Filling in the Gaps: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Purchase Groups as Interstitial Markets

Illinois State University Illinois State University

ISU ReD: Research and eData ISU ReD: Research and eData

Faculty Publications – Marketing Marketing

5-2024

Filling in the Gaps: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Purchase Filling in the Gaps: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Purchase

Groups as Interstitial Markets Groups as Interstitial Markets

Aditya Gupta

Illinois State University

, [email protected]

Sheila Roy

S.P. Jain Institute of Management and Research

Renuka Kamath

S.P. Jain Institute of Management and Research

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/fpmkt

Part of the Marketing Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Gupta, Aditya; Roy, Sheila; and Kamath, Renuka, "Filling in the Gaps: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on

Purchase Groups as Interstitial Markets" (2024).

Faculty Publications – Marketing

. 2.

https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/fpmkt/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marketing at ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has

been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications – Marketing by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD:

Research and eData. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Filling in the Gaps: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Purchase Groups as

Interstitial Markets

Abstract

Purpose

Given the continuing need to study service marketing adaptations that emerged in the wake of

Covid-19, this paper looks at the formation and evolution of purchase groups (PGs) that arose in

Indian gated communities during the pandemic and have continued functioning in the post-

pandemic marketplace. Not only did these groups act as much-needed interstitial markets during

a time of significant external disruption, but they also served as sites of value co-creation with

consumers collaborating with each other and with service providers.

Methodology

Using a phenomenological research approach, we conduct 22 in-depth interviews with Indian

consumers and small service providers (SSPs) to gather accounts of how PGs started and evolved

with time. Subsequent data coding and analyses are conducted with NVivo 12.

Findings

Using the service ecosystem perspective, we illustrate seven distinct themes that capture the

nuances of the formation and evolution of PGs. These consist of entrepreneurality, collectivity,

and fluidity at the service ecosystem level, hybridity and transactionality at the servicescape level,

and mutuality and permeability at the service encounter level.

Originality

Our study provides an empirical and theoretically grounded account of a long-term service

marketing adaptation that has persisted in the post-pandemic marketplace. This helps us address

recent calls for such research while also adding to work on value co-creation in collective

consumption contexts and extant discourse on service ecosystems.

Keywords: Service Ecosystem, Service Encounter, Servicescape, Qualitative Research,

Interviews

Paper Type: Research Paper

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published in Journal of Services Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2023-0302

1. Introduction

Such was the scale of upheaval caused by Covid-19 worldwide that the term Service Mega-

Disruption (SMD) was coined to capture the “unforeseen service market disturbances caused by

the pandemic” (Kabadayi, O’Connor, and Tuzovic, 2020, p. 810). Recognizing the potential

ripple effects on service marketing everywhere, several scholars issued urgent calls for research

on how the pandemic was going to impact different facets of service provision and consumption

(Kabadayi et al. 2020; Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett 2020; Sheth 2020). Indeed, there

continues to be a need to assess longer-term changes within service provision and consumption

brought on by the pandemic. As Verhoef, Noordhoff, and Sloot (2023, p. 276) advocate, “the

question of how persistent these changes [brought in the wake of the pandemic] will be” should

be an important concern for service marketing scholars and practitioners alike.

In that regard, three notable gaps continue to exist within extant literature. The first is the

relative paucity of work looking at long-term changes in service contexts due to the pandemic.

While scholars have studied immediate consumer responses to the pandemic, such as hoarding,

panic buying, or switching to online shopping (Ahmadi et al., 2021; Guthrie, Fosso-Wamba, and

Arnaud, 2021; Islam et al., 2021; Laato et al., 2020), the longer-term picture barring a few

exceptions (e.g., Dahl, Peltier, and Swan, 2023; Pichierri and Petruzzellis, 2022) is limited.

Second, hardly any work provides a narrative understanding of service marketing adaptations

made during the pandemic. Other than very few exceptions (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2021; Rattan et

al., 2021), most work has focused on providing a cross-sectional snapshot of the pandemic’s

impact on a particular aspect of service provision or consumption at a certain point in time.

Third, extant work has focused either only on service providers or only on consumers when

studying their response to the pandemic. While this has resulted in useful insights on how value

was co-created by marketers working together (Fuschillo and D’Antone 2023; Ratten et al.

2021), not much has been written about service contexts wherein value was co-created by

consumers working with each other and with service providers.

We contend these gaps represent crucial opportunities to capture the impact of a service

mega-disruption on service providers and consumers alike. We also believe that undertaking an

empirical investigation to trace the trajectory of a service marketing adaptation can help address

these gaps. Doing so not only addresses the calls for research mentioned earlier, but also adds to

the growing body of work on service marketing adaptations that have continued in the post-

pandemic marketplace. To that end, we undertake a phenomenological study of one such

adaptation by exploring the formation and evolution of purchase groups (PGs) among Indian

gated community residents.

While gated communities exist in various forms across the world (Blakely and Snyder,

1997; Grant and Mittelstaedt, 2004), the term “gated community” in India is used to describe

residential clusters of high-rise apartments characterized by controlled access, walled boundaries,

and guarded entrances (Jha, 2022). While they initially arose as protected enclaves for the ultra-

wealthy, gated communities exploded in mainstream popularity in India within the last decade

due to greater security, sense of community, range of amenities, and general ease of living they

provide (Patil, 2023; Verghese, 2021). Estimates suggest that nearly 16 million households in the

largest 50 cities in India (representing a third of the household population) currently live in such

gated communities. This number is expected to double by the year 2031, eventually comprising

nearly half the household population in these cities (Gutgutia, 2021). As they are poised to

account for nearly $500 billion in spending power (Bhattacharya, 2022), residents of such gated

communities comprise an important consumer segment within the Indian market landscape.

Thus, studying a service marketing adaptation that impacted many such residents can provide

useful insights on their service consumption patterns.

When the Indian government mandated widespread store closures and citywide curfews

at the start of the pandemic, these restrictions severely limited consumers’ ability to go outside

their gated communities (Jha, 2021; Roy and Kamath, 2020). Given how stores are not permitted

to operate within the confines of such communities, gated community residents in some of the

largest cities in India (e.g., Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, and New Delhi) lost access to regular

market channels. It was in response to this critical gap that PGs emerged to re-establish access to

household essentials for consumers.

Each PG started out with an initial group of consumers agreeing to buy products (with at

least some regularity) from a small service provider (SSP). SSPs were marketers who operated

either on their own or with a very small group of helpers to provide a limited set of products.

Given this small scale of operations, most SSPs would focus on offering products from only one

or two broad categories (e.g., fruits, vegetables, sweets, cooked food, etc.) rather than

maintaining extensive portfolios. Almost all communication within a PG was conducted over

WhatsApp (a messaging application widely used in India). Given that WhatsApp allows users to

form easily joinable groups, consumer membership of PGs would often grow rapidly as word

spread among gated community residents. Indeed, most PGs comprised more than 100

consumers, with some even going up to 300 or 400. Consequently, we posit that PGs effectively

formed interstitial markets - sites for service provision and consumption that emerged in the

interstices or gaps between established market channels that became more apparent when access

to those channels was curtailed. To that end, our research focuses on two key questions:

RQ1: How did PGs arise as interstitial markets in response to service market gaps?

RQ2: What were the key features facilitating their formation and evolution?

Given how PGs involve interdependent actors working together to integrate resources

against a rapidly evolving background of significant external disruption, we adopt the service

ecosystem perspective (Akaka and Vargo, 2015; Lusch and Vargo, 2014) to structure our

findings. Doing so allows us to look at emergent themes across three different levels - the service

encounter, the servicescape, and the service ecosystem.

Our research makes four contributions to service marketing literature. First, as several

PGs continue to operate successfully, we add to extant work by providing a narrative account of

a long-term service marketing adaptation that has persisted in the post–pandemic marketplace

(Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett, 2020; Verhoef et al., 2023). Second, as PGs entail a high

degree of coordination between consumers and SSPs and between consumers themselves, they

provide an avenue to build on existing work on value co-creation in collective consumption

contexts (Kelleher et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2014). Our findings highlight how such value co-

creation can emerge in the wake of an unforeseen crisis and how it can benefit both consumers

and service providers. Third, we contribute to work that takes a service ecosystem perspective to

explore the interplay between actors, institutional arrangements, and processes (Chandler et al.,

2019; Vargo et al., 2015). Finally, we add to extant literature looking at service marketing in

emerging markets (Sheth, 2011). With this, we now provide a quick overview of how PGs

emerged in response to Covid-19 to familiarize readers with our research context.

2. Research Context

2.1 The Impact of Covid-19 on Gated Community Consumers

Consumers in India typically rely on two channels for daily essentials like groceries and

consumer packaged goods: the largely unorganized General Trade (GT) sector and the more

structured Modern Trade (MT) sector (Appendix A). Along with these, a third channel operates

in several Indian cities that comprises small service providers (SSPs). SSPs operate

independently, usually out of their own homes, with relatively small capital investments. As

noted earlier, they tend to specialize in procuring and selling products from a select few

categories. They also provide home delivery services, either dropping off products themselves or

relying on immediate family members or (occasionally) employed helpers to do so (Roy and

Kamath, 2020).

The advent of the pandemic in India in the spring of 2020 initially impacted all three

channels, particularly in Mumbai (which was the main site of our data collection). While SSPs

had to pause home deliveries due to infection concerns, most GT and MT stores had to shut

down almost overnight when the government mandated store closures (Jha, 2021). Consumers

were further hampered due to strict citywide curfews that prohibited people from moving outside

their homes except for emergencies. The collective impact of these changes was acutely felt by

gated community residents who suddenly lost market access to most products including day-to-

day household essentials. As it would turn out, this very loss acted as the catalyst for kickstarting

the formation of PGs in these communities.

2.2 The Rise of Purchase Groups (PGs) as Interstitial Markets

Given the loss in income for SSPs and access to essentials for consumers, both sets of people

started coming together to resolve the service vacuum. In some cases, consumers would reach

out to SSPs they personally knew and would ask them to start servicing a group of consumers

within the gated community. In other cases, SSPs took the lead in reaching out to gated

community residents to see if they could secure a sufficient level of demand for their products. A

WhatsApp group would then be formed comprising the SSP and all interested residents and it

would be used to compile orders and provide relevant updates (e.g., about product availability,

prices, delivering timings, etc.). After a round of ordering would be complete, the SSP would

procure the necessary products, organize them as per each consumer’s order, and then deliver the

final bundles to the gated community while ensuring compliance with any relevant government

or community regulations.

Consumers often contributed to this effort by volunteering to assist with deliveries to

speed up things while maintaining social distancing requirements, educating other consumers

about how to order and pay for the products, and communicating any urgent service-related

concerns to the SSP. Over time, as people would hear about a PG from their friends within the

gated community, those interested would request to be added to the respective WhatsApp group,

thereby increasing group membership. In some cases, consumers shared the news with friends

from another gated community who would then reach out to the respective SSP to try and get a

PG started for their community as well. Moreover, while initial PGs centered on household

essentials like vegetables, fruits, or meats, those formed a little later comprised product

categories typically linked with discretionary spending, such as specialty foods, sweetmeats, or

snacks. Depending on personal preferences and situational needs, consumers could choose to

continue being part of a group, exit if they wanted, or re-enter at any point in time by messaging

the SSP over WhatsApp.

Consequently, PGs started functioning as interstitial markets to fill the marketplace void

left by closures of GT and MT stores. As SSPs sourced products and helpers locally, they ended

up being relatively nimbler in refashioning their service provision in contrast to GT and MT

stores which were constrained by their physical locations and hampered by government

restrictions (Deshpande, 2020). Unsurprisingly, their popularity increased rapidly within a very

short span of time, and it was common to find 10-12 PGs operating in each gated community

during the height of the pandemic. While this number has decreased in the post-pandemic

marketplace (usually two to four per gated community) with GT and MT stores functioning as

before, PGs comprise a rich research context as they represent a service marketing adaptation

that has persisted beyond the pandemic (Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett, 2020; Verhoef et al.,

2023). From an updated IHIP perspective (Moeller, 2010), PGs can be seen as comprising an

SSP’s intangible performance promise regarding the provision of essentials and/or specialty

products, the heterogeneity in consumer resources as consumers across different gated

communities differed in how they interacted with SSPs, the inseparability of such resources as

consumers were instrumental in helping both SSPs and other consumers during service

provision, and perishability as the post-pandemic marketplace saw the end of some PGs because

consumer demand and consumer resources stopped being available. Additionally, they also

embody collective consumption contexts (with consumers coordinating with SSPs and other

consumers during service provision and consumption) characterized by value co-creation

(Kelleher et al., 2019). We elaborate on these points further in the next section.

3. Literature Review

3.1 Service Marketing Adaptations due to Covid-19

The Covid-19 pandemic represented a massive shock to service marketing on a scale

unparalleled in recent history. Recognizing both the disruptive and transformative potential of

such a shock, several service marketing experts issued early calls for research on the impact of

the pandemic on service provision and consumption. Kabadayi et al. (2020, p. 814) advocated

looking at agility to better understand how service marketing would “adapt, change quickly, and

succeed in a rapidly changing turbulent environment.” Pantano et al. (2020) recommended

looking at increased collaboration between marketers and other stakeholders (such as consumers

or suppliers) to foster such agility. Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett (2020) suggested looking at

the impact of the pandemic on servicescapes and changes to consumer behavioral responses.

This was echoed by Sheth (2020, p. 281) urging scholars to study how “existing habits are

discarded and new ways to consume are invented” by resilient consumers.

In response to these calls, a considerable body of empirical work has arisen looking at the

pandemic’s impact on service provision and consumption. Heinonen and Strandvik (2021)

documented more than 200 service innovations to come up with a 2x2 typology based on their

strategic stretch (low versus high) and strategic horizon (short-term versus long-term). Similarly,

Ratten et al. (2021) studied the rise in sport entrepreneurship as Australian sport marketers

sought to co-create value in the middle of a crisis. Ashton, Tuomi, and Backman (2022) invoked

the Servuction model (Bateson, 1985; Langeard et al., 1981) to propose a typology for different

types of ghost kitchens that rapidly became popular during the pandemic. Meanwhile, Ferraro et

al. (2021) identified six key guiding principles for adaptations (e.g., rethinking physical space,

prioritizing digital elements, and building agile supply networks) based on multi-country

interviews while Grimmer (2022) studied how Tasmanian SMEs and retail firms adapted to the

pandemic.

Such work has also been supplemented by research on the pandemic’s effects on service

consumption. For instance, data from several countries showed how perceived scarcity,

pandemic severity, and feelings of uncertainty and fear led to panic buying by consumers during

the early stages of the pandemic (Islam et al., 2021; Prentice et al., 2022). Other studies showed

how behavioral factors (such as information overload from online sources) and cultural factors

(such as high uncertainty avoidance and high individualism) promoted hoarding and stockpiling

behaviors during that phase (Ahmadi et al., 2021; Laato et al., 2020). Finally, another strand of

research noted how health concerns, hygiene consciousness, decreased access to physical retail,

and the need to cope led to a sharp increase in online shopping (Eger et al. 2021; Gisjbrechts and

Gielens 2021; Guthrie et al. 2021; Itani and Hollebeek 2021).

Despite timely insights, we note three key limitations in this body of work. First, most

research has focused on short-term adaptations in the service marketing domain. Only a small

volume of work has tried to take a longer time horizon into account. Examples include Pichierri

and Petruzzellis’ (2022) experimental studies on the effect of employee mask usage on consumer

evaluations during different waves of the pandemic and Dahl et al.’s (2023) pre- and post-

lockdown study of consumers’ anticipatory value-in-use for digital health services. Similarly,

Hwang et al. (2022) illustrated how the pandemic exacerbated the impact of customer incivility

on frontline service employees while Liu, Long, and Liu (2023) noted how service firms’ digital

platform capability improved their resilience over more than a year of dealing with the

pandemic. However, there continues to be a paucity of work on “the long-term theoretical and

practical implications” stemming from the pandemic in service contexts (Rosenbaum and

Russell-Bennett, 2020, p. IV).

The second limitation we observed was that barring a few exceptions (e.g., Dahl et al.,

2023; Guthrie et al., 2021; Rattan et al., 2021), most work has tended to provide a cross-

sectional snapshot of service marketing changes rather than a narrative understanding of how

service marketing adaptations evolved over time, the degree to which they persisted, and the

factors that helped or hindered in such persistence. Consequently, service marketing literature

continues to lack work tracing the trajectory of a pandemic-induced service marketing adaptation

and the degree to which it has persisted in the post-pandemic era. Verhoef et al. (2022, p. 288)

drew attention to this by highlighting an “urgent need for studies showing whether the effects of

Covid-19 are persistent over time or…are a temporary phenomenon.”

Finally, given how most work has tended to focus on consumers and service providers

separately, there has not been much research on how consumers and service providers came

together to structure a response. While some work has documented collective efforts made by

sport marketers and NGO members in response to the pandemic (Fuschillo and D’Antone 2023;

Rattan et al. 2021), it is hard to locate research looking at consumers and service providers

working together to craft a service adaptation. Given the oft-articulated need to look at value co-

creation that takes place when consumers work with each other and with service providers

(Kelleher et al., 2019; Ostrom et al., 2015), studying a context where this was present can

provide additional insights on how coordination between consumers and service providers can be

beneficial when developing a service marketing adaptation.

We aim to address these gaps with this current project. As noted before, PGs arose as an

immediate response to pandemic conditions for gated community residents. While some came to

an end as the pandemic finally waned and consumer access to stores was restored, several others

continue operating successfully, thereby representing a service marketing adaptation that has

persisted in the post-pandemic marketplace. Second, as we use a qualitative methodology, we

can provide a narrative account of their formation and a stronger thematic understanding of the

factors that were instrumental in their success. Finally, given the nature of collaboration between

consumers and SSPs, PGs serve as a robust example of value co-creation in a collective

consumption context, which we discuss next.

3.2 Value Co-Creation in Collective Consumption Contexts

Service marketing scholars have long recognized the importance of consumers as co-creators of

value in service exchanges, given how their involvement and participation is integral to the

generation of value during service provision and consumption (Payne, Storbacka, and Frow,

2008; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). However, later research has

highlighted the need to better understand such co-creation, especially in collective consumption

contexts wherein consumers interact with other consumers in addition to interacting with service

providers (Kelleher et al. 2019; Gronroos and Voima, 2013; Ostrom et al., 2015). Kelleher et al.

(2019) advance three dimensions on which such contexts can vary: the degree to which it

involves only consumers or both consumers and service providers, the extent to which the

coordination is led by the service provider or by the consumer, and the extent to which

technology enables such coordination. They further argue that studying contexts representing

different combinations of these dimensions can enrich our understanding of how value emerges

in service interactions involving multiple consumers and service providers (see also Caru and

Cova, 2015; Figueiredo and Scaraboto, 2016).

We believe PGs represent a useful example of value co-creation in a collective

consumption context when we consider these dimensions. For instance, PGs involve both aspects

- consumers working amongst themselves (e.g., educating new members or starting a new group)

and consumers working with SSPs (e.g., providing feedback or coordinating deliveries).

Similarly, PGs could be initiated by SSPs as well as consumers. Given the smaller scale of

operations for SSPs, there were several instances of consumers taking the initiative to get a PG

started or volunteering their time and effort to ensure smooth functioning. Finally, a variety of

technological tools (WhatsApp but also, as we discuss later, Google Forms, Paytm, etc.) were

integral to the overall coordination withins. Additionally, despite some similarities to group

buying collectives in terms of consumers using online platforms to come together and buy

certain products (Luo et al., 2014; Wang, Zhao, and Li, 2013), PGs are also sufficiently different

from them as gated community consumers were not motivated by deal-seeking concerns or the

desire to acquire specific brands. Rather, they were more focused on maintaining access to

products while simultaneously helping out SSPs. Studying consumer participation within PGs,

therefore, highlights additional motivations that can lead consumers to coalesce together to form

a group buying collective.

Given the inherent complexity in studying such a multi-faceted research context, we

decided to adopt the service ecosystem perspective (discussed next) as it provided a multi-tiered

framework which we could use to guide our data analysis and structure the thematic insights that

emerged over the course of that analysis.

3.3 The Service Ecosystem Perspective

Advanced by Akaka and Vargo (2015) as an extension to service-dominant logic or SDL (Vargo

and Lusch, 2004), the service ecosystem perspective recognizes the complex nature of

interactions that often occur between multiple actors in a service context along with institutional

arrangements that govern service exchange in that context. At its core, service provision starts

with the dyadic interaction between the service provider and the consumer. This interaction,

which often has significant impact on short-term outcomes (consumer satisfaction or

dissatisfaction) and long-term outcomes (service provider-consumer relationships), is referred to

as the service encounter (Bitner, 1990; Czepiel, 1990; Czepiel et al., 1985; Surprenant and

Solomon, 1987). Servicescapes - best understood as spaces that frame these encounters (Bitner,

1992) - involve looking at the physical, social, symbolic, and natural aspects of the environments

in which these encounters occur. While physical aspects (e.g., design and layout of service

spaces) of servicescapes are often self-evident, later work highlighted how servicescapes are

valued for their social aspects (e.g., social density and indirect customer interactions), symbolic

aspects (e.g., the presence of culturally significant artifacts and signs), and natural aspects (e.g.,

the presence of green spaces or proximity to nature) as well (Akaka and Vargo, 2015; Arnould,

Price and Tierney, 1998; Bitner, 1992; Johnstone, 2012; Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2011).

Finally, service ecosystems, defined as “relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system[s] of

resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual value

creation through service exchange” (Lusch and Vargo, 2014, p. 161; Vargo and Lusch, 2016)

comprise the broadest and most complex level when trying to understand how value is co-created

in service contexts (Akaka and Vargo, 2015; Akaka et al., 2013; Vargo, Weiland and Akaka,

2015). Collectively, these three levels of service provision - service ecosystem, servicescape, and

service encounter - provide a useful theoretical lens to study PGs.

The few examples of work taking a service ecosystemic perspective to study the impact

of the pandemic on ecosystem recovery and response, consumer and service provider well-being,

and innovation (Brodie et al., 2021; Finsterwalder and Kuppelweiser, 2020; Kabadayi et al.,

2020; Mollenkopf, Ozanne, and Stolze, 2021; Ratten et al., 2021) further highlight its

advantages. As we illustrate when presenting our findings, adopting this perspective enabled us

to look at themes at each level (service ecosystem, servicescape, and service encounter) while

advancing a comprehensive narrative account of our focal phenomenon. By doing so, it also

helped in arriving at a stronger understanding of how value co-creation took place within the

service ecosystem of each PG. With this background, we now shift to a description of our

research approach to describe how we collected and analyzed data for this study.

4. Methodology

Given the exploratory nature of our focal research questions and the novelty of PGs themselves,

a phenomenological approach (Creswell and Poth, 2016) was best suited to our research aims.

Merriam (2009, p. 25) notes that a phenomenological approach is most useful when the

researcher’s goal is to “depict the essence or basic structure” of a particular experience. As we

describe in the next subsection, we studied consumers and SSPs across several different PGs

over the course of our research. In line with this aim, we used in-depth interviews (McCracken,

1988) to elicit ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz, 1973) from consumers as well as SSPs to get a

holistic perspective on service provision and consumption within PGs. This helped us capture a

variety of respondent accounts and arrive at a clearer understanding of how these groups arose in

response to the restrictive conditions generated by the pandemic and the ensuing regulatory

measures. Our research team had the added advantage of two members being long-time residents

of two different gated communities in Mumbai. In addition to securing respondents for

interviews, this helped them capture the day-to-day lived experience of being part of PGs.

4.1 Data Collection

Respondents for in-depth interviews were initially recruited through researchers’ personal

contacts within gated communities and then through snowball sampling by asking such

respondents for referrals. As our focus was to arrive at a phenomenological understanding of

how PGs formed and grew, we included both consumers as well as SSPs in our sample. To

ensure familiarity with the focal phenomenon, we included only those consumers who were part

of at least one PG at the time of the interview. Data was collected over eight months, resulting in

a final sample of 22 respondents representing a mix of 15 consumers and 7 SSPs. As PGs

frequently involved SSPs and consumers working closely with each other, the narrative accounts

of both stakeholders contained several details and references about each other because of the

high degree of co-creation, collaboration, and coordination involved when participating in a PG.

Given the central emphasis on understanding a complex behavior, the sample proved sufficient

as it was in line with best practices for qualitative work and all respondent accounts were richly

detailed (Kwortnik, 2003; Merriam and Tisdell, 2015).

Table 1 lists respondent details with pseudonyms used in place of their real names. The

sample consisted of 4 males and 18 females, which was in keeping with the PG membership

trends, as most consumers who were part of the PG WhatsApp groups were women. Moreover,

as each consumer belonged to a different gated community, there was ample variation in terms of

consumer experiences.

—-Insert Table 1 here—-

In line with recommended methods for depth interviewing (McCracken, 1988), we

drafted a semi-structured interview protocol to guide the course of the interview, as it allowed for

a degree of flexibility to make changes as data collection and analyses progressed (Bryman,

2003). Given our research goals, the interview protocol was phenomenological in nature

(Creswell and Poth, 2016), i.e., its goal was to elicit details about individual experiences with a

given phenomenon to arrive at a conceptual understanding of the essence of that phenomenon.

Respondents were asked about how they started participating in PGs and their experiences within

these PGs. For consumers, the focus of the interview was on service consumption, while for

SSPs, the focus was on service provision. Relevant probes were used wherever necessary to elicit

more details about specific incidents or experiences. Examples of such probes included asking

consumers about the advantages and disadvantages of PGs and asking SSPs about the changes

they incorporated over time to improve service provision within PGs.

While the number of interviews differed between the authors depending on their

availability, each author was part of at least four interviews to ensure a high degree of familiarity

with the research phenomenon. Conducted via Zoom or Google Hangouts, the interviews

typically lasted between 38 and 125 minutes and were recorded for transcription and subsequent

analyses. We continued interviewing respondents and saturation was reached when there was a

joint consensus that additional interviews failed to reveal any new insights (Bowen, 2008;

Saunders et al., 2017). Overall, our approach yielded richly detailed respondent accounts that

provided significant understanding of how PGs started and evolved with time (Merriam and

Tisdell, 2015; Patton, 2002).

4.2 Data Analysis

The complete set of respondent accounts comprised 22 hours and 25 minutes of recorded

interviews. These recordings, resulting in 350 pages of double-spaced text when transcribed,

represented the central corpus of data used for analyses. All transcripts were uploaded to NVivo

12 and coded in three successive stages, beginning with open coding (identifying and labeling

relevant quotes), continuing with axial coding (developing sub-categories), and concluding with

selective coding (abstracting higher-order themes) to identify the seven central themes of our

framework (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

While all authors read each transcript to familiarize themselves with the data, initial

rounds of open and axial coding were conducted by two of the authors with the overarching goal

of acquiring a phenomenological understanding of the emergence of PGs (Creswell and Poth,

2016). Both authors met multiple times to discuss individual interpretations and emergent

findings, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. For selective coding and

development of the conceptual framework, all authors were equally involved. In line with

Boyatzis’ (1998) suggestion of using existing theoretical frameworks to guide the analyses, all

authors jointly agreed to adopt the service ecosystem perspective as it provided a parsimonious

multi-level framework for organizing our thematic insights (Table 2). As is best practice in

exploratory qualitative research, names for all key themes were jointly chosen based on their

ability in capturing the essence and the unique aspects of each theme (Braun and Clarke, 2006;

Creswell, 2007; Scharp and Sanders, 2019).

—-Insert Table 2 here—-

Our approach was consistent with the constant comparative method of data analysis,

specifically one representing an iterative movement between ‘the part’ and ‘the whole’ (Spiggle,

1994). Each respondent account (the part) was read and reread multiple times by the authors and

was additionally reviewed later in juxtaposition with the overall framework (the whole) to aid in

conceptual refinement (Hirschman, 1992; Spiggle, 1994; Thompson, Locander, and Pollio,

1990). Analyses continued in this way until saturation was reached and additional interviews

failed to reveal any new insights (Bowen, 2008). As our objective was to develop a

phenomenological understanding of how PGs arose and functioned as a service marketing

adaptation, we relied on the idea of theoretical completeness (Saunders et al., 2017). In line with

this notion, all authors agreed that saturation was reached when our conceptual framework was

able to accommodate all thematic categories into a cohesive whole and provide a reliable

theoretical account of PG formation and evolution (Charmaz, 2003). As an additional check, we

also shared our framework with two experienced marketing scholars (one in India, one in the

US) for peer debriefing (Delve and Limpaecher, 2021). Each indicated their agreement with the

structure and content of the framework and provided additional feedback to help us better

explicate our thematic findings in the subsequent sections.

5. Findings

From the very beginning, PGs functioned as service ecosystems comprising multiple actors (e.g.,

consumers, SSPs, product suppliers to SSPs, and security guards employed by gated

communities) who facilitated the integration of resources to address the service gap left by GT

and MT stores. Moreover, the institutional arrangements characterizing their operations

gradually evolved over time through trial and error as consumers and SSPs worked together to

streamline service provision and consumption. Collectively, such factors imparted a high degree

of self-adjustment to value co-creation within PGs as all actors were united by mutually

beneficial goals - restoring access to household essentials for consumers and restoring revenue

for SSPs. We now present the seven key themes that emerged from our data, with each theme

reflecting a critical factor at a particular level within the three-tier service ecosystem framework.

Each was instrumental in shaping PGs into successful, well-functioning interstitial markets for

the residents of gated communities. With this background, we present the first set of themes at

the service ecosystemic level.

6. The Service Ecosystem Level

At the broadest level, that of the service ecosystem itself, we observed three key themes

characterizing the formation and evolution of PGs. The first two are linked to the actors within

the ecosystem, while the third is linked to the institutional arrangements between those actors.

6.1 Entrepreneurality

The first theme we observed among our respondents that was instrumental in kickstarting a

response to the SMD created by the pandemic was entrepreneurality. We define

entrepreneurality as the extent to which different actors within a service ecosystem took the

initiative in trying to configure possible solutions to the service gaps that the pandemic brought

in its wake. Examples of such initiatives came from both consumers as well as SSPs. Among our

respondents, there were several accounts of consumers taking the metaphorical bull by the horns

in a bid to restore access to household essentials:

“There are ten wings, each with 20 floors, with 76 apartments on each floor. Each wing is

independent with its own WhatsApp Group. I just put a message in the K wing group that

if people would like to procure food by [the SSP], then we can consolidate and order

food. Then I thought that while I am at it, let me contact a few friends who live in the

same complex in other wings! So, I put the message in other WhatsApp Groups saying

that if they wanted to procure food, they could also order.”

(Sumit, Consumer)

“It all started because of one of my friends who stays in another gated community. They

were ordering vegetables directly from a guy who runs his own farm…When I heard

about it, I felt we could start this in our gated community. So, I formed a group and

started asking other ladies if they wanted to order vegetables this way. They encouraged

me and told me to go in for this and that is how we started ordering.”

(Ridhima, Consumer)

Along with such consumers, we also saw examples of entrepreneurality among SSPs who

tried to think on their feet and take advantage of the opportunity. Taniya, a consumer, recounted

how “most of these groups [for her gated community] were started by the service providers

themselves.” Similarly, Tanuja, an SSP, talked about how she got started:

“The first step was to get the leaflet [with product details and contact information] done.

After that, I started circulating these leaflets in whichever [WhatsApp] group I knew. The

first ones were in my building group and the nearby gated communities. I then started

reaching out to friends in other communities and…soon, the leaflet started spreading like

fire! At one point, I was messaging two new WhatsApp groups every single day!”

At an ecosystemic level, this theme is consistent with prior work that highlighted the

importance of innovation and adaptation by service providers in response to the pandemic

(Grimmer, 2022; Heinonen and Strandvik, 2021; Ratten et al., 2021). In a similar vein, the idea

of consumers taking the initiative to secure access to goods is mirrored in work on group buying

behavior (Luo et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013). However, the distinctive feature seen in our

context was the equal degree of likelihood (between the SSP and the consumer) in terms of who

took the initiative to start up a PG. In that regard, this account provides an interesting

counterpoint to service marketing adaptations where the initiative was taken entirely by the

service provider and did not involve any consumer participation other than in the purchase stage

(Heinonen and Strandvik, 2021).

We believe that two key factors underlay the greater likelihood of consumer-led

initiatives in getting a PG started within their gated communities. The first was the combination

of strict curfews and store closures which severely impacted consumer access to essentials.

Faced with such a critical gap, consumers could not wait for too long and had to urgently search

for a workable solution that could address this vacuum. The second, given our familiarity with

the Indian marketplace, was the relatively higher degree of an SSP’s dependence on their

consumers. In contrast to GT and MT stores that operate despite ebbs and flows of consumer

demand, the livelihood of several SSPs is more strongly linked to consumer demand because

their smaller scale of operations limit their ability to provide services beyond a small number of

gated communities. Consequently, SSPs were more than ready to give PGs a try when consumers

got in touch with them to propose the idea.

6.2 Collectivity

If entrepreneurality represented the starting spark, then the second theme represents the engine

that kept things running as PGs started to take shape. We term this theme collectivity and define

it as the high degree of co-operative behavior among various sets of actors within the ecosystem

as they worked together to address service gaps. In doing so, we distinguish collectivity from the

regular levels of cooperation required between actors for the basic functioning of a service

ecosystem. Instead, we argue that the collectivity we observed illustrates an above-and-beyond

level of cooperation and coordination between different actors that went beyond normal service

exchange expectations. In some cases, this was seen in consumers who took on the responsibility

of coordinating with SSPs on behalf of multiple consumers:

“There was this one resident who used to coordinate with the seller and the seller would

coordinate with her. The seller would send us the list of things with the price of items that

he had. We would send our list [of the items that we wanted] to [the resident] and she

would coordinate with the seller, and he would send labeled boxes to every person.”

(Urvashi, Consumer)

Similarly, Brij, an SSP whose food preparation products were much in demand during the

lockdown, was warm in his appreciation of Sumit, a consumer:

“Sumit took the responsibility for coordinating on our behalf [despite] no personal gain.

He used to collect the orders on behalf of his neighbors. We would deliver the orders at

the complex and people would come and collect them. Sumit did this once every week! I

think the difference was that all this was…a way of helping the neighbors. Somebody

said, ‘Let me help my neighbors get fresh food!’ Thanks to that, today I have got close to

400 people like Sumit… 400 buddies who have selflessly supported us.”

We also saw examples where such collectivity ended up helping a particular group of

people because others went out of their way to support them:

“During the pandemic we had so many senior citizens staying alone in my building, and

we did not want them going out and risking their lives. We told them to let us know what

their requirements were, and we would order the things in the groups, and deliver it to

their homes. These people were very happy that their requirements were taken care of.”

(Omisha, Consumer)

Overall, such examples of collectivity showed the importance of actors working together

and, especially in the case of some residents, going beyond their traditional role as consumers

and taking on additional responsibilities of coordinating orders and attending to deliveries.

Moreover, in contrast to service marketing adaptations involving only service providers (Ratten

et al., 2021), we see more synergistic co-creation here as it involves both consumers and SSPs

(Caru and Cova, 2015; Keller et al., 2019). This is reminiscent of Gronroos’ (2011) discussion of

how the consumer can become a co-producer (of processes) and the provider can become a co-

creator (of value). As we saw, consumers took up additional responsibilities (such as order

collation or delivery coordination) to become co-producers of processes, while SSPs were able to

co-create value by directly involving such consumers.

6.3 Fluidity

Emerging markets are frequently characterized by market exchange systems that do not embody

the conditions associated with perfect competition (Sheth, 2011; Viswanathan, Rose, and Ruth,

2010). Consequently, such markets are more likely to consist of service ecosystems wherein

institutional arrangements between actors are neither as rigidly defined nor as formally codified

as those in developed markets. This allows for greater flexibility within an ecosystem for actors

to figure out such arrangements on an ongoing basis via a trial-and-error approach.

We observed this happen in our research context and we summarize this under the theme

of fluidity or the degree to which institutional arrangements between actors were flexible and

could accommodate their changing needs. Such fluidity was observed in a variety of institutional

arrangements between consumers, SSPs, and vendors (who supplied products to SSPs) at

different points in the service provision process. For instance, in terms of how orders would be

placed, Tanuja (an SSP) talked about moving across three different formats as time went by,

starting with the leaflet mentioned earlier:

“At first, the order link was circulated along with the leaflet. Then, as time progressed,

we set up the Google form for ordering. We continued using the form for the last 3-4

months. Now, from last week onwards, we have set up an automated Google form, in

which your invoice will be generated and sent directly to your email, and you can pay

directly through email.”

Other examples illustrated a similar degree of fluidity when it came to product delivery

and payment practices:

“When we first started, we were selling [vegetables] in crates. We would place consumer

orders in crates and then place all crates in the lobby [of the gated community], and the

consumers would come and collect them. But then, a problem arose in terms of collecting

the crates and sending them back to the village [from where the SSP was sourcing

vegetables]. Firstly, we did not have a place to store all the crates and secondly, [the

farmers] needed the crates to prepare the next set of orders. We would keep asking [the

consumers] to return the crates and almost 2-3 hours were wasted in collecting these

crates to send them back to the village. We used boxes briefly, but boxes soon proved

unfeasible because if you put vegetables in boxes and stored them on top of each other,

the vegetables would get crushed. Finally, we started using these huge white plastic bags.

We just place the bags in the lobby and consumers can collect them when they want.”

(Bhoomika, SSP)

Equally importantly, respondent accounts showed that a lack of fluidity in the operations

of larger service providers prevented them from pivoting quickly when the pandemic worsened:

“We were much smaller: our adaptability, our response time, the whole distribution

system being in our control. Imagine [large service provider X] or [large service provider

Y] telling their wholesalers about what to do! But for a smaller brand like us that is still

working on the consumer connect aspect, our adaptability was much faster.”

(Brij, SSP)

Such examples illustrate the advantages of agility (Pantano et al., 2020) when responding

to evolving needs and unavoidable constraints. The inability of larger, more established service

providers to pivot further underlines the importance of such flexibility for ecosystems in times of

disruption. In sum, while entrepreneurality and collectivity among consumers and SSPs

kickstarted the formation of PGs and kept them going, the fluidity of the institutional

arrangements allowed for further refinements to be made wherever needed. With this

background, we now turn to the key themes observed at the servicescape level.

7. The Servicescape Level

Along with thematic factors at the ecosystem level, respondent accounts also highlighted unique

features within PG servicescapes. Two key themes stood out in this regard: the first involving the

fusion of physical and virtual spaces to create a hybridized servicescape and the second

involving the nature of communication within this new servicescape.

7.1 Hybridity

Several respondents noted that a crucial challenge for each servicescape was to figure out the

correct mix of physical and virtual spaces to ensure service encounters were practical as well as

efficient. We acknowledge this fusion through the theme of hybridity that we define as the

degree to which PG servicescapes incorporate varying combinations of physical and virtual

spaces

. As the pandemic impacted the degree to which people could congregate together, the

physical spaces of the servicescapes faced a greater degree of restrictiveness. Not surprisingly,

order fulfillment often necessitated joint efforts to devise acceptable practices. An example was

seen in the previous section when Bhoomika mentioned putting plastic bags in the lobbies of the

buildings which consumers could pick up at their convenience. In addition to these, we also

recorded other examples illustrating the role played by physical spaces (and the restrictions

governing them) across different servicescapes:

“In the reception lobby [of his gated community], there is a desk. We would spread out

all the orders on the desk and arrange it in various ‘item lots’; Once the [food products]

came in, few of us residents would start arranging and then we would hand over [the lots]

We contrast these servicescapes from the primarily physical servicescapes of GT and MT stores and the primarily

virtual servicescapes of e-commerce (characterized by the likes of Amazon and Flipkart) that comprise the bulk of

the Indian marketplace. While physical retail can have certain virtual elements (using mobile phones to make

payments at the counter) and vice versa (delivery of physical packages ordered via online shopping), the hybridity of

the PG servicescapes is a distinctive feature as it reflects the shared importance of both elements.

to the people based on their order. Also, as some residents were not comfortable with

online payment initially, we allowed cash transactions for a while.”

(Sumit, Consumer)

“We arranged from a Nasik [a small town about 100 miles from Mumbai] guy to supply

us with mangoes and veggies. He had pre-packed boxes like A, B, and C and each

category would contain a particular mix of vegetables. Those who were interested in

buying would place their order on WhatsApp group and the vendor would deliver their

box to the gate.”

(Omisha, Consumer)

Along with such variations in how different servicescapes utilized physical spaces such

as lobbies, parking lots, and security areas, we also saw several virtual spaces being used in PGs.

While WhatsApp was naturally one such virtual space for all PGs, several others were used

across different servicescapes for placing orders and making payments:

“We generated a Google Form that we circulated in all buildings. If the delivery was for a

Saturday, we opened the form by Sunday evening or Monday morning, and it would stay

open till 10 p.m. Thursday. We would keep sending reminders via the WhatsApp groups

to all the [gated] societies, asking people to place their orders before the form is closed

[and could not be edited]. Once the Google Form was switched off, I would compile the

orders and send the final file to my supplier.”

(Bhoomika, SSP)

“Guidelines for payments – how to make the payment and where to make the payment –

would be provided for the group. For example, ‘This vendor can be paid through Google

Pay’ or ‘This vendor will bring the credit/debit card machine’. People then started

making payments directly to the vendor through Google Pay, Paytm, or a card. Since our

movement was restricted and we could not connect with each other, each of us paid the

vendor directly.”

(Lalita, Consumer)

As can be seen from these accounts, both physical and virtual spaces were equally

important for PG servicescapes even though each servicescape operationalized the physical-

virtual mix differently. Since each gated community had its own physical space layout (in terms

of how apartment buildings, lobbies, parking areas, driving paths, and community spaces are

organized within a community), and each PG could use a multitude of virtual spaces (WhatsApp,

Google Pay, Google Forms, Paytm, and UPI), the collective variety helped consumers and SSPs

in figuring out which combination best suited each PG’s servicescape.

Such hybrid servicescapes provide useful illustrations of how technology use can impact

the service consumption experience in a post-Covid marketplace (Rosenbaum and Russell-

Bennett, 2020). This theme also complements work on online shopping during the pandemic by

Eger et al. (2021), Ferraro et al. (2022), and Guthrie et al. (2021) as it shows how consumers

learnt to embrace virtual elements as part of a changing marketplace. Additionally, hybridity

provides a useful addition to the literature on omnichannel marketing (Verhoef, Kannan, and

Inman, 2015). While the theme shares the interplay between online (virtual) and offline

(physical) elements that are a cornerstone of omnichannel marketing, an essential difference is

that the servicescape for PGs does not involve multiple channels working simultaneously. While

omnichannel service marketing often focuses on achieving seamless integration between online

and offline channels of service provision in a bid to improve consumer experience (e.g., a bank

providing mobile banking solutions in addition to physical branches), the hybrid servicescape of

a given PG comprises a single channel with distinct roles for the physical and virtual spaces.

Consequently, the service experience does not involve consumers choosing between online and

offline service consumption. Rather, consumers move through different spaces as they move

through different stages of the service experience.

7.2 Transactionality

The second theme we saw at the servicescape level was linked to the communication content and

norms governing people’s interactions on WhatsApp – the central service platform of every PG

that connected all consumers to the respective SSP and to each other. We term this theme

transactionality and define it as the degree to which servicescape participants adhered to a norm

of keeping communication content focused on service-related topics, thereby eschewing non-

service-related conversation.

For people who might be unfamiliar with WhatsApp, WhatsApp groups are normally

used as social communication platforms for facilitating regular contact with one’s family

members, colleagues, or classmates. The nature of communication in such groups tends to be

informal, conversational, and not centered on any purpose other than staying in touch. As a

result, in-group exchanges often cover a wide gamut of content (and tone) that can include jokes,

memes, birthday greetings, personal news, requests for information, and gossip. In sharp contrast

to this, the focus of communication among members of the WhatsApp groups was very precise,

as can be seen in the following quotes:

“No chat whatsoever! No chat at all! Only orders and orders. When we talk about

groceries, it is only about orders. When talking about veggies, the chat is about ‘When

will the basket come?’ or ‘What time will it get delivered?’ or ‘My basket is missing!’ or

‘Whom should I contact for bad quality veggies?’”

(Tina, Consumer)

When we tried to probe into how this norm came into being, responses indicated that

participants often understood it as an implicit expectation linked to joining the PG. On being

asked whether people try to talk about non-buying topics, Tina, a consumer, said:

“Never. I think it is a given understanding. I have not seen anyone talking about anything

apart from orders in the last three to four months!”

In contrast to such implicit understanding, other respondents talked about more explicit

enforcement of the communication norms:

“Sometimes, things which are irrelevant also get forwarded. Therefore, the [group]

administrator must be really very strong to be able to stop these unwanted messages as

some people are very fond of sending videos, pictures, etc. If the group is meant for a

certain purpose, then it should only be used for that.”

(Lalita, Consumer)

These examples highlight an interesting case of how the social elements of the

servicescape can impact consumers’ behavior even when consumers are not physically co-

present in the servicescape. While social density (crowdedness) can impact the service

experience when consumers are in proximity with each other in physical servicescapes (Tombs

and McColl-Kennedy, 2003), we show how even virtual co-presence can impact behavior such

as the nature of communication taking place in the servicescape. This is also in line with work

that has adopted the Servuction framework (Bateson, 1985; Langeard et al., 1981) to show how

service experience is not only shaped by the interactions between the customer and the service

provider but also by the interactions between customers themselves (Davies, Baron, and Harris,

1999; Warnaby and Davies, 1997). In sum, hybridity and transactionality characterize the

refashioned servicescape of PGs. With this, we turn to the key themes observed at the final level,

that of the service encounter.

8. The Service Encounter Level

In conjunction with the service ecosystem and servicescape levels, the service encounter level –

comprising the dyadic interactions between consumers and SSPs – also exhibited some unique

themes, one revolving around the service exchange between the consumer and SSP and the other

around the nature of consumer participation.

8.1 Mutuality

While collectivity was instrumental in the establishment and continuation of several PGs at the

ecosystemic level, we observed a related but distinct theme at the service encounter level. We

term this theme as mutuality and define it as the degree to which both SSPs and consumers

would be willing to make an extra effort to accommodate each other within service encounters.

In the case of SSPs, several respondents recalled instances wherein the service encounter

was enriched for the consumer because of an SSP’s action. Shivani, a consumer, recalled how an

SSP would “give a complimentary packet of half a kilo [approximately a pound] of sugar” if she

ordered a certain amount of groceries and how he would even “go out of his way to get whatever

we wanted, even things like stationery items.” In some cases, even negative service encounters

were turned around by the thoughtful and selfless behavior of the service provider, as seen in

Tina’s example:

“Once [the provider] gave me semolina that was infested with worms. Shocked, I quickly

took a picture and sent it to that guy, telling him what had happened. He promptly sent

one of his associates, got it picked up, refunded me the money, and told me he would

send me better stock once he got some. The fact that he took it back means that he values

his consumers…seventy rupees doesn’t make a big difference, but it made me feel

valued!”

As can be seen from these examples, such considerate behavior made an impact on

consumers and instilled trust within consumers that SSPs cared for more than just money and

had the consumer’s best interests at heart. Such trust was often instrumental in fostering

consumer loyalty, as seen in Tina’s conclusion to the story about the worms in the semolina,

“That is the reason I am still with this group even though I rarely order now; I don’t want to

leave because the guy has been supportive throughout.”

A parallel observation emerged via examples of consumers who patiently accommodated

occasional issues within service encounters or went out of their way to help an SSP. Shivani, for

instance, mentioned how their gated community has a PG whose SSP is an old woman, but

despite occasional issues and delays, members of the PG keep buying from her because she is a

hard worker, and each member wants to support her efforts. Tina similarly mentioned how she

had “little to complain about” whenever problems arose regarding product quality because she

was aware of the stressors and complexities that SSPs were navigating. Finally, Ira, a consumer,

noted how she was more than happy to accommodate the odd misstep from an SSP:

“When [the SSP] is packing [the products], he will try not to waste them. So, sometimes

he will put four good ones along with one bad one [sic]. So, yes, a few times things did

come that were bad, but I used to think, ‘Let it be! Let him also make some money!’ So, I

used to ignore it.”

While extra-role behavior has been documented in prior service marketing research

(Wang, Keh, and Yan, 2020), our findings serve to highlight their additional importance in times

of a service market disruption. Moreover, while collectivity reflected simultaneous cooperation

among actors in a bid to stabilize the overall ecosystem for PGs, mutuality was seen more in an

episodic form during specific service encounters between SSPs and their consumers. Given the

added stress in such an environment (especially during the peak periods of the pandemic), the

voluntary undertaking of such behavior by both actors boosted consumer satisfaction and loyalty

while also ensuring continued operations and revenue for SSPs.

8.2 Permeability

Our second theme (and the final theme overall) focuses on the porous nature of consumer

participation in PGs. Gated community residents often tended to enter PGs, continue without

actively participating in them, and then exit (and sometimes even re-enter) based on situational

concerns and preferences. Consequently, we conceptualize this theme as permeability, wherein

consumers exhibit a propensity to move in and out of different sets of service encounters

(represented by different PGs) based on their needs, preferences, and experiences. As Tripti, a

consumer, put it:

“When you get added to a group, you often stick around out of curiosity just to see what

it is all about! You stay there for a couple of days and then, if you see that whatever is

being sold there is not of interest to you, you leave the group. I do this quite often

because many people have one’s number and they will add you to different groups.”

Bhoomika, an SSP, meanwhile, observed that many consumers “do not want continuous

notifications, so they rejoin [a group] to place the order and leave as soon as it is delivered.”

Shivani, a consumer, similarly noted that she “only joins groups that are useful to me,” adding

that while she was part of a group for buying vegetables, she did not join the dosa batter [a lentil

mix used by consumers to make a type of crepes popular in many parts of India] group as she

made her own batter. Unsurprisingly, a common reason for exiting groups other than lack of

demand for a particular product category would be when the service encounter turned sour, as

seen in this example:

“There was this lady who would deliver [X] products and [the experience] was not at all

good! She would get her products from Pune [a city in the same state as Mumbai] but she

would forget half the things and then say the order was delayed. People were getting

frustrated but because they had paid in advance, they stayed till they got their product in

hand, and then they quit the group.”

(Bindiya, Consumer)

While the idea of entering and exiting service encounters is not new, permeability was

important to PGs as it boosted membership during the formation of a PG (as new consumers

could easily join in) and ensured active participation during its continuation as consumers did not

feel locked in and were free to leave and return when they wanted. This contrasts with other

purchase groups wherein successful encounters necessitated mandatory group membership to

wrangle discounts via collective bargaining (Wang et al., 2013). However, having porous

boundaries was beneficial for SSPs as all consumers who chose to be part of the PG for a

particular ordering cycle were actively signaling their wish to engage in that service encounter

with the SSP. Similarly, the fact that the group continued to exist beyond a single service

encounter further reassured consumers that they could participate in service encounters whenever

they wanted without worrying that the group would dissipate once the purchase was complete

(Wang et al., 2013), Overall, therefore, we see how mutuality and permeability played a role in

ensuring satisfactory service encounters within PGs. With this, we now shift to an overview of

our thematic framework.

9. A Service Ecosystem Perspective on PGs as Interstitial Markets

Figure 1 illustrates how PGs started and evolved as interstitial markets for gated community

residents and SSPs.

—-Insert Figure 1 here—-

In the pre-pandemic stage, gated community residents largely relied on GT and MT

stores for their purchases. Some residents would transact with one or more SSPs depending on

any specialized needs but there was no grouping of multiple consumers as in a PG. When the

pandemic started, the government effectively paused operations for GT and MT stores. We

depict that through their absence in the initial stage of the pandemic. Next, we show how

multiple PGs began to form in the intermediate stage of the pandemic as consumers and SSPs

started coming together to fill the service vacuum left by these stores. The dashed lines represent

the in-flux nature of PGs as each tried to figure out its own set of logistics (e.g., order collection

and collation, payment portals, and delivery mechanics) through trial and error. Finally, we

depict the last stage as the new normal that stabilized and continued into the post-pandemic

landscape: PGs co-existing with the back-in-business GT and MT stores. The solid lines

represent how PGs acquired a stable form in terms of their day-to-day functioning and were able

to operate effectively and efficiently. By showing only two such PGs relative to the three shown

in the intermediate stage, we also indicate that not all PGs started during the pandemic survived.

For the SSPs of such PGs, maintaining revenue became unfeasible as group membership

dwindled, so they reverted to their original format of catering to individual orders instead of

collective ones.

Figure 2 encapsulates our key findings into a thematic framework based on the three

levels of service ecosystem architecture.

—-Insert Figure 2 here—-

At the service ecosystem level, the entrepreneurality and collectivity exhibited by actors,

coupled with the fluidity of institutional arrangements spurred the formation of different PGs as

interstitial markets that could address critical service gaps for gated community consumers and

SSPs. At a servicescape level, the successful functioning of PGs required combining physical

and virtual spaces (hybridity) and a focus on service-related communication (transactionality).

Finally, at a service encounter level, such functioning often rested on consumers and SSPs

accommodating each other (mutuality) and consumers being able to enter, exit, and/or re-enter

encounters based on their preferences and constraints (permeability).

The bidirectional arrows between the levels illustrate how each level impacted the one

adjacent to it over the course of time. The three themes at the ecosystem level were key in

getting PGs up and running, while the themes at the servicescape and service encounter level

reflect the behaviors of consumers and SSPs as PGs took shape and tried to become more

efficient. We now turn to a discussion of how our findings contribute to existing service

marketing discourse and their implications for marketing practitioners. We conclude after

suggesting some directions for future research.

10. Discussion

10.1 Theoretical Contributions

Our research makes four contributions to service marketing discourse. First, by providing a

narrative understanding of a service marketing adaptation that continues to persist in the post-

pandemic market landscape, our work adds to research looking at long-term implications of the

pandemic (e.g., Dahl et al., 2023; Pichierri and Petruzzellis, 2022) as well as other qualitative

work focused on providing a more thematic understanding of changes brought about by the

pandemic (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2021; Rattan et al., 2021). Moreover, by providing a granular look

at a longer-term change in service provision and consumption, we answer multiple calls for

research that have urged this line of inquiry and contribute to existing work looking at the impact

of the pandemic on service marketing (Kabadayi et al., 2020; Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett,

2020; Sheth, 2020; Verhoef et al., 2023).

Our second contribution is to build on existing work on how consumers co-create value

in collective consumption contexts. As seen in our themes of entrepreneurality, collectivity, and

mutuality, we see multiple instances of how consumers become co-creators and co-producers of

value (Caru and Cova, 2015; Gronroos, 2011) when they participate in PGs. Whether it is by

taking the lead to contact SSPs to get a PG started within their gated community, volunteering

time and effort to help coordinate with SSPs during the service provision process, helping other

consumers to ensure a positive service experience, or being accommodating in response to

occasional service glitches, consumers are instrumental to the successful functioning of PGs.

This extends work highlighting how consumers can take on guiding and mentoring roles during

service consumption (Kelleher et al., 2019) and how consumers can band together to acquire

access to certain products (Luo et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013).

Third, we contribute to work within service marketing scholarship that takes an

ecosystemic perspective on service provision and consumption. By providing an in-depth

account of themes at each level (service encounter, servicescape, and service ecosystem), our

study adds to prior work that has used the service ecosystem perspective to unearth insights on

the interplay between actors, institutional arrangements, and processes (e.g., Chandler et al.,

2019; Sklyar, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll, 2019; Vargo et al., 2015). We also add to recent

conceptual work on service ecosystem resilience (Fehrer and Bove, 2022) by providing an

empirical account of service ecosystem adaptations in the face of external market disruptions.

A final contribution we make is to add to extant literature looking at service marketing in

emerging markets (Sheth, 2011) by exploring service consumption by gated community

residents. While they comprise a relatively understudied consumer segment (Chaudhuri and

Jagadale, 2021), they wield considerable spending power within the Indian market landscape

(Gutgutia, 2021) and, as seen through the theme of entrepreneurality, were often integral in

getting PGs started within their respective communities.

10.2 Managerial Implications

Our study highlights different service marketing implications at each of the three levels of the

service ecosystem perspective. At the broadest level (service ecosystem), our findings illustrate

the usefulness of involving consumers in the service adaptation process when responding to an

unforeseen market disruption. As seen from entrepreneurality and collectivity, consumers were

often integral to successful service provision as they worked alongside SSPs to develop and

refine the day-to-day functioning of a PG. Involving consumers also increases the likelihood that

the resulting service adaptation is more tailor-made to the consumers’ needs and constraints.

Furthermore, flexibility emerges as an important strength when trying to devise service

adaptations as it allows for nimbler service provision that can rapidly adjust to match

environmental conditions. Conversely, it was also evident how the lack of such flexibility

thwarted attempts by some larger brands to start PGs with consumers. At the servicescape level,

our findings highlight the power of experimenting with different combinations of physical and

digital elements when figuring out the precise mix that works for both service providers and

consumers. Additionally, marketers should also take note of how consumers appreciate relevant

and to-the-point communication on virtual platforms. Finally, at the service encounter level, a

simple lesson emerges: Be considerate during (and after) a crisis. Respondent accounts showed

that small acts of compassion by SSPs had the power to reduce fallout from negative service

encounters and, in some cases, even turn them into positive encounters by virtue of sensitive and

empathic handling. Such consideration was not only rewarded with continued business but, in

several cases, with increased trust, loyalty, and positive word-of-mouth.

Within the Indian market landscape, we believe that stores in the MT channel can use our

insights to improve market offerings. Marketers in the MT channel can pursue greater agility by

taking advantage of their larger size, investment capacity, and product portfolios. By involving

consumers, marketers can try and craft customized offerings for different segments within a

gated community and create separate WhatsApp-based PGs that consumers could join. Over

time, based on the success rate of different PGs, marketers can try and replicate such PGs for

other gated communities based on their proximity to different outlets of a particular MT

franchise. In addition, by making it easy for consumers to exit and re-join such groups based on

their changing needs and preferences, they can avoid consumer dissatisfaction from getting

locked in and instead focus on the value co-creation possibilities that exist within these groups.

Taking a broader scope, our findings may be useful to group-based service platforms that

operate in other countries. Given the rise in WhatsApp-based purchase groups in other parts of

the world such as, China, Brazil, and Indonesia (Bharadwaj et al., 2021;

https://www.crunchbase.com/; https://walkthechat.com/), service providers can use our insights

based on the degree of convergence between those groups and the ones we study. For instance,

Trela, a Brazilian start-up, is founded on a similar principle of community-run Whatsapp groups

wherein consumers can connect with vendors to get products at discounts. Similarly, community

buying in China is popular via WeChat (a chat and payment application) where the group is often

led by a community leader who is usually a shop-owner or a stay-at-home mom. In cities like

Changsha, Huangzhou, Suzhou, and Nanjing, the community leader manages the group by

providing information, running campaigns, storing products, and even coordinating deliveries.

Thus, marketers for such groups (and others like them that we may have missed) can use our

insights to further improve the service experiences they offer their consumers.

10.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Given the limits imposed by the timing and context of our research, we encourage scholars to

study localized service marketing adaptations made in their respective neighborhoods or cities

that comprise similar interstitial markets. Studying them could help highlight points of

convergence and divergence between the factors that determine whether the adaptations persist

or not. We particularly encourage more qualitative inquiry given how the bulk of scholarly work

in this domain has been quantitative. For instance, case studies of specific service organizations

could be helpful in terms of understanding service provision adaptations. Netnographies and

social media thematic analyses, on the other hand, could be useful in tracing behavioral changes

linked to service consumption for different sectors such as retail, travel, or entertainment.

Additionally, given how the consumers in our study were primarily upper middle-class residents

of gated communities, it would also be instructive to study how service consumption was

impacted among other consumer groups and generational cohorts. Finally, we also urge scholars

to look for other collective consumption contexts where consumers and service providers work

together as the findings from such research can further enrich what we know about value co-

creation in such contexts.

11. Conclusion

The scale and scope of the disruption created by the Covid-19 pandemic led to several changes in

the service marketing landscape across the globe. Both service providers and consumers had to

make short- and long-term changes as a result. By providing a narrative account of the formation

and evolution of a service marketing adaptation in an emerging market that persisted into the

post-pandemic marketplace, we advance knowledge on how service provision and consumption

was impacted by the pandemic. Additionally, by studying PGs as interstitial markets, we

highlight how value co-creation takes place in a collective consumption context wherein

consumers work together not only with other consumers but also with service providers. Finally,

we add to extant work on service ecosystems by highlighting the different thematic factors that

come into play within PGs at the service encounter, servicescape, and service ecosystem levels.

References

Akaka, M.A. and Vargo, S.L., (2015), “Extending the context of service: from encounters to ecosystems”,

Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 6/7, pp. 453-462.

Akaka, M.A., Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., (2013), “The complexity of context: A service ecosystems

approach for international marketing”, Journal of international marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1-20.

Akaka, M.A., Vargo, S.L. and Schau, H.J., (2015), “The context of experience”, Journal of Service

Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 206-223.

Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. and Tierney, P., (1998), “Communicative staging of the wilderness servicescape”,

Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 90-115.

Ashton, M., Tuomi, A. and Backman, P., (2022), “Ghost production: Applying the servuction model to

establish a typology and propose a research agenda for on-demand restaurant food delivery”, Journal

of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp.1730-1754.

Bateson, J. E., (1985), “Self-service consumer: An exploratory study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp.

49–75.

Bhadauria, S., (2022), “General Trade vs Modern Trade,” Edistra, available at:

https://www.edistera.com/blog/general-trade-vs-modern-trade, accessed 13 January 2023.

Bharadwaj A., Witschi P., Chen C., Sanghi K., Azevedo D. (2021), “The Surprising Resilience of Emerging-

Market Consumers”, available at: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/consumer-resilience-in-

emerging-markets (accessed 13 January 2024)

Bhattacharya, A. (2022), “Gated Societies in India: When the Gates Are Broken, All Hell Breaks Loose”,

Outlook India, 26 September, available at: https://www.outlookindia.com/national/gated-societies-in-

india-when-the-gates-are-broken-all-hell-breaks-loose-news-225785 (accessed 13 January 2024)

Bitner, M.J., (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee

responses”, Journal of marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.

Bitner, M.J., (1992), “Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees”,

Journal of marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.

Blakely, E. J., & Snyder, M. G. (1997), “Fortress America: gated communities in the United States’, Brookings

Institution Press.

Bowen, G. A. (2008), “Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note”, Qualitative research,

8(1), 137-152.

Boyatzis, R.E., (1998), “Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development”,

Sage.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V., (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative research in

psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.

Brodie, R.J., Ranjan, K.R., Verreynne, M.L., Jiang, Y. and Previte, J., (2021), “Coronavirus crisis and health

care: learning from a service ecosystem perspective”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 31

No. 2, pp. 225-246.

Bryman, A., (2003), “Quantity and quality in social research”, Vol. 18, Routledge.

Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2015), “Co-creating the collective service experience”, Journal of Service Management,

26(2), 276-294.

Chandler, J.D., Danatzis, I., Wernicke, C., Akaka, M.A. and Reynolds, D., (2019), “How does innovation

emerge in a service ecosystem?”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 75-89.

Charmaz, K. (2003), “Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J.A. Holstein & J.F. Gubrium

(Eds.)”, Inside interviewing, new lenses, new concerns, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chen T. (2019), “Community Group Buy – the next billion dollar e-commerce industry”, available at:

https://walkthechat.com/community-group-buy-the-next-billion-dollar-e-commerce-industry/

(accessed 13 January 2024)

Creswell, J.W., (2007), “An introduction to mixed methods research”, p. 23.

Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N., (2016), “Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches”, Sage publications.

Czepiel, J.A., (1990), “Service encounters and service relationships: implications for research”, Journal of

business research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 13-21.

Dahl, A.J., Peltier, J.W. and Swan, E.L., (2023), “Anticipatory value-in-use in early-stage digital health service

transformations: How consumers assess value propositions before and after abrupt, exogenous

shocks”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.163, p.113910.

Davies, B., Baron, S. and Harris, K., (1999), “Observable oral participation in the servuction system: Toward a

content and process model,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp.47-53.

Delve, Ho, L., & Limpaecher, A. (2021), “What is Peer Debriefing in Qualitative Research?” available at:

https://delvetool.com/blog/peerdebriefing (accessed 13 January 2024).

Deshpande, Alok., (2020), “Industries Stare at a Shortage of Workers - The Hindu”, The Hindu.

Eger, L., Komárková, L., Egerová, D. and Mičík, M., (2021), “The effect of COVID-19 on consumer shopping

behaviour: Generational cohort perspective”, Journal of Retailing and consumer services, Vol. 61, p.

102542.

Fehrer, J.A. and Bove, L.L., (2022), “Shaping resilient service ecosystems in times of crises–a trans-Tasman

perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 489-498.

Ferraro, C., Sands, S., Schnack, A., Elms, J. and Campbell, C.L., 2022. In this together: the long-term effect of

a collective crisis on the retail and service sector. Journal of Services Marketing, 36(4), pp.550-562.

Figueiredo, B., & Scaraboto, D. (2016), “The systemic creation of value through circulation in collaborative

consumer networks”, Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 509-533.

Finsterwalder, J. and Kuppelwieser, V.G., (2020), “Equilibrating resources and challenges during crises: a

framework for service ecosystem well-being”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp.

1107-1129.

Fuschillo, G., & D’Antone, S. (2023), “Consumption networks in times of social distancing: Towards

entrained solidarity”, Marketing Theory, 23(2), 343-364.

Geertz, C., (1973), “The interpretation of cultures”, Vol. 5019, Basic books.

Gielens, K., Gijsbrechts, E. and Geyskens, I., (2021), “Navigating the last mile: The demand effects of click-

and-collect order fulfilment”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp.158-178.

Grant, J., & Mittelsteadt, L. (2004), “Types of gated communities. Environment and planning B: Planning and

Design”, 31(6), 913-930.

Grimmer, L., (2022), “Lessons from the COVID19 pandemic: The case of retail and consumer service firms”,

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 68, p. 103012.

Grönroos, C., (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis”, Marketing theory, Vol. 11 No.

3, pp. 279-301.

Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 133-150.

Gutgutia, M. (2021), “Gated community $ 500B consumption story in 2026”, Redseer.com, 10 November,

available at: https://redseer.com/reports/gated-community-500b-consumption-story-in-2026/ (accessed

13 January 2024).

Guthrie, C., Fosso-Wamba, S. and Arnaud, J.B., (2021), “Online consumer resilience during a pandemic: An

exploratory study of e-commerce behavior before, during and after a COVID-19 lockdown”, Journal

of retailing and consumer services, Vol. 61, p. 102570.

Hamilton, R., Ferraro, R., Haws, K.L. and Mukhopadhyay, A., (2021), “Traveling with companions: The

social customer journey”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 68-92.

Heinonen, K. and Strandvik, T., (2020), “Reframing service innovation: COVID-19 as a catalyst for imposed

service innovation”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 32 No.1, pp. 101-112.

Hirschman, E.C., (1992), “The consciousness of addiction: Toward a general theory of compulsive

consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 155-179.

Islam, T., Pitafi, A.H., Arya, V., Wang, Y., Akhtar, N., Mubarik, S. and Xiaobei, L., (2021), “Panic buying in

the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country examination”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, Vol. 59, p. 102357.

Itani, O.S. and Hollebeek, L.D., (2021), “Consumers’ health-locus-of-control and social distancing in

pandemic-based e-tailing services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1073-1091.

Jha Abhishek., (2022), “How the World’s Strictest Lockdown Affected India | Latest News India - Hindustan

Times”, Hindustan Times.

Jha, R. (2022), “The rise of gated communities in Indian cities”, Observer Researcher Foundation, 7 July,

available at: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-rise-of-gated-communities-in-indian-cities

(accessed 13 January 2024).

Johnstone, M.L., (2012), “The servicescape: The social dimensions of place”, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 28 No. 1-12, pp. 1399-1418.

Kabadayi, S., O’Connor, G.E. and Tuzovic, S., (2020), “The impact of coronavirus on service ecosystems as

service mega-disruptions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 809-817.

Kearny., (2021), “Unlocking the Value of Modern Trade in India - Article - Kearney.”

Kelleher, C., N. Wilson, H., Macdonald, E. K., & Peppard, J. (2019), “The score is not the music: Integrating

experience and practice perspectives on value co-creation in collective consumption contexts”,

Journal of Service Research, 22(2), 120-138.

Laato, S., Islam, A.N., Farooq, A. and Dhir, A., (2020), “Unusual purchasing behavior during the early stages

of the COVID-19 pandemic: The stimulus-organism-response approach”, Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services, Vol. 57, p. 102224.

Langeard, E., Bateson, J., & Eiglier, P., (1981), Marketing of Services: New Insights from Consumers and

Managers, Marketing Sciences Institute, Cambridge.

Liu, R., Long, J. and Liu, L., (2023), “Seeking the resilience of service firms: a strategic learning process based

on digital platform capability”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 371-391.

Luo, X., Andrews, M., Song, Y., & Aspara, J. (2014), “Group-buying deal popularity”, Journal of Marketing,

78(2), 20-33.

McCracken, G., (1988), “The long interview”, Sage, Vol. 13.

Merriam, S. B. (2009), “Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation”, San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J., (2015), “Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation”, John

Wiley & Sons.

Moeller, S. (2010), “Characteristics of services–a new approach uncovers their value”, Journal of Services

Marketing, 24(5), 359-368.

Mollenkopf, D.A., Ozanne, L.K. and Stolze, H.J., (2021), “A transformative supply chain response to COVID-

19”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 190-202.

Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patrício, L., & Voss, C. A. (2015), “Service research priorities

in a rapidly changing context”, Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127-159.

Pantano, E., Pizzi, G., Scarpi, D. and Dennis, C., (2020), “Competing during a pandemic? Retailers’ ups and

downs during the COVID-19 outbreak”, Journal of Business research, Vol. 116, pp. 209-213.

Patil, R. (2024), “Why Do Redevelopment Projects Get Stuck?”, Times Property, 3 January, available at:

https://timesproperty.com/news/post/why-do-redevelopment-projects-get-stuck-blid6401?offset=1

(accessed 13 January 2024).

Patton, M.Q., (2002), “Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential

perspective”, Qualitative social work, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 261-283.

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008), “Managing the co-creation of value”, Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 36, 83-96.

Pichierri, M. and Petruzzellis, L., (2022), “The effects of companies’ face mask usage on consumers’ reactions

in the service marketplace”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 530-549.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation”,

Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.

Prentice, C., Quach, S. and Thaichon, P., 2022. Antecedents and consequences of panic buying: The case of

COVID‐19. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(1), pp.132-146.

Purba, M., Simanjutak, D., Malau, Y., Sholihat, W. and Ahmadi, E., (2021), “The effect of digital marketing

and e-commerce on financial performance and business sustainability of MSMEs during COVID-19

pandemic in Indonesia”, International Journal of Data and Network Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 275-

282.

Ratten, V., da Silva Braga, V.L. and da Encarnação Marques, C.S., (2021), “Sport entrepreneurship and value

co-creation in times of crisis: The covid-19 pandemic”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 133, pp.

265-274.

Rosenbaum, M.S. and Massiah, C., (2011), “An expanded servicescape perspective”, Journal of Service

Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 471-490.

Rosenbaum, M.S. and Russell-Bennett, R., (2020), “Service research in the new (post-COVID) marketplace”,

Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 1-5.

Roy Chaudhuri, H. and Jagadale, S.R., (2021), “Normalized heterotopia as a market failure in a spatial

marketing system: The case of gated communities in India”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 41 No.

2, pp. 297-314.

Roy, S, and Kamath R., (2020), “Markets That Rise to the Sky: Covid-19 Makes Skyrises Change Behaviour

to Group Buying, Marketing & Advertising News, ET BrandEquity”, Economic Times.

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H, and Jinks, C. (2018),

“Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization”, Quality &

quantity, 52, 1893-1907.

Scharp, K.M. and Sanders, M.L., (2019), “What is a theme? Teaching thematic analysis in qualitative

communication research methods”, Communication Teacher, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 117-121.

Sheth, J.N., (2011), “Impact of emerging markets on marketing: Rethinking existing perspectives and

practices”, Journal of marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 166-182.

Sheth, J., (2020), “Impact of Covid-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits return or die?”, Journal of

business research, Vol. 117, pp. 280-283.

Shin, Y., Hur, W.M. and Hwang, H., (2022), “Impacts of customer incivility and abusive supervision on

employee performance: A comparative study of the pre-and post-COVID-19 periods”, Service

business, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 309-330.

Sklyar, A., Kowalkowski, C., Tronvoll, B. and Sörhammar, D., (2019), “Organizing for digital servitization: A

service ecosystem perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 104, pp. 450-460.

Solomon, M.R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J.A. and Gutman, E.G., (1985), “A role theory perspective on dyadic

interactions: the service encounter”, Journal of marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 99-111.

Spiggle, S., (1994), “Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research”, Journal of

consumer research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 491-503.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., (1990), “Qualitative research”, Grounded Theory.

Surprenant, C.F. and Solomon, M.R., (1987), “Predictability and personalization in the service encounter”,

Journal of marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 86-96.

Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B. and Pollio, H.R., (1990), “The lived meaning of free choice: An existential-

phenomenological description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary married women”,

Journal of consumer research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 346-361.

Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2003), “Social-servicescape conceptual model”, Marketing Theory,

3(4), 447-475.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of marketing,

Vol. 68 No.1, pp. 1-17.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., (2014), “Inversions of service-dominant logic”, Marketing theory, Vol. 14 No. 3,

pp. 239-248.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant

logic”, Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, Vol. 44, pp. 5-23.

Vargo, S.L., Wieland, H. and Akaka, M.A., (2015), “Innovation through institutionalization: A service

ecosystems perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 44, pp. 63-72.

Viswanathan, M., Rose, J. A. and Ruth, J. A. (2010), “Exchanges in marketing systems: The case of

subsistence consumer-merchants in Chennai, India”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, pp. 1–17.

Verghese, A. (2021), “Behind the Gates”, The Hindu, 24 December, available at:

https://www.thehindu.com/real-estate/behind-the-gates/article38026189.ece (accessed 13 January

2024)

Verhoef, P., Ittersum, van, K., Kannan, PK., & Inman, J. (2022), “Omnichannel retailing: A consumer

perspective”, In L. R. Kahle, T. M. Lowrey, & J. Huber (Eds.), APA Handbook of consumer

psychology, (pp. 649-672).

Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K., & Inman, J. J. (2015). “From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing:

introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing”, Journal of retailing, 91(2), 174-181.

Verhoef, P.C., Noordhoff, C.S. and Sloot, L., (2023), “Reflections and predictions on effects of COVID-19

pandemic on retailing”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 34 No.2, pp. 274-293. (Given as

Verhoef et.al 2022 in the manuscript- not sure if same paper).

Wang, J. J., Zhao, X., & Li, J. J. (2013), “Group buying: A strategic form of consumer collective”, Journal of

Retailing, 89(3), 338-351.

Wang, X., Keh, H.T. and Yan, L., (2020), “Customer perceptions of frontline employees’ extra-role helping

behaviors”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 869-883.

Warnaby, G. and Davies, B.J., (1997), “Commentary: Cities as service factories? Using the servuction system

for marketing cities as shopping destinations”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp.204-210.

Appendix A: A Brief Overview of the Indian Marketplace

General Trade (GT) and Modern Trade (MT) comprise the bulk of the marketplace in India

(Bhadauria, 2022). The larger of the two in terms of number of stores and sales volume is GT

(also called unorganized or traditional retail), comprising about 13 million small format

independent stores (like mom-and-pop stores), referred to as kiranas. Usually located in or close

to residential areas in both urban and rural areas, GT stores are prized for their proximity,

convenience, and adequate variety in terms of product assortment. These stores are owned by

individuals (with ownership often retained within a family for several generations) who employ a

few helpers to aid them in servicing daily consumer demand. Consumers, in turn, tend to develop

loyalty toward these stores and it is common for store owners (often called shopkeepers) and

helpers to have friendly relationships with such consumers. MT, in contrast, consists of about 20

thousand larger format stores like supermarkets, convenience stores, or hypermarkets that are

located mostly in urban areas. These self-service stores are owned by large corporations and

carry an exhaustive range of products and categories, often leading to larger purchase volumes

per shopping trip (Kearney, 2021).

---

Appendix B: Tables and Figures

Table 1: Respondent Details

Respondent

Role

Gender

Age

Bhoomika

SSP

Brij

SSP

Bindiya

Consumer

Edi

SSP

Esha

Consumer

Eshani

SSP

Ira

Consumer

Lalita

Consumer

Omisha

Consumer

Rajat

Consumer

Ridhima

Consumer

Saisha

SSP

Shivani

Consumer

Sumit

Consumer

Sunita

Consumer

Tara

Consumer

Taniya

Consumer

Tanuja

SSP

Tina

Consumer

Tisha

SSP

Tripti

Consumer

Urvashi

Consumer

Table 2: Theme Development

Level

Theme

Sub-Category

Illustrative Quotes

Service

Ecosystem

Entrepreneurality

Consumer-led

initiative

“This was an initiative taken by our community when we were all in a deep lockdown

stage. It was very difficult to step out and we were still under the fear that you could catch

the infection. We were all very happy and we jumped at the idea when people told us that

there is this kind of service that we are tying up with. It was put up in the WhatsApp group

in our society.” (Tara, Consumer)

“Meghna and I formed this group along with [other] community team members when the

pandemic started. We named this group as Fight Against Corona (laughs). For anyone of us

to go out and buy veggies was difficult so we formed this group and asked vendors to come

to the society and sell basic necessary household items and fruits and vegetables.” (Omisha,

Consumer)

SSP-led initiative

“This vegetable business was started by my father, and I just found the entire concept so

interesting. I told my father to add me to the WhatsApp group as I wanted to see how it

worked…Soon, I started handling the Google forms and the orders and speaking to our

vendors. My dad is almost out of the loop now; I am handling the entire thing by myself. I

operate from my mom’s kitchen itself!” (Bhoomika, SSP)

“During lockdown I started sending a few messages on WhatsApp to people in [the gated

community]. Word started spreading and the orders for momos (dumplings) just started

increasing. I got my partner involved because orders started increasing and we could not

sustain it from home. So, we took up a small kitchen in 2020.” (Edi, SSP)

“We sold through WhatsApp, creating neighborhood groups reaching out to families,

friends, and acquaintances who, in turn, used our produce and shared their experience

further with resident welfare groups. And so began our journey in creating WhatsApp

groups in certain gated communities.” (Saisha, SSP)

Collectivity

Coordinating to

help SSPs

“There was this customer…who first saw how it started. So, she created a WhatsApp group

for her community, and she created a Google Form. She handled all the things herself,

messaging everyone individually, creating the forms and told me she will circulate it.” (Edi,

SSP)

“There are two people [consumers] from my building who manage that group along with

the [SSP] because he alone cannot manage everything. What he would do initially was that

after we sent 10-15 orders, those two people would ‘close’ the group temporarily to let

[SSP] first process the orders and deliver them. Then they would ‘open’ the group again.”

(Tina, Consumer)

“One thing for sure is that this brought the entire society together. There was this [SSP] who

had a farm and she had about 500 mangoes as a harvest. She was asking everyone to come

and take the mangoes for free, but we told her to quote a price. She decided on a certain

amount to charge and soon her entire mango lot got utilized by the building!” (Tara,

Consumer)

Cooperating to

help consumers

“All the members were very helpful and had a very positive approach. During the pandemic

everybody was helping each other. We had some families who were quarantined, and we

would tell them to place their order on the WhatsApp group and we would send the security

to deliver the parcel to their doorsteps and they would make the payment directly to the

vendor. Sometimes we were helping them by providing lunch and dinner also. All the

members helped each other and worked as a team.” (Omisha, Consumer)

“We try to give a very personal touch to people; for example, I customize the food if

there're children in the house and they ask me not to put any chilies as it has to be kid-

friendly.” (Eshani, SSP)

“I used to call for volunteers within the WhatsApp group. I would ask if anybody was

willing to volunteer for this delivery on this day and this time and I would get a few names.

Sometimes I would get more than one name! Then I would rotate the volunteers and

typically I used to call people who have also ordered. In any case they would have had to

step out to collect their orders.” (Sumit, Consumer)

Fluidity

Experimenting

with order and

delivery logistics

“In the beginning, I let them message within the group itself with their orders, rather than

messaging me directly like they do now, because the moment they added their orders, it

created this whole interest in the rest of the members. Others felt they better send their order

before the stocks run out!” (Saisha, SSP)

“Initially, I was taking orders only on WhatsApp. I used to take orders for a building [gated

community] on that group itself; there were no individual orders catered to. The orders

would come as a list to me, and I would make an Excel sheet for that. It used to be much

more of a manual process as I had to track down the payments as well.” (Tara, SSP)

Trying different

payment modes

“Initially, [consumer] would collect the money through Google Pay on our behalf and

transfer it. Generally, our model was that you drop off the cash payment, and we will pick it

up the next day. Over a period, we got the feedback that it was inconvenient, so then we

introduced Google Pay, Paytm, etc.” (Brij, SSP)

“Some residents were not comfortable with online payment. For them, we allowed cash

transactions, but I wanted to avoid cash transactions as far as possible. That was the basis of

setting up this [online payments] in this group buying thing.” (Sumit, Consumer)

Problems from

lack of flexibility

“The issue with [large service providers] is that they had pre-packed boxes. It is not as

flexible as what we are providing. The boxes are pre-packed, and you cannot remove or add

any item. Whereas for us you can order whatever you want. We have not even kept a

minimum order. You can even order just one or two items.” (Bhoomika, SSP)

“I believe if you try to ‘lay down the law’, [consumers] will just find ways to circumvent it.

They will not tell you; they will start acting coy; they will do what they want! And it will

cause you heartburn when you find out that [a consumer] is in some other WhatsApp group

and not mine (laughs)! So, we tell them to do what they like.” (Tisha, SSP)

Servicescape

Hybridity

Use of physical

spaces

“When the vendor came to the premises, people would go and stand in line with social

distancing, wearing a mask to procure their orders, and return. We have 5 wings [in the

gated community] and at the parking level. We had given one side of the area to the vendor

which he could use.” (Omisha, Consumer)

“The [SSP] would come in his truck in the morning around 11 and deposit the packets on

the ground floor [level one]. Usually, by 2 pm we would know how much was left. We

would send reminders on the group that we are shutting by 1.30 and he would come back

later and pick up the balance.” (Bindiya, Consumer)

Use of virtual

spaces

“Our way of ordering is very simple. You just join the group and type your message. Once

the delivery is done, they WhatsApp the bill and you pay through Google Pay. The process

was simple; we did not find it very difficult.” (Shivani, Consumer)

“These [WhatsApp] messages on how to make the payment and where to make the payment

help everybody. For example, ‘This vendor can be paid through Google Pay’ or ‘That

vendor will be bringing the card machine to swipe for payment’.” (Lalita, Consumer)

Transactionality

Communication

content

“Mostly, I feel people stick to the agenda of the group. Whether it is the chicken group, the

vegetables group, or fruits group, I feel nobody deviates from what is being discussed.

People don’t want to talk about anything else in the group; there is no need!” (Ira,

Consumer)

“It was mainly to communicate when the order was coming, what value it was, and how the

payment was to be done. We had to share details of whatever payment platform that we

were using. It was basically transactional.” (Ridhima, Consumer)

“There might be some airing of disagreements regarding some of the product choices; but

no talking about each other on a personal level.” (Urvashi, Consumer)

Communication

norms

“People were trying our dishes and started posting reviews, and it was getting to be too

much! I think other people [consumers] were getting disturbed. So, over time, I realized the

importance of not disturbing others and not spamming the group.” (Eshani, SSP)

“Group interactions are largely related to reviews. A few times, some members would post

other stuff, but the seller would send a reminder to them to only post messages related to the

group's products.” (Taniya, Consumer)

Service

Encounter

Mutuality

SSPs going the

extra mile for

consumers

"There must be some level of trust. The other day, there was hardly anything left among my

vegetable guy’s stock, and I expressed my frustration. He immediately told me to give him

my list and he assured me he will get fresh vegetables for me by the evening. His intentions

were so good! Therefore, in group buying there is always a level of trust.” (Tara, Consumer)

“Initially, the sorting and packing [of produce] would happen in the village itself [from

where she sourced the produce]. But we soon realized there were way too many errors

cropping up. Many items would go missing and we could not replace [them] as we didn’t

keep any stock. So, we decided that farmers should deliver the vegetables to us, and we

would sort them, pack them, and then deliver the packages. Then, if any item was found to

be missing, we could replace it and minimize errors.” (Bhoomika, SSP)

“I let them take time to pay - no one is going away.” (Eshani, SSP)

Consumers

accommodating

service issues

"Once, he did not deliver my stuff. He simply missed my name. When I called him, he

apologized and said he would send it, but this did not upset me as I am sure that it was a

human error. When someone is doing good service and giving good quality stuff, one or two

things here or there do not matter. It's ok. It's human error". (Tina, Consumer)

"I had ordered something. The person did not send it to me initially as her son was very

sick, so I was very sympathetic and told her to take her time".” (Tripti, Consumer)

Permeability

Passive

continuation

“Sometimes, I would think of leaving a few groups. Then I would think, ‘Let it be there; It

might come in useful sometime!’ So, I just end up staying.” (Ira, Consumer)

“Two days ago, someone added me in a group. I am pretty sure that I will not be there in the

group after the next 2-3 days and I will opt out. But still, I was just curious and have

remained; I thought let me see what this group is about.” (Tripti, Consumer)

Consumer exit

“There was [an SSP] who was running this group, but she did not commit to the price she

had initially quoted. She ended up charging consumers double of what she initially

mentioned and argued that it was because prices had increased. My friend, who was part of

that group, exited soon after this incident.” (Shweta, Consumer)

"You know, I'm okay losing some [consumers] if they don’t want to be a part of it. They

actually respect that!" (Saisha, SSP)

“Yes, a few people left. After all, when you are on these WhatsApp groups, you keep

getting messages and updates. Hence, people who are not interested in buying may leave.

Some leave and others join in.” (Shivani, Consumer)

Figure 1: The Formation and Growth of Purchase Groups (PGs) as Interstitial Markets

Figure 2: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Factors Facilitating PG Formation and Growth