Drop-shipping as a business model; The degree of acceptance from a supplier’s perspective.

(1)

Drop-shipping as a business model; The degree of

acceptance from a supplier’s perspective.

Darian Nooitgedagt

Master of Science (MSc) Business Administration

Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Thesis supervisor – dr. E.P.M. Croonen

Second assessor – dr. M. Wyrwich

Vlasstraat 11A

9712KS Groningen

+31 6 36 48 23 52

darian.nooitgedagt@home.nl

Student Number 2767961

8 March 2021

(2)

Abstract

This qualitative research examines the drop-shipping business model from a supplier’s perspective. The technology acceptance model is used to obtain knowledge about the supplier’s motivations on why they participate in the drop-shipping business model and what factors have an influence on these motivations. This is done on the basis of exploratory interviews. In-depth interviews were held with six suppliers participating in the drop-shipping business model. The first motivation given by the suppliers is that they were faced with a rising demand for drop-shipping from the market. The second motivation is that drop-shipping is relatively easy to implement in their business operations. Other motivations: drop-shipping serves as an extra service, a source of revenue and as a means of growth. Factors influencing these motivations can be distinguished by beneficial and adverse factors. Factors that have a beneficial influence on the supplier’s decision to participate in the drop-shipping business model are: that it enlarges the reach of their products and that it enables the creation of brand

awareness. Factors considered to have an adverse influence are: drop-shipping is labor intensive, that the performance and entrepreneurial qualities of the drop-shippers can be disappointing and growing through drop-shipping is considered to be hard. At last, the factor which includes software and automation of processes is considered to be beneficial as well as adverse, depending on the situation.

Keywords: drop-shipping, supplier’s perspective, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),

(3)

1. Introduction

The outbreak of the COVID-19 virus resulted in struggling offline businesses, while in general the internet-based businesses are thriving (Dontu and Gustafsson, 2020). Online shopping now becomes the core, while the existing habit of offline shopping becomes the peripheral (Sheth, 2020). According to Sheth (2020) people are embracing digital technology during the Covid-19 panademic, which is likely to modify our existing habits of offline shopping into more online oriented shopping.

However, prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, advances in digital technologies, comprising information, computing, communication and connectivity, have already led to new opportunities for business model innovation (Remane, Hanelt, Nickerson and Kolbe, 2017). According to Remane et al. (2017) managers of traditional sectors often struggle to understand innovation logic, which deviates fundamentally from their previous knowledge. On the other hand, managers from IT companies successfully utilize these technologies to form new global ecosystems. This results in new digital business models which change the balance of power for instance in the retail sector (Remane, et al. 2017). In addition to new digital business models every business irrespective of any sector feels the need to make their online presence, so that brand awareness can increase and a large audience can be reached (Singh, Kaur and Singh, 2018).

Looking at E-commerce around the globe, up to the present day, there has been a constant growth in terms of selling and buying goods and services. In this study E-commerce involves the buying and selling of goods and services over the internet (Singh, et al. 2018). Singh et al. (2018) describe an emerging field in E-commerce which is referred to as drop-shipping. They state that the drop-shipping business model has emerged as a service designed to save warehousing and stockholding costs for online retailers. Drop-shipping can be seen as a management strategy whereby the retailer, which is in fact the drop-shipper, does not keep their offerings in stock but transfers the order and delivery details they receive from customers to the manufacturer, or other suppliers, who then delivers straight to the customer (Vellvé and Brugos, 2018). This business model, from the perspective of the drop-shipper, is a low risk undertaking with small upfront investments (Witowski, Koralewska and Huk, 2020).

According to Kaluzhsky (2014) the economic crisis which started in 2008 became a stimulant for the business model, with organizations trying to be more efficient and cost effective. Since then, the drop-shipping business model is on a rise and has grown in a parallel to the e-commerce transactions. With Vellvé and Burgos (2018) expecting the business model to become more specialized and continue to grow. However, the empirical evidence found on the use as well as the success of drop-shipping is limited. This because of the difficulty in identifying the type of e-commerce retailer which relies on drop-shipping as a critical element of their business strategy (Vellvé and Brugos, 2018). Where multiple studies claim that the business model is beneficial for the drop-shipping retailer in terms of storage costs, upfront investments, logistics and warehousing (Chen, Chiu, Lin and Huang, 2018; Singh, et al., 2018; Witowski, et al., 2020; Vellvé and Burgos, 2018; Kaluzhsky, 2014), no claims were made from the supplier’s perspective in terms of benefits, usefulness, acceptance of the business model. This is

(5)

surprising, because the business model is constantly growing (Vellvé and Burgos, 2018). Kamalapur and Lyth (2020) state that further research on drop-shipping is needed to map a variety of different parameters to expand the academic literature on the use of the business model. They suggest to further study the supplier side of drop-shipping. No empirical evidence is found regarding the supplier side of the business model in terms of the usefulness, benefits and acceptance. Also, Musa, Taib, Jabar and Kahlid (2016) suggest further research on the adoption of the drop-shipping business model.

The goal of this study is to obtain knowledge in the degree of acceptance of drop-shipping among suppliers and understand their underlying motives to participate in a drop-shipping business model. In other words, what drives them to participate in a drop-shipping business model and what are factors that influence this motive. Such an insight should also provide a practical contribution for retailers who are looking for a collaboration with such a supplier by understanding their perspective and make good use of that.

This insight is gained through an exploratory approach of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Introduced by Fred Davis more than a quarter century ago, the TAM became a dominant model in investigating factors affecting users’ acceptance of a technology (Marangunic and Granic, 2015). The TAM presumes a role of two variables; perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, in a relationship with potential system usage (Marangunic and Granic, 2015). According to Fred Davis himself he describes the TAM as a model which addresses why end-users accept or reject information systems. He explains how user acceptance is affected by specifying the casual interrelationships between system design features, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude towards using it and actual usage behavior (Davis, 1989). TAM is derived from the psychology-based theory of reasonable action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB). TAM has taken a leading role in explaining users’ behavior towards technologies and information systems and is used as a widely applicable model (Marangunic and Granic, 2015).

This leads to the following research question: What factors influence the degree of acceptance and what

are the underlying motivations of suppliers to participate in a drop-shipping business model?

The research question is answered on the basis of exploratory interviews. In-depth interviews were held with multiple suppliers which participate in the drop-shipping business model.

(6)

2. Theoretical Background

In this Chapter a deeper understanding of the drop-shipping business model is given, as well as the technology acceptance model and how they are related.

2.1 Drop-shipping as a business model

The concept of drop-shipping was prevalent for many years. With the sudden rise of E-commerce businesses, in which products and services are sold and bought over the internet, companies started shifting to drop-shipping (Singh, et al. 2018). It has gained popularity as an order fulfillment policy and business model for online retailers, spurring the rapid growth of online retail markets (Yu, Cheong and Sun, 2017).

Drop-shipping happens when retailers send orders to their wholesalers who then ships the order directly to the customer (Musa, et al. 2016). The retailer does not have a physical store or keep inventory. Products are displayed on the company website, orders will be collected and transferred to the wholesaler or supplier, who then is in charge of shipping the product directly to the consumer (Ma, Jehai, Sahin, Dallery, 2017). To better understand the business model Kamalapur and Lyth (2020) created Figure 1 stated below. Where in this figure E-tailer is referred to as the (online) retailer.

Figure 1: Drop-shipping supply chain

Drop-shipping around the world is mostly being associated, by the general public, with selling products directly from platforms such as Aliexpress. This form of drop-shipping with long delivery times and mostly poor product quality seems to go without any kind of collaboration between the retailer and supplier. This type of drop-shipping is most commonly defined as ‘low-ticket drop-shipping’ and is not a part of this research (Vellvé and Burgos, 2018). This research focuses on ‘high-ticket drop-shipping’ (Vellvé and Burgos, 2018). This is referred to as products manufactured and distributed within Europe, which contain European quality marks such as the CE certificate.

From a retailer’s perspective drop-shipping is seen as a low risk undertaking. As mentioned, it does not require the involvement of large financial resources upfront, having a storage space or employees (Witowski, et al. 2020). It is a simple business model where retailers can do their e-commerce operations

(7)

in a cost-effective way, taking responsibility for only the marketing, sales and customer service (most often). For consumers it is in most cases not possible to order directly from the supplier, as they only work on business-to-business level (Vellvé and Burgos, 2018). Witowski, et al. (2020) also state that for the retailer it is easy to leave the market in case of failure. This implies advantages from the retailer’s perspective; however, no empirical evidence is found on the perspective of the supplier.

Vellvé and Burgos (2018) imply that the supplier has the advantage to expand their distribution capacity since it brings together a large number of online retailer stores selling their products. According to them, this should result in economies of scale. However, their claim is not grounded with empirical evidence and is based on ‘low-ticket drop-shipping’ with products from Asia. Furthermore, Yu, Cheong and Sun (2017) state that drop-shipping can also be attractive for the supplier by enabling them to sell products on the retailer’s website, that both the retailer as well as the manufacturer can benefit from the arrangement. They do not substantiate this claim any further. The TAM is used to get a better understanding of supplier advantages and their motivation to participate in the business model.

2.2 The Technology Acceptance Model

While the introduction of the TAM was in 1986, it continues to be the most widely applied theoretical model in the field of technology and information systems according to Lee, Kozar and Larsen (2003) and still Marangunic and Granic (2015) state that TAM has a leading role in explaining users’ behavior toward technology and information systems. TAM started with Davis in 1985 who proposed that system use is a response that can be explained or predicted by user motivation, which, in turn, is directly influenced by an external stimulus consisting of the actual system’s features and capabilities (Chuttur, 2009). This resulted in the following conceptual model:

Figure 2: Conceptual model for the Technology Acceptance Model (Chuttur, 2009)

The system is what is referred to as the technology or information system, which is tested for its acceptance (Marangunic and Granic, 2015). The system or technology used in this research is the drop-shipping business model from a supplier’s perspective.

In 1986 Davis further developed the model, he suggested that users’ motivation to use a system is explained by three factors: the perceived ease of use, the perceived usefulness and the attitude towards using the system. In later studies the model further evolved, which resulted in the final version in 1996 (Figure 3) (Chuttur, 2009).

(8)

Figure 3: Final version of the Technology Acceptance Model (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996; Chuttur, 2009)

Research in psychology and TAM itself suggest that the single best predicter of actual system usage is ‘the users’ intention to use’. The intention to use (Behavioral Intention, BI) is determined by one’s attitude towards using a certain system or technology. This attitude towards using in turn is then determined by two specific beliefs. This contains both the perceived usefulness (U) and the perceived ease of use (EOU), as shown in Figure 3. The perceived usefulness is referred to as the user’s perception of the degree to which using a particular system will improve their performance. The perceived ease of use is the user’s perception of the extent to which using a particular system will be free of effort (Davis and Venkatesh, 1996). The goal of this study is to obtain knowledge about the underlying motivations of the suppliers to participate in a drop-shipping business model. According to Marangunic and Granic (2015) the user’s motivation lies in front of the BI. The motivation is based upon U and EOU and influences the Behavioral Intention (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996).

An additional change brought to the TAM model, is the consideration of other factors. Namely, the external variables that might influence the beliefs of a person towards a system (Chuttur, 2009). This means that the external variables have a direct influence on the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This results in an indirect influence of the external variables on the Behavioral Intention (Marangunic and Granic, 2015). According to the studies of Chuttur (2009); Marangunic and Granic (2015); Burton-Jones and Hubona (2006) those variables include system characteristics, user training, user participation and the nature of the implementation process. They also mention personality traits, demographic characteristics, prior usage and experience, confidence in the technology or system, output quality, risk, trust, expectations, level of education and age (marangunic and Granic, 2015; Chuttur, 2009; Burton-Jones and Hubona, 2006; Davis and Venkatesh, 1996). These researchers found that those external variables, in their research, indeed had a certain effect on the beliefs U and EOU. However, considering multiple studies, the external variables seem to be chosen at random (Marangunic and Granic,2015). Where Burton-Jones and Hubona (2006) quote: ‘Based on a detailed analysis of 22 TAM articles from six journals, Legris et al. found that 60% of TAM studies considered external variables and there was “no clear pattern with respect to the choice of the external variables considered.”.

TAM uses multiple-items scales to operationalize BI, U and EOU in order to have a more reliable measurement than single item-scales. The Cronbach alpha of TAM scales has generally been found to

(9)

exceed 0.9 across numerous of studies. TAM is seen as a very confident and reliable model (Davis and Venkatesh, 1996). These scales were translated into open interview questions, which are used to get an insight in the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use specific to the system. The scales are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

2.3 The Technology Acceptance Model suitable for Drop-shipping

The research of Davis in 1989 was the first to conclude that both the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and TAM provide significant results to predict the intention of participants, to use a certain system (Chuttur, 2009). However, TAM provides a much simpler method to implement, because the beliefs variables (U and EOU) are context-independent. This indicates that the Perceived Usefulness and Perceived ease of use can become clear on the basis of the scales, without requiring any specific adjustments to adapt to a system. Whereas, in case of the TRA, it is necessary to develop a series of salient beliefs, specific to the system used in the research, before formulating the scales for measuring the beliefs (Chuttur, 2009). This indicates that the TAM and its scales are widely applicable without any modifications beforehand. Where the scales of the TRA have to be set up by the researcher, specific to the system being studied. These scales from the TAM are being discussed in the next Chapter.

The results of another experiment show that both the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and TAM were suitable to predict system usage. Where TPB is a more complex model which only considers beliefs that are specific to the given system. This results in more accurate information that can be obtained, due to the beliefs specific to the system. TAM instead, is a simpler model that can be generally applied to any system, and thus provides broad information about the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Marangunic and Granic, 2015).

In this research TAM is considered to be the most suitable model. TAM should enable the possibility to obtain knowledge about the underlying motivations of the suppliers, who participate in a drop-shipping model. TAM is most suitable, because from a supplier perspective, the underlying motivations is still an area which is unexplored. This results in the absence of available beliefs specific to the system. In this research the system is referred to as the drop-shipping business model, with the suppliers participating as the users of the system.

As opposed, when doing research about the underlying motivations of retailers TRA or TPB will be a more suitable model to use. This is because, as previously indicated by Witowski et al. (2020), there are already a set of specific beliefs available for the use of drop-shipping from a retailer’s perspective (the system). Those specific beliefs are related to drop-shipping being beneficial for the retailer in terms of (no) storage costs, upfront investments, logistics and warehousing (Chen, Chiu, Lin and Huang, 2018; Singh, et al., 2018; Witowski, et al., 2020; Vellvé and Burgos, 2018; Kaluzhsky, 2014). Specific beliefs like these are not available from a supplier’s perspective. So, with TAM being a model which can be generally applied to any system and the underlying motivations of suppliers being an unexplored area.

(10)

The TAM seems to be to most suitable model to obtain knowledge about the actual usage of the drop-shipping business model.

Drop-shipping on one hand, as stated in this research, is seen as a business model. Where on the other hand, for example Yu et al. (2017), classify drop-shipping as an information system. They substantiate that by explaining that the retailer, who receives the order from the customer, never gets to see or touch the product. So, in fact all the retailer does is sending information from the customer to the supplier. This, from a retailers’ perspective, can be seen as an information system. Where a supplier would categorize drop-shipping as a business model, as they have to transfer the products sold. This strengthens the alignment between the TAM and drop-shipping being the system studied in the model. Subsequent to that, this study potentially builds on the literature of the TAM. Most studies use the TAM for specific technologies or information systems (Marangunic and Granic, 2015; Chuttur, 2009), where it might be applicable to (new)(digital) business models, which expands the possibilities of TAM.

In this research we exclude the external variables of the TAM. The external variables mentioned in Chapter 2.2 have proven to play a role on the effect of U and EOU (Chuttur, 2009). However, only 60% of the studies regarding the TAM use external variables. Where, in most studies, these variables were picked at random and no clear pattern was considered (Marangunic and Granic, 2015; Burton-Jones and Hubona, 2006). Considering the research question of this study: “What factors influence the degree of

acceptance and what are the underlying motivations of suppliers to participate in a drop-shipping business model?”. The underlying motivations (motives) are formed up by the perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use. When a system is perceived as useful and relatively free of effort a motive is formed on why a supplier should implement or reject a certain system. When drop-shipping is perceived as not useful and requires a lot of effort, results in a motive on why they will reject a system. This motive results in the supplier’s behavioral intention and actual usage of the drop-shipping business model. The actual usage is not directly relevant as this research focusses on the factors and underlying motivations. So, regarding the research question and the TAM, the following model has been conducted:

(11)

The factors influencing the supplier to participate in a drop-shipping business model results from the interviews that were held. These factors play a role in the perceived usefulness (U) and perceived ease of use (EOU). The U and EOU then form the underlying motivations of the suppliers. The underlying motivations, in this research, is referred to as the motive for the supplier to use the drop-shopping business model. The underlying motivations or motive results in the behavioral intention of the supplier to participate in a shipping business model. All the participating suppliers in this research do drop-shipping to some extent, this means that there has been a moment in time where the intention is formed to start with drop-shipping. The aim of this study is to decode this behavioral intention back to the motivations and factors that form the intention to participate in drop-shipping. In Chapter 4, the results section, this model is refined with the results of the interviews.

3. Research Methodology

This research aims to obtain an in-depth understanding of the underlying factors and motivations of suppliers participating in a drop-shipping business model. The research is conducted via a qualitative approach and the primary data has been collected through semi-structured interviews. A qualitative approach has been carried out, because of the limited prior research that is relevant to the specific research question. According to Miles and Huberman (1994) qualitative research is well suited for understanding phenomena within their context, uncovering links among concepts and behaviors, and generating and refining theory. It increases the understanding of complex phenomena due to the detailed and in-depth information that it creates (Currall and Tower, 2002). This is most suitable to obtain knowledge about the dimensions prior to the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and the specific underlying motivations of suppliers.

3.1 Data collection

The main source of data collected for this research were the face-to-face interviews. In total 6 in-depth interviews were held. These were conducted online due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews were held with business owners and managers from organizations, which were classified as a supplier in a drop-shipping business model. The participating organizations have been collected by means of a public list. This list contains multiple European and Netherlands based suppliers primarily focusing on drop-shipping as a specific strategy in their organization. These criteria have been set to assure the validity of the research (Leung, 2015). Desk research, regarding the respondents, has been carried out prior to the interviews in order to verify their drop-shipping focus.

The interview is based on the topic-guide methodology of Kvale (1996). This methodology aims to get extensive answers by posing short, nondirective questions. The interview is divided into four sections

(12)

and each is introduced in a non-directive way to discover the perspectives of the interviewees. The answers flowing from a non-directive start are seen as the most important factors in the perception of the interviewee. Semi-structured interviews provide a stable structure while still leaving room for further probing, if unexpected information or factors would emerge (Kvale, 1996). Dividing the interview in these sections contributes to the consistency during the interviews. This results in standardization and reliability of the data flowing from the interviews (Leung, 2015). The interview guideline can be found in Appendix A. The first section consists of open questions regarding the organization, to get an insight in their activities and business model. These are followed by questions on how they operated in the past and questions on ‘why’ the operate as they do. Follow-up questions were used to obtain more information.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, TAM is a multiple-items scale, which makes the model reliable (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996). For both the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use a 6 items scale has been developed (Chuttur, 2009), which can be found in Appendix B and C. These scales where then translated into open interview questions and contain Section 3 and 4 of the interview. This can be found in Table 1. The goal of translating these scales into open questions, is to obtain qualitative knowledge about the U and EOU dimension of the theoretical framework. The third section started with the introduction of the term drop-shipping to gain an insight in the interviewees understanding and awareness. Addressing both scales gives an in-depth understanding in both the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of drop-shipping for the (user) supplier. This forms the underlying motivations of the suppliers and leads to the Behavioral Intention to use a system (Marangunic and Granic, 2015). The last section of the interview builds upon the questions regarding both scales and focus on the motivation why they operate through drop-shipping. This section starts with the dependent variable, what they think of the business model and why they use it. Follow-up questions linked to the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are asked to obtain a deeper understanding.

3.2 Data analysis

The interviews were recorded after which they were transcribed. The method of Emans (2004) is used, where the initial interview questions are based on the variables of the theoretical framework, without any coding. The analysis started by reading through the transcripts in order to increase the understanding of the data. Subsequently, the collected data has been proactively gone through with an objective lens in order to identify, analyze and reporting patterns (Braun and Clark, 2006). The data was searched for recurring patterns and other important insights (Braun and Clark, 2006). Analyzing the data is based on the different parts of the theoretical framework. The interview guideline consisted of five different parts, which together covered all the dimension of the theoretical framework. Tables are used to structure the interview data of all interviewees. This helped to reveal patterns and draw conclusions in the analysis (Miles and Hubermann, 1994). Overall, dividing the interview into different parts is as follows:

(13)

Variables Interview Questions Measurement

The introduction A short introduction from both the interviewer as well as the interviewee. However, this is not relevant for the data.

No measurement

The Company Guideline/sample questions:

- Can you tell something about the company?

- How does the company operate and what does the business model look like?

- Why is it that the company operates in this way? - has the company always done business that way? - If not, what has changed?

- and, why?

Are you aware of the term drop-shipping? Would you describe the organizations’ business model that way? Why?

Qualitative - open questions

Perceived Usefulness (U)

Guideline/sample questions:

- Using drop-shipping in our business would enable us to accomplish our tasks (operations) more quickly?

- Does the company performance change by using drop-shipping?

- Does drop-shipping affect the effectiveness of the operations?

- Does drop-shipping make it easier to do business? - Do you find drop-shipping useful for the organization?

Perceived Ease of Use (EOU)

Guideline/sample questions:

- How would you describe the learning process in operating through drop-shipping?

- Is it easy to operate via drop-shipping as the company desires to? And why?

- Is operating via a drop-shipping business model understandable and clear? (Why?)

- Do you find drop-shipping flexible to operate through? - Is it easy for the company to grow through drop-shipping? - Is drop-shipping an easy business model to work with? (why?)

Motivations and Factors - What is your view on the drop-shipping business model? - Why did the company choose to operate through such a business model?

- What factors do you think play a role in the strategic decision to go for such a business model?

- Can you name some benefits of being a supplier in a drop-shipping business model?

- And are there any downsides?

(14)

All the interview data is processed in the Result Section. As mentioned, Table 1 is split into different parts based on the variables. Table 2 represents the company variable, Table 3 contains the perceived usefulness, Table 4 contains the perceived ease of use and table 5 includes the motivations and factors. After processing the data is reviewed once again in order to ensure that all the important information is covered in the results section (Braun and Clark, 2006).

3.3 Reliability and Validity

Van Aken, Berends and van der Bij (2012) state in their research that in order to explain both the reliability and validity of qualitative research there is one factor of high importance. Namely, the controllability. The controllability is ensured by explicitly depicting the different parts of the research in the methodology section. This has resulted in every step of this research being recorded and substantiated.

3.3.1 Reliability

The essence of reliability in qualitative research lies with consistency, which can be created by standardization (Leung, 2015). According to Van Aken, et al (2012) there are four potential biases which have an influence on the reliability of a certain research. First; the researcher bias, second; the instrument bias, third; the respondent bias and finally; the situation bias. This research is conducted by a single researcher and has been supervised by dr. E.P.M. Croonen (University of Groningen), in order to prevent the researcher bias. E-mail contact and regular meetings regarding the approach of the research, interviews and data have contributed to the minimization of the researcher bias. According to Miles and Huberman (1994) this can be seen as the friendly stranger, who brought in fresh perspective. To further increase the reliability standardization of the processes regarding data collection, analysis and interpretation were carried out. The interviews were semi-structured, those were transcribed in a standardized way as well as the analysis of the data. In order to ensure instrument reliability multiple sources of evidence were used, consisting of company documents (online) as well as the interview transcripts (offline). Process triangulation is ensured by consulting multiple sources of evidence (Van Aken et al. 2012). To avoid the respondent bias, the role and function of the interviewee has been verified to determine their suitability for the interview. Mainly open questions were asked to allow the information coming from the respondent to flow more freely and not forcing the respondent into a certain direction. This emphasized that there was no right or wrong in answering questions. In order to prevent the situation bias, the interviews were held during different times and days of the week.

3.3.2 Validity

In qualitative research validity is referred to as ‘appropriateness’ of the tools, processes and data (Leung, 2015). According to Van Aken, et al (2012) this means that the way in which a research has been carried out, should provide good reasons to believe that through a clear relationship between execution and conclusions, the results are plausibly true. In order to determine the validity of a research, the construct, external and internal validity should be taken into account (Van Aken, et al. 2012). The

(15)

construct validity is referred to as the extent to which an instrument measures what is intended to measure (Van Aken, et al. 2012). In this research the construct validity has been ensured by taking into account all the aspects of the TAM, as the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Figure 4) build up the underlying motivations of the supplier. This instrument was set up in consultation with dr. E.P.M. Croonen to assure that the instrument measures what is intended to measure. Another important validity dimension is the internal validity. The internal validity includes the justification and completeness of the conclusions in a research (Van Aken, et al. 2012). The internal validity is guaranteed by systematically analyzing and processing the data. Tables are used to structure the interview data in an accurate and non-conflicting way. At last, the external validity refers to the analytical generalizability of the conclusions of a research. Due to a limited number of in-depth interviews, the generalizability of this research is limited. However, the number of studies from a supplier perspective in a drop-shipping business model, is still very unexplored. This research could function as a starting point.

4. Results

In this section the findings resulting from the analysis of the semi-structured interviews are being discussed. The data is analyzed according through the method of Emans (2004), where the interview is split in different parts. The goal of Table 2 is to create an understanding of participating suppliers and how they are related to drop-shipping. Table 3 consists of quotes or explanations related to the perceived usefulness of drop-shipping. Where Table 4 contains the perceived ease of use. According to Venkatesh and Davis, 1996; Marangunic and Granic (2015) the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use form the basis of the underlying motivations. Table 5 contains the last part of the interview. The goal here was to obtain information related to the supplier’s motivations and specific factors on why they operate through drop-shipping.

4.1 Participating supplier’s profile

This Section contains Table 2. The goal here is to create a profile of the different suppliers participating in this research. All suppliers are labelled from A until F. The second column is used to give some context on the industry in which they are active, where they operate and for how many years they are participating in drop-shipping. The third column indicates their business model(s). At last, the Explanation column contains processed data from the interviews, which was searched for recurring patterns and other important insights (Braun and Clark, 2006).

(16)

A Industry: - non-food consumer goods (very broad) Operating in: - The Netherlands Drop-shipping: - for +-10 years

- Drop-shipping - ‘We are totally aware of the term drop-shipping, we started the company based on that business model, in 2010 we saw the opportunity to serve drop-shippers by directly sending orders to the consumers. Back then we were one out of three companies operating like this’

B Industry: - toys, home goods, garden goods, leisure articles (very broad) Operating in: - All over Europe Drop-shipping: - for +-13 years

- Drop-shipping - Wholesaler

- ‘Our company started as a wholesaler, where we have built a lot of long-term relationships with companies and manufacturers all over Europe. this has resulted in an extensive catalogue with an enormous inventory.’

- ‘We started with drop-shipping after the economic crisis of 2007, a lot of retailers and web-shops went bankrupt. Some of them wanted to make a restart. We offered them the opportunity to shift from a regular inventory to a drop-shipping strategy.’ - ‘we had a solid foundation as a wholesaler and took the opportunity to expand by supplying the drop-shippers.’

C Industry: - non-food consumers goods (very broad) Operating in: - Benelux Drop-shipping: - for +- 7 years - Drop-shipping - Wholesaler

- ‘We started as a ‘cash and carry’ 30 years ago. That evolved into retailers ordering from out catalogue online, while we delivered at their stores.’

- ‘later on, those retailers expanded with web-shop owners’ ‘Requests from drop-shippers kept coming in, so we arranged with some adjustments that it was possible for us and started to serve the drop-shippers as well’

D Industry: - Ecological and sustainable (non)-food products Operating in: - The Netherlands Drop-shipping: - Drop-shipping - Wholesaler - Business to Consumer

- ‘We are a specialist in sustainable and ecological (non) food products, but not just accessible for drop-shippers’

- ‘We started in 2007 with two different names, one operates as a wholesaler, participating on the business market. Supplying retailers, web-shops, hardware stores, department stores, etc. The other one is a web-shop where we supply the consumer market’

(17)

- for +- 5 years - ‘More and more requests from drop-shippers came in, so we decided to cooperate with drop-shippers from our wholesale branch and proactively show that to the market’

E Industry: - Pet supplies Operating in: - Benelux Drop-shipping: - for +- 2 years - Drop-shipping - Wholesaler

- ‘We are originally a wholesaler, with a customer base which mostly consists of physical stores and web-shops’

- ‘Drop-shippers started to approach us, the number of requests kept growing and we decided to include drop-shipment in our organization’

- ‘We supply drop-shippers for over 2 years now’

F Industry:

- high end furniture Operating in: - The Netherlands Drop-shipping: - for +- 1.5 years - Drop-shipping - Wholesaler - Business to Consumer

- ‘We started the company, a high-end furniture label, as a wholesaler / distributing our products to retailer, web-shops included.’

- ‘We also immediately started our own web-shop to serve consumers directly’

- ‘Drop-shipping was added later, purely due to the demand of the market’

Table 2: Profile indication of the suppliers participating in the research

The companies selected for this research, as mentioned in Section 3.1, profile themselves as suppliers for drop-shippers. What immediately stands out is that they all indeed serve the drop-shipping market. However, for most of them a regular wholesaling company is the basis of their operations, this is evident from the ‘business model’ column. This is consistent with the findings of Vellvé and Burgos (2018), regarding their claim related to the drop-shipping retailers. They claim that the empirical evidence found on the use and success of drop-shipping limited, because of the difficulty in identifying whether the organization relies on drop-shipping as a critical element of their business strategy.

As seen in Table 1, only supplier D and F serve the end consumers themselves. Supplier A, B, C and E limit their operations to wholesaling and drop-shipping. This consistent with the research of Vellvé and Burgos (2018). They state that, in most cases, it is not possible for consumers to order directly from the supplier, who only work on a business-to-business level.

What is striking from Table 1, is that there is little difference in the data. There is significant equality in the supplier’s motive on why they started with drop-shipping. All the suppliers mention that there was an opportunity which arose from a rising demand in the market. This is in line with Singh, et al. (2018). They mentioned that with the sudden rise of E-commerce businesses, in which products and services are sold and bought over the internet, companies started shifting to drop-shipping (Singh, et al. 2018). According to Yu, et al. (2017) it has gained popularity as an order fulfillment policy and business model for online retailers, spurring the rapid growth of online retail markets.

(18)

At last, supplier B mentioned: ‘We started with drop-shipping after the economic crisis of 2007, a

lot of retailers and web-shops went bankrupt. Some of them wanted to make a restart. We offered them the opportunity to shift from a regular inventory to a drop-shipping strategy.’. This is consistent with

the claim of Kaluzhsky (2014), who mentioned that the economic crisis which started in 2008 became a stimulant for the business model, with organizations trying to be more efficient and cost effective. Since then, the drop-shipping business model is on a rise and has grown in a parallel to the e-commerce transactions.

4.2 A supplier’s perspective: the perceived usefulness of drop-shipping

Section 4.2 contains the perceived usefulness of drop-shipping, as part of the TAM, from a supplier’s perspective. All the data regarding the perceived usefulness is processed in table 3. The first column contains the supplier, the second column contains the overall usefulness of drop-shipping from the supplier’s perspective, which was asked for during the interview. At last, the explanation column contains processed data from the interviews, which was searched for recurring patterns and other important insights (Braun and Clark, 2006).

As mentioned in the theoretical background, the perceived usefulness is referred to as the user’s perception of the degree to which using a particular system improves their performance. (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996; Marangunic and Granic, 2015).

Supplier Usefulness Explanation(s) A - From being very

useful to not useful anymore

- ‘Drop-shipping does not enable us to accomplish our tasks or operations more quickly, it is a lot of work for one specific order. Instead of sending a bulk order to retailer’

- ‘We performed really well in the first 5-6 years. Our only focus was drop-shipping. So, back then it had a positive effect on our company performance. With 600 drop-shippers listed it was a very effective way for us to sell product’ - ‘Nowadays the competition is rising and our performance declined to a point where our costs are higher than our revenues. That is why we have decided to shut down next month’

B - Finds drop-shipping very useful for the company

- ‘Supplying drop-shippers enables us to sell more products, it is complementary to what we started the company for, wholesaling. At this point we are one of the biggest suppliers for drop-shippers in Europe.’

- ‘It also positively influences the effectiveness of our operations, because due to drop-shipping we sell more products. This enables us to get a cheaper purchase price from manufacturers.’

- ‘we have automated a lot of our processes in the last decades, so handling small orders (which happens with drop-shippers), does not have a negative influence in terms of man hours or costs’

(19)

- ‘For us it is very useful, we already have everything in house. Just some slight changes in the software made it work for us. So, with little effort we do create a higher performance of the company.’

C - Is neutral on the usefulness of drop-shipping

- ‘Drop-shipping is a reasonable part of our turnover, but regular web-shops and shopkeepers are our best customers’

- ‘We have a lot of drop-shippers joining us, but in proportion it is disappointing. In my opinion, most drop-shippers are fortune seekers. They want to make money without inventory, while we make the investment.’

- ‘However, we also have drop-shippers who do really well. Their content and appearance in the search engine is on point.’

- ‘We see drop-shipping as an additional service to keep up with the competition and serve the demand of the market. It adds value and revenue, but we cannot fully rely on drop-shipping.’

- ‘Drop-shipping orders compared to regular orders are also more labor intensive, an order of one product almost takes as much effort as an order of hundred pieces’

D - Finds drop-shipping useful for the company

- ‘Drop-shipping is indeed useful for us. We meet the demand of the market, without making any changes or costs in addition to our standard operations.’ - ‘Drop-shipping is not our main focus; we do not have any software or automated processes to support our drop-shippers. They have to place their order manually, change the shipping address and ad a PDF with their label.’

- ‘We already handle small orders, as we also supply consumers directly’ - ‘To put it in perspective, we did not have to make investments or changes and drop-shipping does generate revenues.’

E - Finds drop-shipping useful, but not specific to their company

- ‘Partnering with drop-shippers results in a lot of small orders in our warehouse’ - ‘It makes our warehouse look like a retail store’

- ‘It generates a lot of orders, which of course where profitable. We think that it definitely can be a useful strategy, however it does not really match with what we are looking for and how we want to grow’

- ‘We have done drop-shipping for a few years, it created a lot of revenue, but we have decided to put a hold on it’

- ‘It is very labor intensive, compared to what we are used to’ F - Finds drop-shipping

very useful for the company

- ‘Drop-shipping enables us to increase our brand awareness. Our products are sold on multiple drop-shipping websites and consumers are more likely to find us as a label’

- ‘For us it delivers a considerable proportion of the revenue’

- ‘We had to implement a bidding portal and some extra software, which is done by an employee. Working with drop-shippers is going really smooth since then.’ Table 3: The perceived usefulness of drop-shipping from the supplier’s perspective

(20)

According to Marangunic and Granic (2015) the user’s motivation is based on the perceived usefulness (U) and the perceived ease of use (EOU), which has an influence on the behavioral intention (BI) to use a certain system (Figure 4). As seen in Table 2, all the participating suppliers operate in a drop-shipping business model, to some extent. This implies that they all have to perceive drop-shipping as useful in their case, to some extent. It can be noted from the data in Table 3, that supplier B, D and F indeed perceive shipping as useful and show similarities in their argumentation. They all state that drop-shipping increases their performance. Where supplier B indicates that they can purchase their products cheaper from the manufacturers and that drop-shipping complements their other operations. Supplier D also finds it useful because they are able to satisfy the demand from the market. At last, supplier F labels drop-shipping as useful because, besides the performance increase, it generates brand awareness and enlarges the reach for their products.

On the other hand, there are some differences in the perceived usefulness regarding supplier A, C and E. Where C is neutral in their perceived usefulness of drop-shipping. According to the data of Table 3, they state that an increase in their performance occurred based on drop-shipping. This usually indicates that a certain system is perceived as useful according to Marangunic and Granic (2015). However, supplier C mentioned that shipping is labor intensive and that they consider drop-shipping as an extra service.

Supplier A mentioned that during the time when they performed well, drop-shipping was considered useful, mainly because it did have a positive influence on their performance. However, the same as supplier C, they also find it labor intensive. What stands out from the data of supplier A, is that due to the high level of competition and declining performance they went perceiving drop-shipping as useful to being perceived as not useful.

At last, supplier E almost corresponds with supplier C. They also state that there is an increase in the performance as a result of drop-shipping. As mentioned, this usually indicates that drop-shipping is perceived as useful according (Marangunic and Granic, 2015). However, supplier E emphasizes that drop-shipping is too labor intensive and does not match the vision of the company. They are focused on large orders and deliveries.

Overall, following the data from Table 3, it can be considered that the participating suppliers perceive drop-shipping alternately useful. The supplier’s intention to use drop-shipping is determined by the attitude towards drop-shipping. This attitude in turn is determined by two specific believes. The perceived usefulness (U) and the perceived ease of use (EOU) (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996). Considering that all the participating suppliers do shipping to some extent and perceive drop-shipping as alternately useful, the research of Marangunic and Granic (2015) is supported. Where perceived usefulness is an indicator (in conjunction with perceived ease of use) of eventually using a certain system. In this case all the participating suppliers perceive drop-shipping as useful and at the same time they all use drop-shipping.

(21)

4.3 A supplier’s perspective: the perceived ease of use of drop-shipping

Besides the perceived usefulness (U) there is also the perceived ease of use (EOU) as a dimension of the TAM (Figure 3 and 4), which together forms the attitude and motivation towards using a particular system (Chuttur, 2009). Section 4.3 contains the perceived ease of use of drop-shipping from a supplier’s perspective. The data regarding the perceived ease of use is processed in Table 4. This is done similarly to the perceived usefulness, which ensures consistency. The first column contains the supplier, the second column contains the overall perceived ease of use of drop-shipping from the supplier’s perspective, which was asked for during the interview. At last, the explanation column contains processed data from the interviews, which was searched for recurring patterns and other important insights (Braun and Clark, 2006).

The perceived ease of use refers to the user’s perception of the extent to which using a particular system is free of effort (Davis and Venkatesh, 1996; Marangunic and Granic, 2015).

Supplier Ease of Use Explanation(s) A - From being an easy

model without a lot of effort to not an easy model

- ‘In the beginning it was very easy for us to do business with drop-shipping, as I said, we had a lot of drop-shippers linked to us and we were only one of the three companies operating in this way’

- ‘Due to this, our products had an enormous reach and we were growing rapidly; without advertising or putting effort in selling our products’

- ‘We were focusing on our operations and the logistics, while the drop-shippers took care of the selling process. This enabled us to grow fast.’

- ‘It is an easy business model to work with and indeed flexible in terms of drop-shippers joining us. It does not cost anything extra and if they quit it is also ok.’ The turning point:

- ‘Nowadays, if I speak for ourselves, the competition is outraging. It is very hard to grow and keep up with the competition. Let’s say ‘the pool became bigger’, - ‘More and more suppliers and wholesalers are participating on the basis of drop-shipping as an additional service. Our only focus were the drop-shippers and that is not doable for us anymore.’

- ‘It became harder for us to keep the drop-shippers working with us. They went to other companies and our revenues started to decline’.

- ‘I’m convinced that the model is perfect for unique and branded products, but not with standard wholesale products which are being sold in the Netherlands and Belgium’

B - Finds drop-shipping an easy model

- ‘For us drop-shipping is an easy extra means of growth. We already had everything set. Everything they sell more is a bit more growth for us. It gives an extra impulse’

- ‘The drop-shippers working with us are selling all over Europe and that is effective for our growth. As their customer base grows, ours also grows’

(22)

- ‘It is simply a no-brainer. ‘If you can deliver, you can make money’. Internally enable to add drop-shippers to our customer base is no big deal. So yeah, a no-brainer’

- ‘The number of drop-shippers joining us keeps growing’ C - Finds drop-shipping

an easy model on one hand, but it can also be a hard model if growing further

- ‘I sound like I am not very positive about drop-shipping, but that is not the necessarily the case, because for us the shift to drop-shipping was easy.’ - ‘It costs a bit of money to implement the necessary software and plugs and annually you have to spend some money to keep it up to date. For us that is roughly twenty thousand euro’s a year, but that’s it’

- ‘We started with a piece of software and from there on, we could easily build’ - ‘From our experience growing through drop-shipping is hard. However, if there will be some drop-shippers joining us, like the few good ones we have, there will be some potential’

- ‘The expansion to more European countries could be something very interesting for our drop-shipper side of the business’

- ‘The way we have it organized right now, was kind of simple, but if drop-shipping becomes a bigger part of our turnover, we also have to automate our packaging hall more than we have now. The drop-shipping orders are relatively labor intensive compared to the orders of shopkeepers. That part of growing is a little bit harder’

D - Finds drop-shipping an easy model to work with, on how it is going for the company right now

- ‘On one hand, we have our wholesaling part of the business and on the other hand, have a line of business where we serve regular consumers. Fitting in the drop-shipping side has been easy, because this can run parallel to those operations’

- ‘Growing through drop-shipping is a little harder or more serious for us. The orders from drop-shippers are handled as regular orders. The drop-shipper has to place the order with the right address themselves, including their label/packing slip. As you can imagine, this is not a perfect system’

- ‘If we want to grow in drop-shipping, we should invest in software and automation where the drop-shipping website is directly linked to us, our inventory and logistics.’

- ‘We are happy with how it is going right now, not much effort is put into it, but it does generate revenue. As I said, we see it as an additional service’

E - Finds drop-shipping a relatively easy model, but is not in line with the company vision

- ‘We started with drop-shipping, because there was a demand from the market. We did very well on that, a lot of requests and sales came in without a lot of effort’ - ‘Even though we started advertising that we do drop-shipping, it was not the focus we wanted. We were and still are a wholesaler’

- ‘It became very busy with small orders from drop-shippers, that is why we recently decided to stop drop-shipping anytime soon.’

- ‘We still will enable our customers, who ran out of inventory, to use drop-shipping’

(23)

- ‘It is indeed a fast and easy way to grow, if you can handle it as an organization and if it is you focus. For us it is not, so that is why we have decided to stay with our core business and just offer it as an extra service’

F - Finds drop-shipping an easy model to work with, especially for them

- ‘It was an easy choice, the requests for drop-shipping came in. For us it was relatively simple to enable the collaboration with drop-shippers internally.’ - ‘It is relatively simple to grow through drop-shipping, it helps to create brand awareness. I must say that we do a screening on the drop-shippers we work with. Working with drop-shippers who are not professional, can have a negative influence on our label’

- ‘Our drop-shippers base keeps expanding with entrepreneurs of good quality. This can also be seen in our revenues’

- I think that for brands or labels, it is a very effective model where the reach you create relatively to what it costs and takes, is the biggest advantage’

Table 4: The perceived ease of use of drop-shipping from the supplier’s perspective

The second belief on which the user’s motivation is based, is the perceived ease of use (Marangunic and Granic, 2015). As mentioned in section 4.3 all the participating suppliers do operate through drop-shipping to some extent. This implies, according to Chuttur, 2009, that at some point they perceived drop-shipping both useful (improving their performance) as well as easy to use (free of effort) to some extent. This is corresponding with the data from table 3, that overall, the suppliers perceive drop-shipping alternately an easy business model to work with. What immediately stands out from the ‘ease of use’ column in table 4, is that the extent to which the suppliers perceive drop-shipping as an easy business model to work with, is almost similar to the extent that they perceive drop-shipping as useful. In the explanation column of Table 3 and 4 different argumentations regarding the perceived ease of use and usefulness are given. Also, a clear distinction between the two dimensions can be observed while reading the meaning of them. Where the perceived usefulness is performance orientated and is referred to as the user’s perception of the degree to which using a particular system improves their performance. (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996; Marangunic and Granic, 2015). On the other hand, the perceived ease of use refers to the user’s perception of the extent to which using a particular system is free of effort (Davis and Venkatesh, 1996; Marangunic and Granic, 2015). This is orientated on effort and ease. Following the data of Table 3 and 4 it can be considered that despite the differences in the two specific beliefs, they are also intertwined.

Supplier B, D and F again show similarities. They all consider drop-shipping as an easy business model to work with. They perceived the process of adapting to drop-shipping or adding it to their business operations as easy. Both supplier B and F also consider growing through drop-shipping as easy and very effective, while supplier D considers growing through drop-shipping as hard. Supplier D indicates that to be able to grow they require substantial investments regarding software and the

(24)

regarding drop-shipping. The effort they put in is low, while it does generate revenue. This justifies why supplier D perceives drop-shipping as an easy business model to operate through.

Supplier C also indicates that shifting to drop-shipping was easy for them, while on the other hand growing through drop-shipping is hard. However, they mention that in their case this relies on the quality of the drop-shippers as entrepreneurs. They do not mention software or automation as a critical factor in growing through drop-shipping.

Supplier E’s perceived ease of use corresponds with their argumentations on the perceived usefulness. In this case they find drop-shipping an easy model to work with. They also mention that growing through drop-shipping is easy for them, however they do mention again it does not match with their vision. Supplier E focuses on large orders and shipments.

At last, supplier A shifted from drop-shipping being perceived as an easy business model to operate through to being perceived as hard. Again, this is caused by the rising competition in the market. Back when they perceived drop-shipping as an easy business model it was mainly because the reach that it created for their products, that they had a lot of shippers linked to them and growing through drop-shipping was easy and went rapid.

As mentioned in the theoretical background, the user’s motivation lies in front of the BI. The motivation is based upon U and EOU and influences the Behavioral Intention (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996) (Figure 4). Overall, following the data from Table 3 and Table 4, it can be considered that the participating suppliers perceive drop-shipping alternately useful and an easy business model to operate through. Section 4.4 discusses the motivations related to why actually participate in the drop-shipping business model (Chuttur, 2009). Also, the factors influencing their perception on drop-shipping are shown in Table 5.

4.4 The motivations and the factors that influence the supplier’s perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

Section 4.4 contains the suppliers underlying motivations on why they operate through drop-shipping and the factors which have an influence on their motivations. As mentioned in Section 2.3, the underlying motivations, in this research, is referred to as the motive for the supplier to use the drop-shopping business model. The underlying motivations or motive of the suppliers is based upon the perceived usefulness (U) and perceived ease of use (EOU) regarding the business model. This than results in the behavioral intention of the supplier to participate in a drop-shipping business model (Davis and Venkatesh, 1996; Marangunic and Granic, 2015). Considering Section 4.2 and 4.3, drop-shipping from a supplier’s perspective is perceived as alternately useful and also perceived as alternately easy (among the participating suppliers). The goal of section 4.4 is to obtain knowledge regarding the motivation, which substantiate the perceived usefulness (U) and perceives ease of use (EOU) (Chuttur, 2009).

(25)

Also mentioned in Section 2.3 is that the factors influencing the supplier to participate in a drop-shipping business model result from the interviews that were held. These factors play a role in the perceived usefulness (U) and perceived ease of use (EOU). The U and EOU then form the underlying motivations of the suppliers. This Section also aims to get an understanding of the different factors which influence the suppliers Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

The first column of Table 5 contains the supplier, the second column of table 5 contains the supplier’s motivations which emerge from the processed data and the last column contains the factors influencing the suppliers perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

Supplier Motivations on why they do participate in drop-shipping

Factors which influence the motive to operate in drop-shipping

A - ‘We saw the demand in the market for selling

products online, while outsourcing the inventory and shipment. It was a gap in the market and we took it’

- ‘It was a nice and easy way of working. If you look at it in a different and simple way; we had over 600 sales people selling our products payed on a commission base (they sell at our cost price plus their profit)’

Beneficial:

- ‘It can ensure a huge range for your products and facilitate growth relatively easy’

Disadvantageous:

- ‘It is very labor intensive, so you have to organize everything internally very well’

- ‘The rising competition makes it very hard to work with, also channels like bol.com and amazon.com enhanced that effect’

B - ‘We saw the opportunity during the

economic crisis, while the demand for drop-shipping began to rise’

- ‘drop-shipping was easy for us to integrate into our business operations, while enabling us to sell more products’

- ‘It is an extra means of growth to us’

Beneficial:

- ‘We have over 20 years of automation in our company and it happened that drop-shipping could be intertwined quite easily, which can be an issue for other companies’ - ‘Drop-shipping expanded our reach, we were selling in some parts of Europe, but now we also (indirect) customers in for instance France, Italy and Spain and customer base keeps growing’

- ‘The investments we had to make were not very significant, this made it an easy decision’

C - ‘Requests from drop-shippers started to

come in, we were able to meet those requests in addition to our current operations’ - ‘We see drop-shipping as an additional service and a requirement to keep up with the market’

- ‘Drop-shipping is popular, so it is part of the deal’

Beneficial:

- ‘The expansion to more European countries could be something very interesting for our drop-shipper side of the business’

- ‘Some of our drop-shippers do very well, these are indeed beneficial for us, without a lot of effort’

Disadvantageous:

- ‘We have a lot of drop-shippers joining us, but results are disappointing in proportion to other customers, most of them

Drop-shipping as a business model; The degree of acceptance from a supplier’s perspective.