Grab It Fast! Entrepreneurial Self and Hyper-Consumerism in the Students’ Prosumption of Online Lending Services in Indonesia

Abstract

This study examines how students engage in the prosumption (production-consumption) of online lending services in Indonesia and how these services contribute to students falling into the trap of hyper-consumerism. Using multi-sited ethnography, this study explores how Cicil’s online lending practices, an online lending platform targeting higher education students in Indonesia, have challenged the prevailing stereotypes of lending practices in Indonesia. Within the prosumerism and sharing economy framework, Cicil constantly persuades students to participate in digital works, presenting them as valuable opportunities to be future entrepreneurial selves. At the same time, Cicil constantly allures students to partake in hyper-consumerism and steers them toward a cycle of loan-driven consumption. Through its services, the online lending platform employs an integrative strategy and participatory management to obscure the practice of domination.

Plain Language Summary

The Use of Online Lending Services among Students in Indonesia

Students often face difficulties getting loans from traditional financial institutions like banks or credit organisations. Given this situation, an online lending platform called Cicil has become popular among students in Indonesia as it claims to provide solutions for students without complicated bureaucracy and requirements. The rise of lending platforms like Cicil is concerning since these platforms convince people, including students, that debt is the most convenient and accessible solution to handle financial problems. Cicil’s business model also goes beyond convincing students to use their lending services. They also actively involve these students as digital workers. This study examines how students engage with Cicil’s online lending services as consumers and producers. It also examines how these lending services lead students down the path of excessive consumerism. Cicil constantly persuades students to participate in digital work, presenting it as an excellent opportunity to become future entrepreneurs.

Introduction

The practice of lending services has undergone many changes and adjustments along with the development of digital technology. The emergence of online lending services has transformed the services offered by conventional financial institutions such as banks or credit institutions. Cicil, an online lending platform owned by PT. Cicil Solution Mitra Teknologi has also transformed the lending landscape in Indonesia. Established in 2016, Cicil has strategically chosen to focus on meeting the financial needs of higher education students. Adopting this strategy is prudent, as Indonesian students commonly encounter challenges in obtaining loans from conventional financial institutions such as banks or credit agencies. Unlike other Asian nations such as Malaysia or India, where the government is responsible for organising and offering student loans to facilitate access to tertiary education, the Indonesian government utilises a different system. In this country, student loans are primarily facilitated by banks and private organisations (Jan, 2020; Wisanggeni et al., 2022). By the time this study is finalised, the Indonesian government has not yet established a structured formal system for providing student loans to support education financing. In alignment with the growth of fintech companies, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) lending, as Cicil offers, is seen as a more adaptable financial solution for students than conventional banking options.

The prevalence of lending platforms like Cicil raises concerns, as these platforms seem to alter public attitudes towards loans. The availability of loan platforms, particularly those aimed at students, positions loans as the most flexible and practical solution for individuals facing financial challenges. Cicil itself claims to provide solutions for students without complicated bureaucracy and requirements. Since its services have obtained permission and supervision from the Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) [Financial Services Authority] and it has joined the Indonesian Fintech Funding Association (AFPI), Cicil claims the safety guarantee of its lending services amidst the mushrooming of illegal online lending services in Indonesia. Illegal lenders usually tempt prospective users with the promise of quick and easy application and fast disbursement of loans. In most cases, they strangle their users with high-interest rates and even resort to intimidation tactics when the users are unable to make their payments. In 2018, the Indonesian Financial Services Authority (OJK) blocked 3,516 unauthorised lending applications and websites within the country. These platforms were identified as engaging in concerning and harmful practices that posed risks to the public (Damayanti, 2021).

As displayed on its official website (cicil.co.id), Cicil presents its services as a user-friendly, secure, efficient, convenient, rapid, and flexible solution tailored for students. Until 2021, Cicil provides four appealing lending options that are purported to cater to the specific needs of students, namely, Instalments for Goods, Instalments for Tuition Fees, Instalments for Mobile Phone Credit, and Instalments for Educational Courses. Unlike conventional credit institutions in Indonesia, Cicil offers light credit loans or instalments for students with less stringent requirements. This mission is written in the company name “Cicil,” derived from the Indonesian word cicilan (instalment in English). Students can request loan instalments for their tuition fees or buy items under Cicil’s description of “students’ goods/types of equipment.” These items may encompass a range of products, such as computers, laptops, personal electronics, hobby-related equipment, or fashion accessories. Cicil’s online lending services offer non-cash loan options. Once a student applies for the loan, Cicil will manage the financial transactions on their behalf. Cicil acts as an intermediary, making payments on behalf of its users while facilitating the cash flow to the respective parties involved in the financial transactions.

On its website, Cicil claimed to have built partnerships with 260 universities to facilitate the payment of tuition fees through instalments. Additionally, Cicil has collaborated with over 100 e-commerce platforms. As of July 2021, Cicil has assisted 7,041 students across 58 cities with lending services. The platform utilises a margin system rather than an interest-bearing system. This means that Cicil sets a specific payment margin, which includes the interest rate, for the duration of the loan tenor. Users are informed of the monthly instalment amount they must pay until the loan is fully repaid. According to some informants in this study, Cicil’s interest rates are lower than other online lending services in Indonesia, making it a more attractive option for students seeking financial assistance.

As part of digital-based fintech services, Cicil’s services are built on digital technology. The company utilises interconnected platforms, including a website, Android app, social media, and email, to enable lending transactions. The digital era has transformed the way lenders and borrowers communicate and interact, reducing or eliminating the need for physical presence and direct interaction, as these processes are now mediated through digital platforms.

Interestingly, Cicil not only recruits students as users but also involves them in the business production sector. The company offers various work schemes, such as the Student Ambassador program, Cicil Jobs, and Ajak Teman (Inviting Friends), which allow students to earn financial rewards in cash or discount vouchers. The Student Ambassador program focuses on recruiting new users and assisting them with the enrollment process. The Cicil Jobs scheme aims to help active users manage their ongoing instalments, enabling them to generate earnings that can be used to offset their existing payments. The Ajak Teman [Inviting Friends] scheme encourages users to actively promote Cicil’s services to their fellow students. By providing these work schemes, Cicil appears to be actively encouraging its users to participate in the production process, demonstrating a unique approach to engaging its student-based clientele.

Cicil’s unique positioning, as it specialises in providing loans exclusively to higher education students, is an interesting phenomenon, as the Indonesian government does not formally offer student loan services through educational institutions. This fact opens up an opportunity for the private sector, such as private banks and credit institutions like Cicil, to step in and offer online loan services for students. Since Cicil is registered with the Indonesian Financial Services Authority (OJK), it is considered a secure choice for students who seek online lending services, especially given the prevalence of illegal online lending providers in the country. With the logic of a sharing economy, not only does Cicil differentiate its services from those of conventional banks and credit institutions by providing more personalised and friendly services to students, but Cicil’s peer-to-peer (P2P) lending model also encourages direct participation from students as users. They can customise their lending scheme and are encouraged to be involved in the co-production and co-creation opportunities offered by Cicil’s work schemes. Cicil’s online lending services appear to create a mutually satisfying and beneficial relationship between the lender and the students as borrowers.

Based on this background, this study examines students’ experiences using Cicil’s online lending services. The investigation focuses on their role as consumers who utilise Cicil’s lending services and also considers their capacity as producers who engage in self-customisation of their own lending schemes, as well as their involvement in the co-production and co-creation facilitated by Cicil’s work schemes and enabled by digital platforms. In other words, this study investigates students’ dual role as producers and consumers (prosumption) of Cicil’s online lending services. It also explores how Cicil’s lending practices challenge the existing stereotypes surrounding lending in Indonesia. From the lens of the sharing economy, the study examines how Cicil’s lending services have drawn users into the entrapment of the sharing economy by engaging them as digital workers through its work schemes. Additionally, the study scrutinises how students are persistently encouraged to participate in debt-driven hyper-consumption.

Past research has investigated online lending practices from legal perspectives, such as Civil Law and Islamic Law. These studies examined the widespread presence of illegal lending platforms, which frequently cause damage to users. They underlined the weak legal position of the users, making them susceptible to exploitation within this lending environment (Butarbutar, 2020; Hamdani & Fauzia, 2021; Istiqamah, 2019; Pardosi & Primawardani, 2020). Meanwhile, since the majority of Indonesia’s population is Muslim, several studies posed the question of the Islamic legal perspective on the use of online lending services. These studies explored how Islamic law justified the presence of online lending platforms and highlighted what is permissible and prohibited in accessing these services (Baso & Kholifah, 2022; Danirrahman, 2019; Rifai & Fatwanto, 2022). Some other previous studies examined the advantage of digital technology in banking economic transactions (Gavurova et al., 2018; Supriyanto & Ismawati, 2019) and how digital platforms have changed consumer behaviour in accessing lending services (Uyen & Ha, 2017; Winnefeld & Permantier, 2017; Yunus, 2019). These previous studies on fintech have primarily concentrated on technological innovations, the absence of legal frameworks surrounding fintech, and the consumption patterns of online lending services. However, since digital platforms and technology underpin online lending, the existing studies have not adequately explored the prosumption dimension, which refers to the active participation of consumers in the realm of production and work mechanisms as well as in the utilisation of online lending services enabled by digital technology.

This study aims to explore more deeply the prosumption practice of online lending services by students within the framework of digital work and sharing economy. In contrast to quantitative surveys that prioritise representativeness, this study foregrounds the narratives of five students to examine the experiential and interpretive dimensions of their engagement in the prosumption of online lending practices. It highlights this study’s unique and valuable contributions to the existing research on the significant roles of digital platforms in changing socio-cultural practices in lending landscapes.

Theoretical Framework

Lending Practice Within the Framework of the Sharing Economy

Schor (2015), in her work “Getting Sharing Right,” defines the sharing economy as “…economic activity that is Peer-to-Peer, or person-to-person, facilitated by digital platforms.” Meanwhile, Hamari et al. define it as “…the peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (2016, p. 2047). The critical aspects of the sharing economy, as defined by Juliet B. Schor and Hamari et al., are its digital infrastructure, peer-to-peer nature, and collaborative consumption model. Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, as part of the sharing economy practices, emphasises collaboration, in which each individual is positioned as if equal and in “proximity and friendlines” so that financial backup can be obtained easily, simply, and transparently (Pauwels, 2015, p. 69). This service is considered very helpful, particularly for those who have been repeatedly turned down by conventional banking or credit institutions. Trust is not the only principle of P2P lending practice; it includes affective factors and emotional involvement. Those principles generate a pro-social impression because the practice emphasises the meaning of sharing, collaborating, and helping each other for the common good. However, it is worth underlining that the pro-social messages displayed by the P2P lending service are intertwined and wrapped with business interests. There is an apparent paradox with the term “sharing” in the sharing economy.

Slee (2015) underlines such a contradiction by asserting that sharing refers to social interactions between people in a non-commercial context. He argues that sharing activities are exchange activities that do not involve money or are not motivated by a desire to earn money. The fact of “sharing” in the sharing economy is on the contrary (Slee, 2015, pp. 19–20). The term “economics” refers to market transactions that involve the exchange of money for the sake of obtaining goods and services based on the interests of the parties involved. Therefore, “sharing” in the sharing economy is sharing with an instrumental purpose in which self-interest and the common good are united. Moreover, Slee (2015, p. 16) asserts that the sharing economy often claims to empower individuals who are considered powerless by enabling them to become micro-entrepreneurs through digital platforms, thereby giving them more control over their lives. However, in reality, the sharing economy primarily benefits the investors and executives who operate the platforms, as they can avoid tax obligations and labour protections, while the supposed benefits to the individual workers are limited. Likewise, trust, which appears to be an essential factor in the platform-based sharing economy, is, in fact, “just another marketing buzzword” (Leonard, 2013). Trust is nothing more than the platform’s rhetoric to convince and direct users to contribute to the interest of the platform’s political economy.

In line with Tom Slee, Juliet B. Schor (2020) asserts that sharing economy platforms often emphasise convenience and accessibility. The term presents an idealistic discourse emphasising efficiency, opportunity, social connections, and environmental benefits (Schor, 2020, p. 306). However, at the same time, it conceals outdated models of exploitation in enticing and persuasive ways, as sharing practices are inherently unequal, and the perpetuation of social inequality is a reality that should not be obscured.

Connectivity and Participatory in the Age of Prosumption

It is important to note that activities and interactions in platform-based lending practices cannot be detached from the algorithmic control and mechanism of the platforms. van Dijck (2013) argues that various digital platforms do not merely facilitate individuals’ desire to connect. Nevertheless, the platforms themselves can construct and direct users’ interactions. Connecting with others is no longer based on organic human interrelationships; in the digital era, connectivity becomes increasingly directed and controlled by algorithmic systems. In the context of online lending practice, relationships and transactions are, to some extent, also determined by algorithm-based datafication and technological inscriptions. Datafication refers to the platform’s ability to identify and organise various practices carried out on digital platforms by converting them into data. Such practices will be read, recorded as data, and quantified by algorithmic systems. Datafication involves two aspects, namely, “capturing of user’s data” and “circulation data” (van Dijck et al., 2018, pp. 33–35). This means that not only are all practices recorded and organised as data, but the data can also be subsequently circulated and exchanged across digital platforms. Such data are essential resources enabling the platform to put users under surveillance. There is a new form of individual observation in the digital era, in which observation no longer requires the physical presence of the observed individuals but simply through databases. According to Savat (2013, pp. 24–25), this new form of observation is called the “preemptive form of observation.” This observation puts more emphasis on performance or what is easily observed and showcased. What is displayed will be immediately detected and collected as a database that is used to build and formulate predictions and anticipatory actions. In the digital-based lending practice, users significantly contribute to the enrichment and improvement of the lending provider’s big data throughout the process, which could potentially lead to substantial commercial gains for both the lending provider and the digital platform.

A similar logic is at play concerning the notion of participatory. The digital platform enables users to actively participate and engage in the digital realm. On this point, Christian Fuchs (2013, p. 56) asserts that the term participatory often misleads users of digital platforms, promising involvement in cultural and content creation while disregarding the platforms’ ownership and profit-focused orientation. Digital platforms are owned and managed by large corporations, which gain advantages from users’ data that is shared and exchanged when using these platforms. According to Fuchs, the term participatory is problematic because it implies users’ agency and autonomy but fails to involve them in the corporation’s decision-making process. In reference to the information economy, which involves individuals engaging in the creation of knowledge, Fuchs emphasises that hierarchical business management has been replaced by participatory management during the digital era. This type of management creates an inclusiveness and friendly teamwork atmosphere, where interaction between individuals is seen as equal. It aims to foster better collaboration and cooperation among all parties involved. The platform-based sharing economy also emphasises similar principles where digital platforms’ users are no longer seen solely as consumers, but rather, they are regarded as partners, collaborators, and prosumers.

Furthermore, users are considered digitally savvy, actively producing and consuming (prosuming) content. They actively participate, share, exchange, and borrow information. Prosumption, according to Ritzer and Jurgenson (2018, p. 18), is marked by a capitalist tendency to “put consumers to work,” which is mainly underpinned by Web 2.0 technology. They elaborate that in the age of prosumption, capitalism increasingly involves consumers engaging in the realm of production. As a result, they serve as workers or labourers, with some instances of being underpaid or not even paid.

Pauwels (2015, p. 66) marks her critical concern by arguing that prosumption has become a symbol of a “new entrepreneurial culture” in the digital era. She emphasises the idea of freedom and empowerment in prosumption, wherein individuals are placed in a favourable position to be creative and innovative. In the sharing economy, users as prosumers are enabled to participate in the culture of sharing. However, according to Pauwels (2015, p. 76), the act of sharing and collaborating occurs on a platform that also serves as a marketplace to maximise financial gain. Besides, all activities on every platform undergo datafication, thereby improving the platform’s big data as a crucial information source for the corporation. Hence, the active users of digital platforms are digital workers. In Pauwels’ view, the term digital worker differs from digital labour. She asserts that the position of labour involves a clear and tangible mechanism of exploitation. Meanwhile, in the sharing economy, workers are subjected to exploitation, albeit in a covert and inconspicuous manner. It should be noted that users willingly participate in collaborative activities and, in certain instances, gain advantages from the sharing economy.

Materials and Method

This study employed an interpretive qualitative approach, which aims to deeply understand the actual experiences and subjective meanings that informants or research participants ascribe to the phenomena under study. An interpretive study does not claim to provide objective information or generalisation; instead, it provides a contextualised understanding of how people construct their own interpretations of reality, which are intertwined with their cultural background (Flick, 1998, p. 6; Willis, 2007, p. 194). This study adopted a multi-sited ethnography method by Marcus (1995) to explore in-depth how research participants understand and experience the detailed aspects of the phenomena under investigation. As Marcus explains, ethnography has moved from a traditional single-site setting to several sites for observation and participation. Furthermore, sites are not limited to geographic spaces and can move based on relationships and mobility. Multi-sited ethnography is a valuable method for grasping the complexities of the world and the connections between individuals who move across sites during a specific time period. In the digital era, multi-sited ethnography enables the identification of multiple connections between individuals and institutions and among people through digital media in the cross-media environment. It is also helpful to identify the interconnectivity and interlink between various media. In this study, we mainly examined two different categories of sites: first, the sites where Cicil, as a lending provider, produced specific knowledge and practices concerning online lending. On this point, we focused mainly on the digital sites Cicil uses to run its online lending services for students. Second, the sites where lending users live, mobile, and experience the prosumption practices of lending services. Instead of interpreting those different sites as discrete sites, we considered the interconnectivity of those sites and the network of agents within and across those sites. Using multi-sited ethnography in this study enabled us to follow and trace the prosumption activities done by lending users, map Cicil’s activities across its digital platforms, and identify the complex connection and interaction between Cicil as the lending provider and informants as its users.

This study employed a qualitative approach centred on students as users of online lending practices. Unlike quantitative surveys, where representativeness is a central concern, this study mainly focused on five students, aiming to have an in-depth exploration of their actual experiences and the subjective meanings they attach to their engagement with online lending practices. This study involved five university students as the key informants. We recruited and selected informants from January to February 2021 through online invitations on social media with the criteria: (a) higher education students, any gender, (b) active users of lending services that have more than 1 year experience of using Cicil’s services, (c) having work experience with Cicil, either through work schemes of Student Ambassador, Inviting Friends, or Cicil Jobs. The invitation resulted in five informants who met the specified criteria and provided their written informed consent to participate in this research. However, they were identified using only their initials to safeguard their personal data. The informants were (a) Tan, female, a Student Ambassador; (b) Naf, male, a Student Ambassador who has participated in Cicil Jobs; (c) Han, female, an active user who has participated in Cicil Jobs; (d) Feb, male, and (e) Mung, male; both were active users. All five informants were digitally savvy users and understandably cannot avoid digital gadgets in their daily lives. They described themselves as coming from a middle-class background as opposed to an incredibly wealthy one. They all considered Cicil a breakthrough in online lending in Indonesia, enabling students like themselves to access lending services.

Data collection in this study was carried out first by collecting and documenting data regarding Cicil’s lending services on Cicil’s official website, social network sites (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook), and mobile application. By doing so, we aimed to map Cicil’s activities across digital media platforms to promote and persuade students as its primary target and identify how Cicil engaged with active users and participants of Cicil’s work schemes. Second, data were collected through in-depth online and offline interviews with five students as key informants. Through the interview, we aimed to delve deep into informants’ experiences and their prosumption practices of Cicil’s lending services. Our aim was also to reveal the dynamics of the relationship and interaction between the informants as the users and Cicil as the lender. Moreover, this study observed and traced informants’ activities regarding Cicil’s lending services on their social media accounts and their mobilities across digital platforms. Data collections were conducted from February to July 2021.

The collected data were analysed using thematic analysis. As described by Nowell et al. (2017, p. 2), thematic analysis is not a separate method, but something to be used to assist researchers to identify, organise, and interpret data through the recognition of themes that emerge from the dataset. In this study, we employed thematic analysis to systematically categorise and interpret key themes that reflect the informants’ perspectives and meanings related to the issues under investigation. We began by closely examining data gathered from two categories of sites, which included interviews, observations, and documented texts. Subsequently, we identified the emerging thematic patterns that arose from the collected data. This process involved determining which themes to retain, merge, separate, or discard. Additionally, we examined thematic similarities, differences, and interconnections across the two sites under study. Through this process, we were able to pinpoint the core themes that formed the basis of our findings. These core themes were subsequently interpreted and analysed in relation to the theoretical framework underpinning the study, in order to address the study objectives. It is important to note that given the rapid change in the digital landscape, the online lending practices discussed in this study may have undergone significant developments by the time it is published.

Results and Discussion

Grab It Fast! Between Rational Financial Solutions and Hyper-Consumerism

According to the students as informants in this study, Cicil offered swift and straightforward solutions to their financial difficulties. The loan instalment service provided by Cicil was a welcome relief for students who required immediate financial assistance without navigating complex bureaucratic procedures. For informants in this study, Cicil’s interest rates were considered lower than those of similar lending services. Furthermore, the company has established extensive networks and collaborations with various e-commerce platforms, marketplaces, banks, and non-financial institutions. This extensive network allowed Cicil to offer its users a wide range of possibilities and flexibilities to meet their needs and expectations. Using digital platforms gave Cicil’s users the impression that they had the freedom and autonomy to manage their loans and arrange their instalment payment plans on their own terms.

Naf, one of the research participants, repeatedly underlined Cicil’s uncomplicated requirements and simplified bureaucracy. He found the instalment simulation feature on the Cicil platform particularly helpful, as it allowed him to self-calculate his financial situation, figure out the financial solution, and arrange his loan instalment plan, including the amount of down payment he can manage and the duration of the instalment. Naf asserted that Cicil allows him to make his best lending decision (interview March 30, 2021). Han conveyed a similar thought. She felt Cicil provided immediacy, as she could apply for instalment plans anytime. She asserted, “Whenever I need it, I can immediately open the Cicil app and create my own instalment simulation. It’s so easy” (interview, April 15, 2021). Han acknowledged that the Cicil app allowed her to self-customise the down payment and instalment duration based on her situation. Cicil’s lending services were well-received by users such as Naf and Han, who found the services easily accessible and user-friendly, meeting their expectations. Additionally, Cicil’s services enabled them to independently calculate and customise the loan terms that best fit their needs, providing them with a participatory experience.

Users were encouraged to actively participate throughout Cicil’s lending process, from the planning stage to the instalment payment, as experienced by Naf and Han. Meanwhile, Cicil’s user-friendly website and mobile application enabled users to independently manage and conduct their transactions at their convenience. In the context of prosumerism, this user-friendly platform expanded the scope of freedom for Cicil’s users. It provided mechanisms that allow users to have more direct access to realising their wishes and desires. Mung, for example, shared that the ability to input everything personally on the Cicil app provides the practical advantage of being able to create plans to buy goods he desires. He asserted, “I once applied for an instalment to purchase an iPhone, but I decided to resell it because I didn’t like the model. Soon after, I applied for a new instalment to buy a different type of iPhone” (interview, April 22, 2021). Mung appeared to enjoy the freedom he experienced in exploring his desire for a particular item and arranging his financial plan with the help of Cicil’s services. The experiences of the informants in this study suggested the participatory model, as underlined by Christian Fuchs (2013). Fuchs argues that in the digital landscape, users of digital platforms are encouraged to engage with and participate actively, exercising their freedom to contribute to creating culture and content, which is enabled by the features and capabilities of digital technology. Cicil’s lending services, underpinned by user-friendly platforms, enabled informants to experience freedom and autonomy, fostering convenience and trust toward Cicil’s services.

Cicil offered a system that allows users to simulate and calculate their loan plan without requiring direct involvement from Cicil. However, users had to comply with and adhere to particular loan limits and payment margin regulations. These company’s policies were viewed as standard practices and considered “normal” by users. Informants like Naf (interview March 30, 2021) and Tan (interview May 2, 2021) shared that they were accustomed to Cicil’s lending policies.

Cicil determines the payment margin. It depends on the amount of down payment and the loan duration we set in our application. We don’t know the specific details of how Cicil works on it; we just accept and follow it. That’s fine. It is part of Cicil’s rules, I think. (Naf, interview March 30, 2021).

Cicil rules the loan limits; we can’t exceed it. As far as I know, the loan limits are set based on users’ reputation. But that’s normal, right? Other lending companies also set the same rule (Tan, interview May 2, 2021)

Both Naf and Tan appeared to normalise the existing policies and emphasise more on the so-called easy and uncomplicated lending process. Embracing students as “friends,” providing them with undemanding requirements, and allowing them to self-arrange their loan instalments were parts of an integrative strategy that has generated a positive image of Cicil’s lending system. Such an integrative strategy was also demonstrated through Cicil’s promotional posts on social media and information on the website. For example, in its Instagram and Facebook posts, Cicil used the terms “Sobat Cicil” [Cicil’s Buddies] (Cicil, 2021a) and “Bestie” [Best Friend] (Cicil, 2021b) to address and connect with students. These language choices suggested Cicil’s intent to establish a sense of camaraderie and egalitarianism between Cicil as the lending provider and the students as users, creating an impression of a mutually beneficial and collaborative relationship. Given the proliferation of illegal online lending practices in Indonesia, such an integrative approach and positive image were crucial for Cicil’s business. Illegal practices frequently target people in desperate financial situations and burden them with exorbitant interest rates. Such practices intimidate and terrorise users when they are unable to make payments within the due date.

Prior to the digital age, similar lending practices were widely known in Indonesia as informal moneylending (Nugroho, 2001). This informal moneylending mainly targeted lower-class individuals who lacked access to formal moneylending provided by banks or credit institutions due to complex requirements. Like illegal online lending practices, most informal moneylending was unregistered and, therefore, lacked legal protection standards, especially for users. In many cases, moneylenders maintained users’ dependence on them, trapping them in a debt cycle and leading to “interest bondage” (Nugroho, 2001, p. 14). This situation has fostered a stereotype of moneylending in Indonesia as an exploitative and arduous practice, a perception that persists even in formal moneylending. Unsurprisingly, having a loan was generally viewed as hostile, shameful, and taboo in Indonesia. Borrowing money was considered an obvious sign of financial impoverishment and a degradation of social status. Consequently, lending practices were often conducted discreetly and hidden from others, especially extended family members and neighbours, to avoid gossip and judgement.

The parental generation of Cicil’s users still held this negative perception of moneylending as an exploitative and shameful practice. Informants in this study admitted that they concealed their use of Cicil’s services from their parents. Naf, for example, never disclosed to his mother that he was a Cicil’s user, as he knew she felt ashamed when the family took out loans (interview, March 30, 2021). However, for students like Naf and some other informants in this study, the lending practice was not a taboo but rather a swift, uncomplicated, and rational solution to their financial challenges. If needed, they even willingly recommended and encouraged their peers to utilise Cicil’s services. Feb and Han shared,

I prefer to be in debt rather than saving money. It’s just harder for me to stick to a savings plan, so I tend to opt for being in debt instead. I don’t feel any shame or embarrassment about it. I’m upfront about my debt with friends of mine, but I prefer not to share it with my parents. This is to avoid conflicts, as my parents see taking out loans as something to be embarrassed about, especially if other people find out (Feb, interview April 21, 2021).

I suggest to my friends that they consider getting a loan instalment. Why not? It’s a simple and quick way to get what you need, especially if you don’t have enough cash on hand. I personally found this helpful when I urgently needed a printer but didn’t have the full amount saved up. The loan instalment option was the perfect solution for me in that situation (Han, interview April 15, 2021).

Feb and Han’s statements appeared to challenge the prevailing stereotype of lending practices in Indonesia. The negative impression of being in debt as a sign of social status decline or financial hardship was no longer a concern for students like Feb and Han. Instead, a loan became a quick and logical solution, mainly when they lacked available cash. At the same time, the image of moneylending as an exploitative practice was obscured by the integrative approach adopted by Cicil. As a result, Cicil’s lending services tended to receive positive acceptance from students, such as informants in this study.

Interestingly, despite Cicil’s tagline of being a “trusted solution for education loans,” the company actively encouraged its users to utilise the service of Instalments for Goods rather than Instalments for Tuition Fees or Educational Courses. This could be seen from the personalised promotions sent directly to Cicil’s users via their mobile app, email, and social media accounts such as Instagram and Facebook, wherein the company tended to highlight and persuade users to pursue their consumptive desires. It showed that Cicil’s lending services encouraged students to engage in a consumptive lifestyle, even when they lacked the necessary funds. While Cicil claimed its programmes aimed to support students in addressing financial challenges during their academic pursuits, these issues were often more closely linked to their desires to acquire material goods for their lifestyle than to their studies. Cicil’s users were convinced that satisfying their immediate desires for goods was crucial, regardless of their inability to afford them. Tan mentioned that she constantly received notifications from Cicil’s mobile app regarding promotional programmes, typically advertising discounts on specific products such as laptops, smartphones, or fashion items. She shared, “A while back, I looked for a new laptop and simulated an instalment plan on Cicil’s app, but ultimately didn’t go through with the purchase. Even though I didn’t complete the transaction, Cicil continued to send me personalised promotions for laptops through the app and via email. It was like they were trying to reel me back in” (interview, May 2, 2021).

Similarly, Naf admitted that he was promoted to purchase a raincoat when caught in the rain at a certain location. Naf suggested that Cicil’s system, potentially utilising GPS tracking, could detect his need for a raincoat in that particular situation (interview March 30, 2021). Tan and Naf’s experiences exemplified the phenomenon of datafication, which was emphasised by the work of van Dijck et al. (2018, pp. 33–35). They argue that every activity performed on digital platforms undergoes a process of datafication. Likewise, the lending practices conducted on the digital platforms operated by Cicil are also transformed into data, which then become essential resources that enable Cicil to identify and monitor the actions and preferences of its users. All lending activities carried out by the users are recorded and quantified through an algorithmic system. Supported by algorithmic data analysis, Cicil could engage in what Savat (2013, pp. 24–25) calls a “preemptive form of observation.” As Savat explains, the detected and collected data from activities on digital platforms can be used to predict and influence individuals’ actions. The database contains personal information, including individuals’ preferences, choices, and expectations, which are analysed by an algorithmic system. In like manner, Cicil could profile its users and identify their purchasing preferences, enabling it to formulate well-suited promotional messages for each user, as experienced by Tan and Naf. Drawing on Schor’s idea (2020, p. 71), the experiences of Tan and Naf suggested “algorithmic despotism,” which refers to the mechanism of control and surveillance employed by digital platforms. In the case of Cicil, it appeared that Cicil observed and controlled its users without them realising it, enabling it to take preemptive actions towards them.

All five informants in this study admitted that they utilised the Instalments for Goods service rather than taking out loans to cover tuition fees, as their parents or scholarship providers already provided their tuition. Participant Mung, for instance, preferred the Instalments for Goods service instead of saving money when he wanted to purchase items he could not readily afford. As Mung noted, “Saving money is one way, but it takes time. By then, the goods may have already been sold out or become outdated. So the Instalments for Goods service is the perfect solution” (Mung, interview April 22, 2021). Han similarly expressed the need to use Cicil’s Instalments for Goods to upgrade her personal belongings, such as mobile phones or fashion items. She said, “I don’t want to feel like I’m missing out or falling behind my friends. I want to keep up with the latest trends that my friends are into” (interview, April 15, 2021). It showed that Cicil’s assistance enabled students, as users, to engage in this hyper-consumerist behaviour despite lacking adequate financial resources. As Ritzer and Miles (2019) note, hyper-consumption is the process in which consumption of non-essential goods increases, prompting consumers to choose what they do not need or want. Some informants in this study revealed they could not afford their desired items. However, they pushed themselves to fulfil the consumptive desire by taking a loan out of prestige instead of urgent needs. Feb, for example, mentioned that he once craved the latest Nike running shoes but had limited cash. “I wanted to grab it fast, so I applied for Cicil’s instalment” (Feb, interview April 20, 2021). “Grab it fast” became a coordinated credo that combined students’ desire for hyper-consumerism and Cicil’s desire for profit through lending. In hyper-consumerism, individuals, as consumers, are accustomed to adapting to their expectations (Schulz, 2007). They tend to revise and raise their consumption standards constantly. Students as consumers and users of lending services in this study also demonstrated likewise, conceiving and embracing the “must have” standard of consumption despite the lack of money.

In compliance with it, individuals with limited financial means were seemingly not allowed to be excluded from participating in the market economy. Cicil facilitated and enabled students with limited cash to enter and participate in market transactions. Limited cash was no longer an obstacle that mainly prevented them from participating in consumptive activities. As Schor (2006) asserts, loans have become one of the driving factors of the market economy. This condition is also marked by loan-driven consumption, where people tend to purchase goods that are beyond their reach. They are tempted to emulate the lifestyles and consumptive habits of those who reside at the higher social class ranks. Similarly, Cicil’s users, like the informants in this study, were constantly persuaded to pursue prestige by consuming higher-class products. They were even lured to follow a higher-class lifestyle by purchasing second-hand products with instalment payments offered by Cicil, as seen, for example, in a promotional message for second-hand iPhones posted on Cicil’s Instagram (Cicil, 2021c). Students, as Cicil’s targeted users, may not have the financial resources to purchase such items outright. However, this challenge can be addressed through the instalment plans offered by Cicil. Loans appeared to be the most feasible solution to gaining higher social status. Cicil, as a loan provider, played a crucial part in facilitating students’ entrance into the market economy and releasing their desire to engage in hyper-consumerism.

Overworked yet Contented: Entrepreneurial Self and Pseudo-Liberation within Prosumerism

In the framework of prosumerism, students, as users of lending services, were not merely consumers of Cicil’s lending services but actively engaged and contributed to the production aspect. Cicil provided them access and opportunities to actively participate as “partners” through various work schemes, such as the Student Ambassador program, Inviting Friends, and Cicil Jobs.

Cicil’s Student Ambassador program recruited active users to serve as representatives, promoting the company’s lending services, and attracting new users. To be eligible as a Student Ambassador, individuals must be active users of Cicil’s lending services. According to informants in this study, since active users are already familiar with Cicil’s lending operations, extensive training is not required. However, Student Ambassador applicants must participate in Cicil Academy, where they receive basic entrepreneurship training from the company. Being an entrepreneurial self is one of the benefits that Cicil constantly highlights. In the digital technology setting, entrepreneurship is often employed to encourage creativity and innovation amidst evolving business strategies and shifting working circumstances (Chua, 2018; Huberman, 2022; Williams et al., 2021). The digital economy offers the idea that everyone can be an entrepreneurial self, working for oneself, being their own boss, and daring to take advantage of the changing conditions. An entrepreneur is praised for being liberated, independent, and creative.

Likewise, while inducing users to actively engage in hyperconsumption through lending practices, Cicil also encouraged them to become more autonomous and independent individuals, particularly in their relationships with their parents and peers. Cicil showed that the company was committed to helping users reduce their reliance on parental support. This was achieved by facilitating independent purchasing of goods and providing opportunities for users to earn financial gains through Cicil’s work schemes. This approach ultimately led to users becoming more voluntarily involved in the cycle of hyperconsumerism, facilitated by Cicil’s lending practices. Drawing on Chua’s frame of mind (2018, p. 2) Cicil’s approach has generated the so-called “fantasy of entrepreneurship,” where the concept of individual agency and creative activity contributes to a sense of precarity. The temptation to perpetually engage in Cicil’s lending practice to maintain a consumerist lifestyle becomes concealed or obscured by the rational argument of becoming an independent and innovative entrepreneurial self. Accordingly, participants in this study highlighted the positive perception of working with Cicil. As Student Ambassadors, Naf and Tan described the job as carefree and undemanding, allowing them the freedom and opportunity to determine their own ways of managing the role.

Working with Cicil is quite easy-going; they don’t impose any strict targets on us. We’re free to manage our own workload. If you’d like to earn more, you’ll need to put in extra effort to find new users. But if not, that’s perfectly fine too. Cicil won’t mind either way. It’s really up to each of us to decide how much we want to put in (Naf, interview March 30, 2021)

Being a Student Ambassador for Cicil is quite flexible and not too demanding. I find it to be an enjoyable job because there are no specific targets we have to meet. Cicil simply encourages us to actively promote their services using our social media accounts, but it’s not an absolute requirement. There are no set goals, like getting a certain number of new users within a particular timeframe. It’s not like that at all. Posting about Cicil on our social media just helps drive more online traffic so that more people can learn about Cicil’s programs” (Tan, interview May 2, 2021).

The statements from Naf and Tan indicated how the “fantasy of entrepreneurship,” as conceptualised by Chua (2018, p. 2), operated. Naf and Tan felt a sense of freedom as employees because Cicil allowed them to be creative in managing their own workload and deciding for themselves how much they wanted to earn. They even explicitly stated that they liked pressure-free work mechanisms as performed by Cicil. This working approach generated the impression of a non-hierarchical relationship between the employer and the employee.

According to Christian Fuchs (2008, p. 149), in the context of an internet-based economy, the asymmetrical relationships between superiors and subordinates are becoming less prevalent. Hierarchical management of work has been replaced by partnership and integrative collaboration. In this sense, employees see themselves more as partners rather than subordinates. They are given the freedom to act and determine how they will carry out their tasks. Supervision and direct control have become obsolete or outdated and have been replaced by a new mode of working that appears to be liberating and empowering. Aligning with Fuchs’ perspective, the term “collaborative” has been accentuated within the sharing economy, emphasising the principle of flattening hierarchical structures and positioning each individual as if they are equal, fostering a sense of proximity and camaraderie (Pauwels, 2015; Schor, 2020). Cicil’s working mechanism appeared to apply this principle, which embraced and positioned Student Ambassadors like Naf and Tan in a collaborative work environment, obscuring the hierarchical structure between employer and employee.

The fact that Student Ambassadors earned no regular monthly payments and social security benefits from Cicil was unquestionably accepted. According to Naf and Tan, they were only paid when they brought new users to Cicil. The more new users they obtained, the more financial compensation they received. In their experiences, for each new user, they could earn approximately 5% of the new user’s ongoing monthly instalment. This monetary compensation could be accumulated and received monthly until the new user’s instalment was complete. Other than that, Cicil has enlisted Student Ambassadors to promote its services through their social media channels. Two Student Ambassadors as informants in this study admitted that they created their promotional content or repurposed Cicil’s existing social media materials, which they then shared on their social media accounts like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook. Even though Cicil only suggested, not compelled to do it, Tan and Naf voluntarily created and posted their own social media content to promote Cicil’s services. While there was no additional financial compensation from Cicil for this work, the ambassadors were motivated to participate as it could lead to them receiving financial rewards through increased user acquisition. Through their prosumption practices, the ambassadors unknowingly ended up being employed as members of Cicil’s marketing troops.

The work scheme of Inviting Friends employed a similar logic. In the Inviting Friends scheme, active users and fellow students as prospective users were encouraged to cooperate and reap mutual benefits from using referral codes. Only active users who had finished their instalments could obtain the code. By using the code in their registration, new users could get a down payment voucher, which could be redeemed on their first transaction with Cicil. As for the owners of the referral code, Cicil compensated them with a voucher per new user, which could be redeemed to deduct the amount of their ongoing instalment. The more fellow students they invited, the more vouchers they got. However, the voucher could not be cashed out. It was only utilised to deduct instalment payments. The problem was that the accumulation of vouchers was not applied. The owner of a referral code could only redeem one voucher for one instalment program. That means, to redeem all vouchers they get from the scheme of Inviting Friends and get benefits from it, users need to make more instalments from Cicil. In other words, they had no choice but to repeatedly use Cicil’s lending services.

While fostering active and prospective users to cooperate under “friends” banner, Cicil encouraged active users to engage in free competition to attract fellow students and share their referral codes. As informants Mung and Feb admitted, they used their social media accounts to attract and invite new users to use the referral code. They created their self-generated content to persuade their peers to utilise Cicil’s lending services and take advantage of their referral codes. They actively compete with one another to attract and acquire new users. Their actions were akin to those of Naf and Tan in their roles as Student Ambassadors. Mung and Feb were also involved in the co-production and co-creation aspects of the marketing efforts, even if they did not fully realise their participation.

Aligning with these facts, Fuchs (2013) problematises the term “participatory,” which has been widely used to describe the nature of work in the digital landscape. In his view, the term implies that users have agency and autonomy to actively participate in digital works. Still, it fails to acknowledge their involvement in the decision-making process of the corporations that own and operate these digital platforms. While the term “participatory” suggests inclusivity, teamwork, and cooperation, it overlooks the fact that these platforms are primarily profit-oriented, with their owners benefiting from the content and culture created by the users. This creates an illusion of user involvement and empowerment while the actual power and decision-making remain firmly in the hands of the corporations. Ritzer and Jurgenson (2018) highlighted the same concern that through prosumption activities, consumers are put to work and employed as underpaid and overworked digital workers.

In the case of Cicil’s work schemes, the company leveraged students, as its main users, as business front-liners responsible for promotion and new user recruitment. This fact marked a contradiction in the underlying principles of the sharing economy, as asserted by Tom Slee (2015) and Juliet B. Schor (2020). Schor (2020, p. 306) particularly argues that the sharing economy actually perpetuates “old-school models of exploitation” despite its claims of fostering more equitable and collaborative economic arrangements. Prosumerism, which seemingly assures freedom and choice, has induced users into an exploitative working relationship. Beneath the terms “sharing” and “collaborative,” Cicil seemed to benefit more from the students as users. The Student Ambassador program, as experienced by Naf and Tan, did provide them with payment for bringing in new users. Still, the reward did not appear to be proportionate to the tasks of business front-liners. Cicil compensated the Student Ambassadors more with knowledge, experience, and opportunities for self-development rather than financial income. These non-monetary rewards were seen as surplus value for the students, which was claimed to potentially strengthen their entrepreneurial capabilities in the future.

The term “working with Cicil” instead of “working for Cicil” was also constantly circulated on Cicil’s official website and social media accounts. This action, once again, seemed to generate the impression of a non-hierarchical relationship between employer and employee (Fisher, 2015; Fuchs, 2008). Positioning students as “business partners” in collaborative works was also evident in the Cicil Jobs and Inviting Friends. In the scheme of Cicil Jobs, in the guise of helping users solve their bad credits, Cicil lent a hand in finding a part-time job. In doing so, Cicil collaborated with its partners to provide opportunities for part-time employment vacancies. The salary was not given directly to the users; instead, it was transferred from the employer to Cicil to cover the user’s ongoing instalment. Han, for example, shared her experience participating in Cicil Job when she faced a challenging situation with her instalment. She said,

There was a time when I was really in a tough spot and couldn’t keep up with the payments. But then I heard about Cicil Job. I took the chance to work part-time for one of Cicil’s partner companies. The work itself wasn’t too hard, but the schedule was pretty hectic, I have to admit. I didn’t receive the money myself; they directly handed my earnings to Cicil. The cool thing was I could use the earnings to pay off my instalments. It was a big relief, you know? (Han, interview, April 15, 2021).

Cicil consistently promoted the Cicil Jobs scheme across its digital platforms, including testimonials from previous beneficiaries. These testimonials highlighted the salary amounts, work experience gained, and Cicil’s support in overcoming users’ poor credit histories. By implementing this scheme, Cicil appeared to ensure that users’ credit issues could be resolved, as unaddressed credit problems could potentially cause difficulties for Cicil’s business operations. In this regard, not only did Cicil provide solutions to users’ financial challenges through loan offerings, but it also offered additional support if users subsequently encountered problems with repaying their loans.

Users appeared to fail to recognise the underlying Cicil’s business interests. Instead, they felt supported by Cicil’s services. This observation highlighted the disadvantages of the sharing economy, as pointed out by Slee (2015), who asserts that supporting powerless people—like those with bad credit—is well-highlighted in the sharing economy, although the practice of sharing actually benefits those with significant capital. In operating its services, Cicil effectively utilised the aspect of affect ensuring that students, both as users and workers, felt included and treated with empathy. On this point, Cicil attempted to break the prevailing stereotype of lending practice as exploitative, demanding, and gruelling practice. As Cicil’s workers, students willingly undertook layered work without feeling used and tricked. As Pauwels (2015) argues, in the sharing economy, working relationships are built upon affect and emotional involvement. Corporations like Cicil could conceal the reality of hierarchy and subordination in a workplace by underlining the sense of freedom and liberation, despite the potential for being illusory. As Schor (2020) asserts, flexibility, freedom, and convenience as buzzwords in the sharing economy are deceitful and used to obscure exploitative relationships. Beneath the term ‘sharing,’ Cicil could gain more benefits and advantages from the students as users.

Digital platforms, which underpin the sharing economy and facilitate prosumerism, have obfuscated exploitation and work pressure within capitalist working relationships. In the context of Cicil, it embraced users as digital workers with an integrative type of domination, while simultaneously encouraging users to utilise its lending services continuously. According to Fuchs (2008, p. 344), integrative domination is a form of domination characterised by hidden hierarchical, centralised, and asymmetrical relationships. Integrative domination emphasises inclusivity by promoting participation and cooperation. The engaged parties are embraced and integrated into a working system that looks to be non-hierarchical. Likewise, students as Cicil’s users appeared to enjoy the embracing nature of Cicil’s work system despite experiencing overworked and inadequate compensation. Moreover, cooperation has emerged as a popular term that enhances the increasing rivalry and free competition among students as Cicil’s workers. The antagonism of cooperation and competition was evident in the prosumption practice of Cicil’s online lending services. By utilising Cicil’s lending services, users were convinced to become liberated and independent before their parents and fellow students. Through Cicil’s Student Ambassador, Cicil Job, or Inviting Friend programmes, students were motivated to ‘work for’ Cicil in the guise of ‘work with’ Cicil, generating the impression of collaborative work, sharing, and partnership. They were also persistently urged to continue consuming Cicil’s lending services. Under the guise of promoting a new empowering entrepreneurial culture, Cicil continuously led students into a cycle of loan-driven hyperconsumption.

Conclusion

This study unveiled that lending services for students in the digital era presented a semblance of liberation but ultimately resulted in individuals becoming trapped in hyper-consumerism. Cicil, as an online lending provider in Indonesia, has embraced higher education students as its primary target for participating in loan prosumerism. In the digital era, availing of a loan through online lending services like Cicil was no longer considered taboo or disgraceful, challenging the long-held perceptions about moneylending in Indonesia. Online lending services offered flexible and convenient options that gave users a sense of freedom and autonomy to self-customise their instalment plans. In the guise of helping students solve their financial problems and providing opportunities to be future entrepreneurial selves, Cicil tended to steer them toward the cycle of loan-driven consumption. Cicil provided loans as a swift and rational solution to satisfy students’ consumptive desires. Through prosumption practices, students were allured to rationalise their financial challenges and create rational solutions while pursuing hyper-consumption and lifestyles beyond their financial capacity.

In addition to encouraging students to use Cicil’s lending services, Cicil recruited and incorporated them into the realm of production, treating them as “work partners” in collaborative works. Online lending users were prompted to be an entrepreneurial self, which refers to an innovative, liberated, and accomplished individual amidst the evolving work landscape of the digital age. An entrepreneurial self became an alluring subject position that overshadowed the fact of precarity. In operating its lending practices, Cicil deployed an integrative strategy and participatory management to obscure the practice of domination. Moreover, Cicil allowed students to generate income and facilitated them to enter into the market economy, ultimately transforming them into active participants in consumption activities.

This study primarily focused on students’ prosumption of online lending services without considering gender as a factor and did not delve deeper into macro aspects such as government policies regarding fintech, campus loans, and students’ credit protection in Indonesia. It is highly recommended that future research could delve deeper into the users’ prosumption of online lending services, with a specific emphasis on gender-related issues and examine macro aspects of online lending practices and relevant regulations regarding student loan. Additionally, it would be intriguing to investigate Indonesia’s digital lending practices in comparison to other countries, exploring how the distinct social, political, and cultural contexts might influence these practices.