BUSI 424 Week 7 E-Commerce Research Project Example

Best in Class and Not Yet Online: Applying B2C, B2B, C2C and Mobile Commerce Where They Are Missing

Introduction

E-commerce is no longer a niche. In its estimate for the second quarter of 2026, the United States Census Bureau (2026) put online retail at $340.2 billion, roughly one dollar in six of all retail spending, with a growth rate well ahead of retail overall. Laudon and Traver (2017) divide e-commerce into types by the parties involved and the platform used, including business-to-consumer (B2C), business-to-business (B2B), consumer-to-consumer (C2C) and mobile commerce (m-commerce), which cuts across the other three. This paper first identifies a best-in-class example of each approach and explains what makes it the standard others copy. It then identifies four businesses that do not yet use these approaches and shows how applying each would improve the way their customers buy.

How the Examples Were Chosen

A company was treated as best in class if it met three tests: it is widely used as a model by competitors and in the textbook's discussion of its category, it has sustained its position over many years rather than one season, and its success rests on a capability that research has studied, such as selection, integration, reputation or mobile access. The businesses in Part 2 were chosen because each already has loyal customers and a clear problem that one of the four approaches addresses, so the question is not whether they should exist online but how a specific approach would improve what they already do.

Part 1: Best-in-Class Examples

B2C: Amazon

Amazon is the clearest example of B2C e-commerce done at the highest level. Its advantages are the ones the textbook identifies as unique to e-commerce: global reach, near-unlimited selection, personalization and convenience. Selection may be the most important. Brynjolfsson et al. (2003) examined Amazon and other online booksellers and showed that obscure titles, ones no ordinary bookshop shelves, made up a large slice of sales, with shoppers gaining far more from that variety than from cheaper prices. Amazon extended the same logic to nearly every category by opening its site to third-party sellers, so its selection grows without the company holding every item.

Amazon is also best in class at reducing the friction of buying. Saved payment details, one-click ordering, fast delivery and an easy return process remove reasons to hesitate, and customer reviews give shoppers information that a store clerk might once have supplied. Gefen et al. (2003) found that online shoppers' intentions to buy depended on both trust in the vendor and the perceived usefulness of the website, and Amazon's reviews, delivery guarantees and return policies build both. The lesson of Amazon for smaller sellers is not to match its scale but to remove the specific frictions that make their own customers hesitate.

B2B: Grainger

W. W. Grainger, a distributor of maintenance, repair and operating supplies, is a leading example of B2B e-commerce. Its High-Touch Solutions business offers roughly two million products to customers with complex purchasing needs, combining online ordering with technical support and inventory management services, while its Endless Assortment segment runs online channels, Zoro in the United States and MonotaRO in Japan, offering more than 14 million and more than 24 million products respectively (W. W. Grainger, Inc., 2025).

What makes Grainger best in class is that its digital tools fit the way businesses actually buy. Business buyers reorder the same items repeatedly, need approval workflows and must match purchases to budgets and accounts. Grainger's online systems let customers save lists, connect purchasing to their own procurement software and track spending, while its larger accounts receive services such as on-site inventory management. Grainger's model displays each of the value sources Amit and Zott (2001) identified in e-business, novelty, lock-in, complementarities and efficiency: new ways to buy, integration that makes switching inconvenient, services that complement products, and lower transaction costs for buyers.

C2C: eBay

eBay remains the defining example of consumer-to-consumer e-commerce, a marketplace where individuals sell to other individuals. Its central achievement is trust between strangers. Buyers cannot inspect items or meet sellers, so eBay built a feedback system in which each party rates the other after a transaction. Resnick et al. (2006) tested the value of that reputation in a controlled experiment, selling matched items through a seller identity with a long positive history and through new identities. Buyers paid about 8 percent more to the established seller, evidence that reputation is worth real money in a C2C market.

Einav et al. (2016) describe peer-to-peer markets more broadly as platforms that reduce the costs of finding trading partners and that rely on reputation systems, standardized listings and payment guarantees to make exchange between strangers safe. eBay pioneered these tools, and later C2C platforms for rentals, rides and used goods built on its model.

M-Commerce: Starbucks' Order-Ahead App

Mobile commerce overlaps the other types, but its best examples use the phone for something a computer cannot do: buying on the move. Starbucks' app, which combines its rewards program with mobile ordering and payment, is widely cited as a model. Customers order and pay before they arrive, skip the line and collect their drink, and the rewards program brings them back. The app turns the phone into a remote control for a physical store, which is the essence of good m-commerce.

Research suggests mobile access increases buying rather than only moving it from one screen to another. Einav et al. (2014) studied eBay's mobile app and found that after users adopted it, their total purchasing on the platform rose, and that much mobile shopping happened at times and places where people would not have used a computer. Starbucks' app follows the same principle in a physical setting: it captures the moment when a customer is on the way and decides where to stop.

Part 2: Applying the Approaches Where They Are Missing

B2C: A Family Hardware Store

Consider a family-owned hardware store in a small town, with deep knowledge of local needs and about twenty thousand items in stock, but no online catalog. Customers who need a specific fitting must call or drive over to find out whether it is in stock. Applying B2C e-commerce would start with a searchable online catalog showing real-time inventory, followed by click-and-collect: customers order online and pick up at the counter, often within an hour. The store would not try to ship nationwide against Amazon. Instead, it would remove the friction that sends local customers to the internet, the uncertainty about stock and the trip that might be wasted, while keeping its advantage of advice and immediacy. A first version would not need custom software; several hosted retail platforms connect to common point-of-sale systems, so the store's existing inventory counts could feed the website automatically. The main cost would be staff time to photograph and describe the most-searched items first, starting with plumbing and electrical parts, where customers most often call to ask about stock. The improvement for customers is certainty and speed, and for the store it is capturing purchases that now go to online giants because customers cannot see what the local store has.

B2B: A Regional Fastener Distributor

A regional distributor of industrial fasteners serves several hundred small manufacturers, taking most orders by phone and email and keying them by hand. Errors in part numbers are common, and customers cannot check order status without calling. Applying B2B e-commerce in the Grainger model would give each customer an online portal with its negotiated prices, saved reorder lists of the parts it buys regularly, order tracking and invoice history, and, for larger customers, a connection to their purchasing systems. The improvement is fewer errors, faster reordering and lower costs for both sides, which Amit and Zott (2001) would describe as efficiency. The distributor could begin with its fifty largest customers, loading their reorder lists from past invoices, and add the rest once the portal proved itself. Sales representatives would remain important, but their time would shift from taking routine orders to solving engineering questions and finding new accounts, which is a better use of their expertise. The portal would also create lock-in, since customers whose reorder lists and approvals live in the distributor's system have less reason to shop around.

C2C: A Youth Sports League's Equipment Swap

A community youth sports league holds a used-equipment swap twice a year in a school gym. Families bring outgrown cleats, helmets and bats, but many cannot attend on the one Saturday, and items that do not sell go home again. Applying C2C e-commerce would mean a simple online marketplace for league families, where parents list items with photos and sizes, buyers reserve them and the two arrange pickup at a game. Drawing on eBay's lessons, the league would limit membership to registered families, add simple ratings and set rules for item condition, building trust among people who are already part of the same community. Einav et al. (2016) note that peer-to-peer platforms succeed when they lower the cost of finding the right trading partner, and a league-only marketplace does exactly that. A volunteer could run the site using an inexpensive community marketplace tool, and the league could keep the twice-yearly swap as an in-person pickup day for items reserved online, so families who prefer the old event lose nothing. The improvement is year-round access, more items reused and lower costs for families.

M-Commerce: A County Farmers Market

A county farmers market runs every Saturday morning, with forty vendors selling produce, meat and baked goods. Popular items sell out early, and customers who arrive late leave disappointed while vendors guess how much to bring. Applying m-commerce in the Starbucks model would mean a shared mobile app where customers browse each vendor's offerings during the week, pre-order and pay, and collect their order at the vendor's stall or a pickup table. The app could also send a notice when a favorite vendor brings a seasonal item. The improvement for customers is reliability, and for vendors it is better information about demand, less waste and sales captured from people who would not otherwise come. Because forty vendors share one app, the market's board could negotiate a single payment processing rate and split the cost of the app by vendor size, keeping the fee low for the smallest farms. Vendors who do not want to pre-sell could still list their products so customers know what to expect on Saturday.

What the Four Applications Share

The four applications rest on the same foundations as their best-in-class models. Each reduces friction, whether a wasted trip, a mistyped part number, a missed swap day or a sold-out stall. Each depends on trust, which Gefen et al. (2003) showed is central to online buying, and which small businesses can build on their existing local relationships. And each extends selection or access in a way the physical business cannot on its own. None of the four needs to compete with the giants; each uses an e-commerce approach to serve its own customers better.

Risks and Limits

Each application also carries risks. The hardware store's online inventory is only useful if counts are accurate; a customer who drives over for an item the website showed in stock, and finds none, will trust the store less than before. The distributor's portal must be easy for customers whose buyers are not comfortable with software, or they will keep calling. The league's marketplace needs someone to settle disputes about condition, and the farmers market's app depends on vendors updating their listings each week. In every case, the technology is the easier part; the harder part is the routine work that keeps information accurate and promises kept. Laudon and Traver (2017) make the same point about building an e-commerce presence: the site is a business process, not a one-time project, and it succeeds only when the organization behind it is ready to run it.

Conclusion

Amazon, Grainger, eBay and Starbucks' app show what the four approaches can achieve at their best: selection and convenience in B2C, efficient, integrated buying in B2B, trust between strangers in C2C and buying on the move in m-commerce. The same approaches, applied at a modest scale, could improve a hardware store, a fastener distributor, a youth league and a farmers market. E-commerce is often discussed as a threat to small and local businesses, but these cases suggest it is also a set of tools those businesses can use to keep and serve their customers. The best place to start, for any of them, is the single point where customers now give up and go elsewhere.

References

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 493-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187

Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Smith, M. D. (2003). Consumer surplus in the digital economy: Estimating the value of increased product variety at online booksellers. Management Science, 49(11), 1580-1596. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.11.1580.20580

Einav, L., Farronato, C., & Levin, J. (2016). Peer-to-peer markets. Annual Review of Economics, 8, 615-635. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015334

Einav, L., Levin, J., Popov, I., & Sundaresan, N. (2014). Growth, adoption, and use of mobile e-commerce. American Economic Review, 104(5), 489-494. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.489

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519

Laudon, K. C., & Traver, C. G. (2017). E-commerce 2016: Business, technology, society (12th ed.). Pearson.

Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Swanson, J., & Lockwood, K. (2006). The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2

United States Census Bureau. (2026, August 18). Quarterly retail e-commerce sales: 2nd quarter 2026. https://www.census.gov/retail/ecommerce.html

W. W. Grainger, Inc. (2025). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/277135/000027713525000010/gww-20241231.htm