes-Information].

50.

Salomann

Harald

Dous

Malte

Kolbe

Lutz

Brenner

Walter

(2007), “Self-Service Revisited: How to Balance High-Tech and High-Touch in Customer Relationships,” European Management Journal, 25 (4), 310-319.

51.

Schwarzkopf

Stefan

(2011), ““The Consumer as “Voter,” “Judge,” and “Jury”: Historical Origins and Political Consequences of a Marketing Myth,” ” Journal of Macromarketing, 31 (1), 8-18.

52.

Shultz

Clifford J.

Holbrook

Morris

(2009), “The Paradoxical Relationships Between Marketing and Vulnerability,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28 (1), 124-127.

53.

Sirgy

Joseph M

(2021), “Macromarketing Metrics of Consumer Well-Being: An Update,” Journal of Macromarketing, 41 (1), 124-131.

54.

Sugathan

Praveen

Ranjan

Kumar Rakesh

Mulky

Avinash G.

(2017), “Atypical Shifts Post-Failure: Influence of Co-Creation on Attribution and Future Motivation to Co-Create,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38 (May), 64-81.

55.

The Independent (2023), “Passengers’ Fury after Ryanair Charges them £110 for Two Boarding Passes,” (accessed August 27, 2023), [available at https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-charge-boarding-passes-passengers-b2393203.html].

56.

Viswanathan

Madhu

Gau

Roland

(2005), “Functional Illiteracy and Nutritional Education in the United States: A Research-Based Approach to the Development of Nutritional Education Materials for Functionally Illiterate Consumers,” Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (2), 187-201.

57.

Weijters

Bert

Rangarajan

Devarajan

Falk

Tomas

Schillewaert

Niels

(2007), “Determinants and Outcomes of Customers’ Use of Self-Service Technology in a Retail Setting,” Journal of Service Research, 10 (1), 3-21.

58.

White

Allyn

Breazeale

Michael

Collier

Joel E.

(2012), “The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST Push Policies,” Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 250-261.

59.

Yngfalk

Carl

Fyrberg Yngfalk

Anna

(2015), “Creating the Cautious Consumer: Marketing Managerialism and Bio-Power in Health Consumption,” Journal of Macromarketing, 35 (4), 435-447.

60.

Zhu

Zhen

Nakata

Cheryl

Sivakumar

Grewal

Dhruv

(2007), “Self-Service Technology Effectiveness: The Role of Design Features and Individual Traits,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), 492-506.

61.

Zhu

Zhen

Nakata

Cheryl

Sivakumar

Grewal

Dhruv

(2013), “Fix It or Leave It? Customer Recovery from Self-Service Technology Failures,” Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 15-29.

62.

Zwick

Detlev

(2015), “Defending the Right Lines of Division: Ritzer’s Prosumer Capitalism in the Age of Commercial Customer Surveillance and Big Data,” The Sociological Quarterly, 56 (3), 484-498.

63.

Zwick

Detlev

Bonsu

Samuel K.

Darmody

Aron

(2008), “Putting Consumers to Work: ‘Co-Creation’ and New Marketing Govern-Mentality,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 8 (2), 163-196.

Theorizing the Costs of Self-Service Technologies and Co-Creation by Design

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Allocation of Costs

Choice Administration

Powerlessness and Consumer Vulnerability

Service Failure Responsibilization

Cybernetic Administration of Consumer Life

Concluding Thoughts

Footnotes

Associate Editor

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biography

References