Companies increasingly hail eCommerce as an invisible shopping mall consuming global commerce. Everyone is rushing to build better, wider, and more prominent e-entryways into the online bonanza. An i-idea receiving a lot of press this present season is “social shopping”.

“Social shopping” (e.g. ThisNext.com, Wists.com, etc.) combines social networks with online shopping in order to build trustworthy consumer spaces in which to launch new products and evaluate current products and services. While these sites might i-inspire real purchases (via online recommendations), virtual shopping is not yet incredibly competitive with online shopping for many tangible items.

Shoppers go online to browse possible purchases but many prefer to buy in the real world. There is still not enough social capital or trust invested in general online product purchase. Time will increase online traffic to social shopping sites for the stuff that can’t be found at the (geographically) local shopping centre, but current eCommerce is more essential elsewhere—in online fields that will carry increasing importance as Internet shopping expands.

Much eCommerce is “i^3”, that is, “international, Internet, or intangible”. International purchases include vacation plans or holiday rentals and transportation. Internet services such as broadband or wifi make up the second i-product category. Intangible purchases include “products” like music, car insurance, or credit cards. These “i-products” make up the fastest-growing online markets, and the companies that cater to them have heavily-trafficked e-Entries. A member of the third category, the “intangible” credit options available to consumers, will be of huge importance in the coming consumer era online.

The concerns that these credit eVendors must address will influence the future of eCommerce. Means of e-payment and means of monitoring e-payment are major consumer concerns. PayPal, the exclusive online payment service currently owned by eBay, is experiencing legal frustrations that will no doubt create precedents, both legal and social, by which to judge future online payment services. Credit cards are competing for compatibility and recognition online by both e-consumers and e-vendors. Consumers online are evaluating their payment options for usability, reliability, and privacy and security. The payment services that are best able to guarantee (and make e-visible) their eCommerce competence in these fields will win a current and future online consumer base.

Social Buzz about different credit cards is already incriminating companies that may not necessarily deserve it. The TJX scandal is not the fault of Visa or Mastercard, yet analysis online demonstrates that a lot of Blog Buzz links the two cards to “identity theft” as a result. (Ironically, this breach was not even connected to shopping online, but to the mere existence of electronic consumer data.) Such Buzz-worthy scandals also play into the growing concern with consumer debt as the dollar dives and the global economy experiences a growing amount of apprehension over future energy costs. Whether or not credit companies are directly involved in these concerns, Buzz analysis suggests that they make useful scapegoats.

Credit companies need to be aware of and involved in this discussion online. Companies need to demonstrate that a faulty economy is bad for credit lenders as much as borrowers. Credit cards need to construct a form of e-trust between consumer and card in order to climb out of the current crisis and into the digital future of commerce. Consumers are anxious to participate in the online market, but anxiety is not an emotion that should be connected to method of payment. Credit cards are necessary in the current consumer client; cards need not be a necessary evil.

The Music Industry isn’t listening, and it’s costing them

The music industry is fuelling a war. And the music industry is losing the war. The war will be lost because, thus far, the industry has concentrated on battle strategy rather than address the actual conflict. In order to survive and even flourish in the new technological terrain, the music industry need not surrender—it can call a truce and reunite with the community of online consumers.

Thus far, the music industry has used expensive technology and increasingly costly (and decreasingly effective) legislation to create (or force) “treaties” with listeners. Treaties unfortunately, are finite. Treaties become obsolete as soon as conditions change, such as the arrival of a new form of music or musical interface. Listeners resent the controls and the “tyrannical” punishments meted out by industry executives in response to online innovation. Sites wage digital warfare on industry alternatives, hacking into systems to “liberate” musical content. Fans listen for free. Covert artists online “re-innovate” (e.g. mash-up) musical content and post it like popular graffiti scattered across the net.

This doesn’t ‘feel” wrong to thousands of online listeners. Before online p2p and legally vague file sharing sites, listeners complain that they bought cds for one or two songs. This waste of money enriched industry execs, according to consumers, and now thousands view downloads as payback against once greedy and exacting industry dictators.

Believe it or not, listener pro-activity can be good for the industry, if not so great for the artist (who must now produce a CD worthy of the full purchase price). Online radio sites already offer options encouraging listeners to customize personal channels. If a listener hears a song that they like, the name of the artist and the music is available at the click of the mouse, along with recommendations from like-minded listeners online. In the tradition of sites like Muzak and Amazon, samples, second opinions, and references are expected rather than requested. Just as Todd Storz capitalised on the concept of Top 40 radio in the 1950s, the industry can now tailor CDs and downloads to an audience. As for the online auditory graffiti, the industry risks isolating and infuriating potential investments—making guerilla rebels out of possible patriots. If indeed the industry has the capacity to make the content available without legal repercussions, why not fortify the arsenals of musically minded talent and see which re-innovators produce content worth promoting?

Buzz is essential in reaching out and re-involving listeners. Instead of engaging in protracted conflict, the music industry needs to begin re-constructing its community online. The industry needs to monitor the Buzz surrounding sound in order to attract the social capital that will create and evolve online investment. Listeners want new content mixed with personal favourites. Listeners want affordable music (in compatible formats) that is worth every cent. Listeners want to participate in crafting and evolving new music. Most importantly, listeners know what they want and what they like and they are it online. Currently, the only people not listening are members of the musical industry, and this is costing them the creative (and lucrative) future of the musical community.