One of the most popular definitions of social commerce is that it is about consumers helping one another make better buying decisions (see a rather comprehensive list of definitions here). This definition seems to suggest that social commerce is a social movement based on altruism and common benefit. The question to ask is whether the explosive growth of social commerce is even driven by this so-called digital altruism or actually fueled by selfish consumers using social media as a facilitative technology to get what they want.

One of the clearest examples of “selfish” social commerce is group-buying websites, like Groupon. While Groupon itself may not be considered social, it is no secret that deals are often spread via social integrations on the Groupon website, allowing consumers to share deals on Facebook and Twitter. This form of sharing is merely self-serving, since deals are only unlocked if enough people commit to the deal. Conversely, collaborative social commerce services (or “altruistic” social commerce), like Polyvore and ShopSocial.ly, are centered on community-style interactions that present no immediate direct benefit to the contributor.

It is vital to distinguish between the two forms of social commerce, as lumping them together under one umbrella may paint an inaccurate picture of what precisely is growing explosively. Though other forms of social commerce are successful in their right, the group-buying model seems to be the most successful. The possible lesson for all is that consumers care for themselves first and foremost, thus ecommerce must be persistently focused on helping consumers realize their own selfish agendas. Social sharing, communities, and fan pages would only work on a big scale if there is an immediate huge benefit to consumers.