Grab It Fast! Entrepreneurial Self and Hyper-Consumerism in the Students’ Prosumption of Online Lending Services in Indonesia

Lending Practice Within the Framework of the Sharing Economy

Schor (2015), in her work “Getting Sharing Right,” defines the sharing economy as “…economic activity that is Peer-to-Peer, or person-to-person, facilitated by digital platforms.” Meanwhile, Hamari et al. define it as “…the peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (2016, p. 2047). The critical aspects of the sharing economy, as defined by Juliet B. Schor and Hamari et al., are its digital infrastructure, peer-to-peer nature, and collaborative consumption model. Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, as part of the sharing economy practices, emphasises collaboration, in which each individual is positioned as if equal and in “proximity and friendlines” so that financial backup can be obtained easily, simply, and transparently (Pauwels, 2015, p. 69). This service is considered very helpful, particularly for those who have been repeatedly turned down by conventional banking or credit institutions. Trust is not the only principle of P2P lending practice; it includes affective factors and emotional involvement. Those principles generate a pro-social impression because the practice emphasises the meaning of sharing, collaborating, and helping each other for the common good. However, it is worth underlining that the pro-social messages displayed by the P2P lending service are intertwined and wrapped with business interests. There is an apparent paradox with the term “sharing” in the sharing economy.

Slee (2015) underlines such a contradiction by asserting that sharing refers to social interactions between people in a non-commercial context. He argues that sharing activities are exchange activities that do not involve money or are not motivated by a desire to earn money. The fact of “sharing” in the sharing economy is on the contrary (Slee, 2015, pp. 19–20). The term “economics” refers to market transactions that involve the exchange of money for the sake of obtaining goods and services based on the interests of the parties involved. Therefore, “sharing” in the sharing economy is sharing with an instrumental purpose in which self-interest and the common good are united. Moreover, Slee (2015, p. 16) asserts that the sharing economy often claims to empower individuals who are considered powerless by enabling them to become micro-entrepreneurs through digital platforms, thereby giving them more control over their lives. However, in reality, the sharing economy primarily benefits the investors and executives who operate the platforms, as they can avoid tax obligations and labour protections, while the supposed benefits to the individual workers are limited. Likewise, trust, which appears to be an essential factor in the platform-based sharing economy, is, in fact, “just another marketing buzzword” (Leonard, 2013). Trust is nothing more than the platform’s rhetoric to convince and direct users to contribute to the interest of the platform’s political economy.

In line with Tom Slee, Juliet B. Schor (2020) asserts that sharing economy platforms often emphasise convenience and accessibility. The term presents an idealistic discourse emphasising efficiency, opportunity, social connections, and environmental benefits (Schor, 2020, p. 306). However, at the same time, it conceals outdated models of exploitation in enticing and persuasive ways, as sharing practices are inherently unequal, and the perpetuation of social inequality is a reality that should not be obscured.

Connectivity and Participatory in the Age of Prosumption

It is important to note that activities and interactions in platform-based lending practices cannot be detached from the algorithmic control and mechanism of the platforms. van Dijck (2013) argues that various digital platforms do not merely facilitate individuals’ desire to connect. Nevertheless, the platforms themselves can construct and direct users’ interactions. Connecting with others is no longer based on organic human interrelationships; in the digital era, connectivity becomes increasingly directed and controlled by algorithmic systems. In the context of online lending practice, relationships and transactions are, to some extent, also determined by algorithm-based datafication and technological inscriptions. Datafication refers to the platform’s ability to identify and organise various practices carried out on digital platforms by converting them into data. Such practices will be read, recorded as data, and quantified by algorithmic systems. Datafication involves two aspects, namely, “capturing of user’s data” and “circulation data” (van Dijck et al., 2018, pp. 33–35). This means that not only are all practices recorded and organised as data, but the data can also be subsequently circulated and exchanged across digital platforms. Such data are essential resources enabling the platform to put users under surveillance. There is a new form of individual observation in the digital era, in which observation no longer requires the physical presence of the observed individuals but simply through databases. According to Savat (2013, pp. 24–25), this new form of observation is called the “preemptive form of observation.” This observation puts more emphasis on performance or what is easily observed and showcased. What is displayed will be immediately detected and collected as a database that is used to build and formulate predictions and anticipatory actions. In the digital-based lending practice, users significantly contribute to the enrichment and improvement of the lending provider’s big data throughout the process, which could potentially lead to substantial commercial gains for both the lending provider and the digital platform.

A similar logic is at play concerning the notion of participatory. The digital platform enables users to actively participate and engage in the digital realm. On this point, Christian Fuchs (2013, p. 56) asserts that the term participatory often misleads users of digital platforms, promising involvement in cultural and content creation while disregarding the platforms’ ownership and profit-focused orientation. Digital platforms are owned and managed by large corporations, which gain advantages from users’ data that is shared and exchanged when using these platforms. According to Fuchs, the term participatory is problematic because it implies users’ agency and autonomy but fails to involve them in the corporation’s decision-making process. In reference to the information economy, which involves individuals engaging in the creation of knowledge, Fuchs emphasises that hierarchical business management has been replaced by participatory management during the digital era. This type of management creates an inclusiveness and friendly teamwork atmosphere, where interaction between individuals is seen as equal. It aims to foster better collaboration and cooperation among all parties involved. The platform-based sharing economy also emphasises similar principles where digital platforms’ users are no longer seen solely as consumers, but rather, they are regarded as partners, collaborators, and prosumers.

Furthermore, users are considered digitally savvy, actively producing and consuming (prosuming) content. They actively participate, share, exchange, and borrow information. Prosumption, according to Ritzer and Jurgenson (2018, p. 18), is marked by a capitalist tendency to “put consumers to work,” which is mainly underpinned by Web 2.0 technology. They elaborate that in the age of prosumption, capitalism increasingly involves consumers engaging in the realm of production. As a result, they serve as workers or labourers, with some instances of being underpaid or not even paid.

Pauwels (2015, p. 66) marks her critical concern by arguing that prosumption has become a symbol of a “new entrepreneurial culture” in the digital era. She emphasises the idea of freedom and empowerment in prosumption, wherein individuals are placed in a favourable position to be creative and innovative. In the sharing economy, users as prosumers are enabled to participate in the culture of sharing. However, according to Pauwels (2015, p. 76), the act of sharing and collaborating occurs on a platform that also serves as a marketplace to maximise financial gain. Besides, all activities on every platform undergo datafication, thereby improving the platform’s big data as a crucial information source for the corporation. Hence, the active users of digital platforms are digital workers. In Pauwels’ view, the term digital worker differs from digital labour. She asserts that the position of labour involves a clear and tangible mechanism of exploitation. Meanwhile, in the sharing economy, workers are subjected to exploitation, albeit in a covert and inconspicuous manner. It should be noted that users willingly participate in collaborative activities and, in certain instances, gain advantages from the sharing economy.

Grab It Fast! Between Rational Financial Solutions and Hyper-Consumerism

According to the students as informants in this study, Cicil offered swift and straightforward solutions to their financial difficulties. The loan instalment service provided by Cicil was a welcome relief for students who required immediate financial assistance without navigating complex bureaucratic procedures. For informants in this study, Cicil’s interest rates were considered lower than those of similar lending services. Furthermore, the company has established extensive networks and collaborations with various e-commerce platforms, marketplaces, banks, and non-financial institutions. This extensive network allowed Cicil to offer its users a wide range of possibilities and flexibilities to meet their needs and expectations. Using digital platforms gave Cicil’s users the impression that they had the freedom and autonomy to manage their loans and arrange their instalment payment plans on their own terms.

Naf, one of the research participants, repeatedly underlined Cicil’s uncomplicated requirements and simplified bureaucracy. He found the instalment simulation feature on the Cicil platform particularly helpful, as it allowed him to self-calculate his financial situation, figure out the financial solution, and arrange his loan instalment plan, including the amount of down payment he can manage and the duration of the instalment. Naf asserted that Cicil allows him to make his best lending decision (interview March 30, 2021). Han conveyed a similar thought. She felt Cicil provided immediacy, as she could apply for instalment plans anytime. She asserted, “Whenever I need it, I can immediately open the Cicil app and create my own instalment simulation. It’s so easy” (interview, April 15, 2021). Han acknowledged that the Cicil app allowed her to self-customise the down payment and instalment duration based on her situation. Cicil’s lending services were well-received by users such as Naf and Han, who found the services easily accessible and user-friendly, meeting their expectations. Additionally, Cicil’s services enabled them to independently calculate and customise the loan terms that best fit their needs, providing them with a participatory experience.

Users were encouraged to actively participate throughout Cicil’s lending process, from the planning stage to the instalment payment, as experienced by Naf and Han. Meanwhile, Cicil’s user-friendly website and mobile application enabled users to independently manage and conduct their transactions at their convenience. In the context of prosumerism, this user-friendly platform expanded the scope of freedom for Cicil’s users. It provided mechanisms that allow users to have more direct access to realising their wishes and desires. Mung, for example, shared that the ability to input everything personally on the Cicil app provides the practical advantage of being able to create plans to buy goods he desires. He asserted, “I once applied for an instalment to purchase an iPhone, but I decided to resell it because I didn’t like the model. Soon after, I applied for a new instalment to buy a different type of iPhone” (interview, April 22, 2021). Mung appeared to enjoy the freedom he experienced in exploring his desire for a particular item and arranging his financial plan with the help of Cicil’s services. The experiences of the informants in this study suggested the participatory model, as underlined by Christian Fuchs (2013). Fuchs argues that in the digital landscape, users of digital platforms are encouraged to engage with and participate actively, exercising their freedom to contribute to creating culture and content, which is enabled by the features and capabilities of digital technology. Cicil’s lending services, underpinned by user-friendly platforms, enabled informants to experience freedom and autonomy, fostering convenience and trust toward Cicil’s services.

Cicil offered a system that allows users to simulate and calculate their loan plan without requiring direct involvement from Cicil. However, users had to comply with and adhere to particular loan limits and payment margin regulations. These company’s policies were viewed as standard practices and considered “normal” by users. Informants like Naf (interview March 30, 2021) and Tan (interview May 2, 2021) shared that they were accustomed to Cicil’s lending policies.

Cicil determines the payment margin. It depends on the amount of down payment and the loan duration we set in our application. We don’t know the specific details of how Cicil works on it; we just accept and follow it. That’s fine. It is part of Cicil’s rules, I think. (Naf, interview March 30, 2021).

Cicil rules the loan limits; we can’t exceed it. As far as I know, the loan limits are set based on users’ reputation. But that’s normal, right? Other lending companies also set the same rule (Tan, interview May 2, 2021)

Both Naf and Tan appeared to normalise the existing policies and emphasise more on the so-called easy and uncomplicated lending process. Embracing students as “friends,” providing them with undemanding requirements, and allowing them to self-arrange their loan instalments were parts of an integrative strategy that has generated a positive image of Cicil’s lending system. Such an integrative strategy was also demonstrated through Cicil’s promotional posts on social media and information on the website. For example, in its Instagram and Facebook posts, Cicil used the terms “Sobat Cicil” [Cicil’s Buddies] (Cicil, 2021a) and “Bestie” [Best Friend] (Cicil, 2021b) to address and connect with students. These language choices suggested Cicil’s intent to establish a sense of camaraderie and egalitarianism between Cicil as the lending provider and the students as users, creating an impression of a mutually beneficial and collaborative relationship. Given the proliferation of illegal online lending practices in Indonesia, such an integrative approach and positive image were crucial for Cicil’s business. Illegal practices frequently target people in desperate financial situations and burden them with exorbitant interest rates. Such practices intimidate and terrorise users when they are unable to make payments within the due date.

Prior to the digital age, similar lending practices were widely known in Indonesia as informal moneylending (Nugroho, 2001). This informal moneylending mainly targeted lower-class individuals who lacked access to formal moneylending provided by banks or credit institutions due to complex requirements. Like illegal online lending practices, most informal moneylending was unregistered and, therefore, lacked legal protection standards, especially for users. In many cases, moneylenders maintained users’ dependence on them, trapping them in a debt cycle and leading to “interest bondage” (Nugroho, 2001, p. 14). This situation has fostered a stereotype of moneylending in Indonesia as an exploitative and arduous practice, a perception that persists even in formal moneylending. Unsurprisingly, having a loan was generally viewed as hostile, shameful, and taboo in Indonesia. Borrowing money was considered an obvious sign of financial impoverishment and a degradation of social status. Consequently, lending practices were often conducted discreetly and hidden from others, especially extended family members and neighbours, to avoid gossip and judgement.

The parental generation of Cicil’s users still held this negative perception of moneylending as an exploitative and shameful practice. Informants in this study admitted that they concealed their use of Cicil’s services from their parents. Naf, for example, never disclosed to his mother that he was a Cicil’s user, as he knew she felt ashamed when the family took out loans (interview, March 30, 2021). However, for students like Naf and some other informants in this study, the lending practice was not a taboo but rather a swift, uncomplicated, and rational solution to their financial challenges. If needed, they even willingly recommended and encouraged their peers to utilise Cicil’s services. Feb and Han shared,

I prefer to be in debt rather than saving money. It’s just harder for me to stick to a savings plan, so I tend to opt for being in debt instead. I don’t feel any shame or embarrassment about it. I’m upfront about my debt with friends of mine, but I prefer not to share it with my parents. This is to avoid conflicts, as my parents see taking out loans as something to be embarrassed about, especially if other people find out (Feb, interview April 21, 2021).

I suggest to my friends that they consider getting a loan instalment. Why not? It’s a simple and quick way to get what you need, especially if you don’t have enough cash on hand. I personally found this helpful when I urgently needed a printer but didn’t have the full amount saved up. The loan instalment option was the perfect solution for me in that situation (Han, interview April 15, 2021).

Feb and Han’s statements appeared to challenge the prevailing stereotype of lending practices in Indonesia. The negative impression of being in debt as a sign of social status decline or financial hardship was no longer a concern for students like Feb and Han. Instead, a loan became a quick and logical solution, mainly when they lacked available cash. At the same time, the image of moneylending as an exploitative practice was obscured by the integrative approach adopted by Cicil. As a result, Cicil’s lending services tended to receive positive acceptance from students, such as informants in this study.

Interestingly, despite Cicil’s tagline of being a “trusted solution for education loans,” the company actively encouraged its users to utilise the service of Instalments for Goods rather than Instalments for Tuition Fees or Educational Courses. This could be seen from the personalised promotions sent directly to Cicil’s users via their mobile app, email, and social media accounts such as Instagram and Facebook, wherein the company tended to highlight and persuade users to pursue their consumptive desires. It showed that Cicil’s lending services encouraged students to engage in a consumptive lifestyle, even when they lacked the necessary funds. While Cicil claimed its programmes aimed to support students in addressing financial challenges during their academic pursuits, these issues were often more closely linked to their desires to acquire material goods for their lifestyle than to their studies. Cicil’s users were convinced that satisfying their immediate desires for goods was crucial, regardless of their inability to afford them. Tan mentioned that she constantly received notifications from Cicil’s mobile app regarding promotional programmes, typically advertising discounts on specific products such as laptops, smartphones, or fashion items. She shared, “A while back, I looked for a new laptop and simulated an instalment plan on Cicil’s app, but ultimately didn’t go through with the purchase. Even though I didn’t complete the transaction, Cicil continued to send me personalised promotions for laptops through the app and via email. It was like they were trying to reel me back in” (interview, May 2, 2021).

Similarly, Naf admitted that he was promoted to purchase a raincoat when caught in the rain at a certain location. Naf suggested that Cicil’s system, potentially utilising GPS tracking, could detect his need for a raincoat in that particular situation (interview March 30, 2021). Tan and Naf’s experiences exemplified the phenomenon of datafication, which was emphasised by the work of van Dijck et al. (2018, pp. 33–35). They argue that every activity performed on digital platforms undergoes a process of datafication. Likewise, the lending practices conducted on the digital platforms operated by Cicil are also transformed into data, which then become essential resources that enable Cicil to identify and monitor the actions and preferences of its users. All lending activities carried out by the users are recorded and quantified through an algorithmic system. Supported by algorithmic data analysis, Cicil could engage in what Savat (2013, pp. 24–25) calls a “preemptive form of observation.” As Savat explains, the detected and collected data from activities on digital platforms can be used to predict and influence individuals’ actions. The database contains personal information, including individuals’ preferences, choices, and expectations, which are analysed by an algorithmic system. In like manner, Cicil could profile its users and identify their purchasing preferences, enabling it to formulate well-suited promotional messages for each user, as experienced by Tan and Naf. Drawing on Schor’s idea (2020, p. 71), the experiences of Tan and Naf suggested “algorithmic despotism,” which refers to the mechanism of control and surveillance employed by digital platforms. In the case of Cicil, it appeared that Cicil observed and controlled its users without them realising it, enabling it to take preemptive actions towards them.

All five informants in this study admitted that they utilised the Instalments for Goods service rather than taking out loans to cover tuition fees, as their parents or scholarship providers already provided their tuition. Participant Mung, for instance, preferred the Instalments for Goods service instead of saving money when he wanted to purchase items he could not readily afford. As Mung noted, “Saving money is one way, but it takes time. By then, the goods may have already been sold out or become outdated. So the Instalments for Goods service is the perfect solution” (Mung, interview April 22, 2021). Han similarly expressed the need to use Cicil’s Instalments for Goods to upgrade her personal belongings, such as mobile phones or fashion items. She said, “I don’t want to feel like I’m missing out or falling behind my friends. I want to keep up with the latest trends that my friends are into” (interview, April 15, 2021). It showed that Cicil’s assistance enabled students, as users, to engage in this hyper-consumerist behaviour despite lacking adequate financial resources. As Ritzer and Miles (2019) note, hyper-consumption is the process in which consumption of non-essential goods increases, prompting consumers to choose what they do not need or want. Some informants in this study revealed they could not afford their desired items. However, they pushed themselves to fulfil the consumptive desire by taking a loan out of prestige instead of urgent needs. Feb, for example, mentioned that he once craved the latest Nike running shoes but had limited cash. “I wanted to grab it fast, so I applied for Cicil’s instalment” (Feb, interview April 20, 2021). “Grab it fast” became a coordinated credo that combined students’ desire for hyper-consumerism and Cicil’s desire for profit through lending. In hyper-consumerism, individuals, as consumers, are accustomed to adapting to their expectations (Schulz, 2007). They tend to revise and raise their consumption standards constantly. Students as consumers and users of lending services in this study also demonstrated likewise, conceiving and embracing the “must have” standard of consumption despite the lack of money.

In compliance with it, individuals with limited financial means were seemingly not allowed to be excluded from participating in the market economy. Cicil facilitated and enabled students with limited cash to enter and participate in market transactions. Limited cash was no longer an obstacle that mainly prevented them from participating in consumptive activities. As Schor (2006) asserts, loans have become one of the driving factors of the market economy. This condition is also marked by loan-driven consumption, where people tend to purchase goods that are beyond their reach. They are tempted to emulate the lifestyles and consumptive habits of those who reside at the higher social class ranks. Similarly, Cicil’s users, like the informants in this study, were constantly persuaded to pursue prestige by consuming higher-class products. They were even lured to follow a higher-class lifestyle by purchasing second-hand products with instalment payments offered by Cicil, as seen, for example, in a promotional message for second-hand iPhones posted on Cicil’s Instagram (Cicil, 2021c). Students, as Cicil’s targeted users, may not have the financial resources to purchase such items outright. However, this challenge can be addressed through the instalment plans offered by Cicil. Loans appeared to be the most feasible solution to gaining higher social status. Cicil, as a loan provider, played a crucial part in facilitating students’ entrance into the market economy and releasing their desire to engage in hyper-consumerism.

Overworked yet Contented: Entrepreneurial Self and Pseudo-Liberation within Prosumerism

In the framework of prosumerism, students, as users of lending services, were not merely consumers of Cicil’s lending services but actively engaged and contributed to the production aspect. Cicil provided them access and opportunities to actively participate as “partners” through various work schemes, such as the Student Ambassador program, Inviting Friends, and Cicil Jobs.

Cicil’s Student Ambassador program recruited active users to serve as representatives, promoting the company’s lending services, and attracting new users. To be eligible as a Student Ambassador, individuals must be active users of Cicil’s lending services. According to informants in this study, since active users are already familiar with Cicil’s lending operations, extensive training is not required. However, Student Ambassador applicants must participate in Cicil Academy, where they receive basic entrepreneurship training from the company. Being an entrepreneurial self is one of the benefits that Cicil constantly highlights. In the digital technology setting, entrepreneurship is often employed to encourage creativity and innovation amidst evolving business strategies and shifting working circumstances (Chua, 2018; Huberman, 2022; Williams et al., 2021). The digital economy offers the idea that everyone can be an entrepreneurial self, working for oneself, being their own boss, and daring to take advantage of the changing conditions. An entrepreneur is praised for being liberated, independent, and creative.

Likewise, while inducing users to actively engage in hyperconsumption through lending practices, Cicil also encouraged them to become more autonomous and independent individuals, particularly in their relationships with their parents and peers. Cicil showed that the company was committed to helping users reduce their reliance on parental support. This was achieved by facilitating independent purchasing of goods and providing opportunities for users to earn financial gains through Cicil’s work schemes. This approach ultimately led to users becoming more voluntarily involved in the cycle of hyperconsumerism, facilitated by Cicil’s lending practices. Drawing on Chua’s frame of mind (2018, p. 2) Cicil’s approach has generated the so-called “fantasy of entrepreneurship,” where the concept of individual agency and creative activity contributes to a sense of precarity. The temptation to perpetually engage in Cicil’s lending practice to maintain a consumerist lifestyle becomes concealed or obscured by the rational argument of becoming an independent and innovative entrepreneurial self. Accordingly, participants in this study highlighted the positive perception of working with Cicil. As Student Ambassadors, Naf and Tan described the job as carefree and undemanding, allowing them the freedom and opportunity to determine their own ways of managing the role.

Working with Cicil is quite easy-going; they don’t impose any strict targets on us. We’re free to manage our own workload. If you’d like to earn more, you’ll need to put in extra effort to find new users. But if not, that’s perfectly fine too. Cicil won’t mind either way. It’s really up to each of us to decide how much we want to put in (Naf, interview March 30, 2021)

Being a Student Ambassador for Cicil is quite flexible and not too demanding. I find it to be an enjoyable job because there are no specific targets we have to meet. Cicil simply encourages us to actively promote their services using our social media accounts, but it’s not an absolute requirement. There are no set goals, like getting a certain number of new users within a particular timeframe. It’s not like that at all. Posting about Cicil on our social media just helps drive more online traffic so that more people can learn about Cicil’s programs” (Tan, interview May 2, 2021).

The statements from Naf and Tan indicated how the “fantasy of entrepreneurship,” as conceptualised by Chua (2018, p. 2), operated. Naf and Tan felt a sense of freedom as employees because Cicil allowed them to be creative in managing their own workload and deciding for themselves how much they wanted to earn. They even explicitly stated that they liked pressure-free work mechanisms as performed by Cicil. This working approach generated the impression of a non-hierarchical relationship between the employer and the employee.

According to Christian Fuchs (2008, p. 149), in the context of an internet-based economy, the asymmetrical relationships between superiors and subordinates are becoming less prevalent. Hierarchical management of work has been replaced by partnership and integrative collaboration. In this sense, employees see themselves more as partners rather than subordinates. They are given the freedom to act and determine how they will carry out their tasks. Supervision and direct control have become obsolete or outdated and have been replaced by a new mode of working that appears to be liberating and empowering. Aligning with Fuchs’ perspective, the term “collaborative” has been accentuated within the sharing economy, emphasising the principle of flattening hierarchical structures and positioning each individual as if they are equal, fostering a sense of proximity and camaraderie (Pauwels, 2015; Schor, 2020). Cicil’s working mechanism appeared to apply this principle, which embraced and positioned Student Ambassadors like Naf and Tan in a collaborative work environment, obscuring the hierarchical structure between employer and employee.

The fact that Student Ambassadors earned no regular monthly payments and social security benefits from Cicil was unquestionably accepted. According to Naf and Tan, they were only paid when they brought new users to Cicil. The more new users they obtained, the more financial compensation they received. In their experiences, for each new user, they could earn approximately 5% of the new user’s ongoing monthly instalment. This monetary compensation could be accumulated and received monthly until the new user’s instalment was complete. Other than that, Cicil has enlisted Student Ambassadors to promote its services through their social media channels. Two Student Ambassadors as informants in this study admitted that they created their promotional content or repurposed Cicil’s existing social media materials, which they then shared on their social media accounts like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook. Even though Cicil only suggested, not compelled to do it, Tan and Naf voluntarily created and posted their own social media content to promote Cicil’s services. While there was no additional financial compensation from Cicil for this work, the ambassadors were motivated to participate as it could lead to them receiving financial rewards through increased user acquisition. Through their prosumption practices, the ambassadors unknowingly ended up being employed as members of Cicil’s marketing troops.

The work scheme of Inviting Friends employed a similar logic. In the Inviting Friends scheme, active users and fellow students as prospective users were encouraged to cooperate and reap mutual benefits from using referral codes. Only active users who had finished their instalments could obtain the code. By using the code in their registration, new users could get a down payment voucher, which could be redeemed on their first transaction with Cicil. As for the owners of the referral code, Cicil compensated them with a voucher per new user, which could be redeemed to deduct the amount of their ongoing instalment. The more fellow students they invited, the more vouchers they got. However, the voucher could not be cashed out. It was only utilised to deduct instalment payments. The problem was that the accumulation of vouchers was not applied. The owner of a referral code could only redeem one voucher for one instalment program. That means, to redeem all vouchers they get from the scheme of Inviting Friends and get benefits from it, users need to make more instalments from Cicil. In other words, they had no choice but to repeatedly use Cicil’s lending services.

While fostering active and prospective users to cooperate under “friends” banner, Cicil encouraged active users to engage in free competition to attract fellow students and share their referral codes. As informants Mung and Feb admitted, they used their social media accounts to attract and invite new users to use the referral code. They created their self-generated content to persuade their peers to utilise Cicil’s lending services and take advantage of their referral codes. They actively compete with one another to attract and acquire new users. Their actions were akin to those of Naf and Tan in their roles as Student Ambassadors. Mung and Feb were also involved in the co-production and co-creation aspects of the marketing efforts, even if they did not fully realise their participation.

Aligning with these facts, Fuchs (2013) problematises the term “participatory,” which has been widely used to describe the nature of work in the digital landscape. In his view, the term implies that users have agency and autonomy to actively participate in digital works. Still, it fails to acknowledge their involvement in the decision-making process of the corporations that own and operate these digital platforms. While the term “participatory” suggests inclusivity, teamwork, and cooperation, it overlooks the fact that these platforms are primarily profit-oriented, with their owners benefiting from the content and culture created by the users. This creates an illusion of user involvement and empowerment while the actual power and decision-making remain firmly in the hands of the corporations. Ritzer and Jurgenson (2018) highlighted the same concern that through prosumption activities, consumers are put to work and employed as underpaid and overworked digital workers.

In the case of Cicil’s work schemes, the company leveraged students, as its main users, as business front-liners responsible for promotion and new user recruitment. This fact marked a contradiction in the underlying principles of the sharing economy, as asserted by Tom Slee (2015) and Juliet B. Schor (2020). Schor (2020, p. 306) particularly argues that the sharing economy actually perpetuates “old-school models of exploitation” despite its claims of fostering more equitable and collaborative economic arrangements. Prosumerism, which seemingly assures freedom and choice, has induced users into an exploitative working relationship. Beneath the terms “sharing” and “collaborative,” Cicil seemed to benefit more from the students as users. The Student Ambassador program, as experienced by Naf and Tan, did provide them with payment for bringing in new users. Still, the reward did not appear to be proportionate to the tasks of business front-liners. Cicil compensated the Student Ambassadors more with knowledge, experience, and opportunities for self-development rather than financial income. These non-monetary rewards were seen as surplus value for the students, which was claimed to potentially strengthen their entrepreneurial capabilities in the future.

The term “working with Cicil” instead of “working for Cicil” was also constantly circulated on Cicil’s official website and social media accounts. This action, once again, seemed to generate the impression of a non-hierarchical relationship between employer and employee (Fisher, 2015; Fuchs, 2008). Positioning students as “business partners” in collaborative works was also evident in the Cicil Jobs and Inviting Friends. In the scheme of Cicil Jobs, in the guise of helping users solve their bad credits, Cicil lent a hand in finding a part-time job. In doing so, Cicil collaborated with its partners to provide opportunities for part-time employment vacancies. The salary was not given directly to the users; instead, it was transferred from the employer to Cicil to cover the user’s ongoing instalment. Han, for example, shared her experience participating in Cicil Job when she faced a challenging situation with her instalment. She said,

There was a time when I was really in a tough spot and couldn’t keep up with the payments. But then I heard about Cicil Job. I took the chance to work part-time for one of Cicil’s partner companies. The work itself wasn’t too hard, but the schedule was pretty hectic, I have to admit. I didn’t receive the money myself; they directly handed my earnings to Cicil. The cool thing was I could use the earnings to pay off my instalments. It was a big relief, you know? (Han, interview, April 15, 2021).

Cicil consistently promoted the Cicil Jobs scheme across its digital platforms, including testimonials from previous beneficiaries. These testimonials highlighted the salary amounts, work experience gained, and Cicil’s support in overcoming users’ poor credit histories. By implementing this scheme, Cicil appeared to ensure that users’ credit issues could be resolved, as unaddressed credit problems could potentially cause difficulties for Cicil’s business operations. In this regard, not only did Cicil provide solutions to users’ financial challenges through loan offerings, but it also offered additional support if users subsequently encountered problems with repaying their loans.

Users appeared to fail to recognise the underlying Cicil’s business interests. Instead, they felt supported by Cicil’s services. This observation highlighted the disadvantages of the sharing economy, as pointed out by Slee (2015), who asserts that supporting powerless people—like those with bad credit—is well-highlighted in the sharing economy, although the practice of sharing actually benefits those with significant capital. In operating its services, Cicil effectively utilised the aspect of affect ensuring that students, both as users and workers, felt included and treated with empathy. On this point, Cicil attempted to break the prevailing stereotype of lending practice as exploitative, demanding, and gruelling practice. As Cicil’s workers, students willingly undertook layered work without feeling used and tricked. As Pauwels (2015) argues, in the sharing economy, working relationships are built upon affect and emotional involvement. Corporations like Cicil could conceal the reality of hierarchy and subordination in a workplace by underlining the sense of freedom and liberation, despite the potential for being illusory. As Schor (2020) asserts, flexibility, freedom, and convenience as buzzwords in the sharing economy are deceitful and used to obscure exploitative relationships. Beneath the term ‘sharing,’ Cicil could gain more benefits and advantages from the students as users.

Digital platforms, which underpin the sharing economy and facilitate prosumerism, have obfuscated exploitation and work pressure within capitalist working relationships. In the context of Cicil, it embraced users as digital workers with an integrative type of domination, while simultaneously encouraging users to utilise its lending services continuously. According to Fuchs (2008, p. 344), integrative domination is a form of domination characterised by hidden hierarchical, centralised, and asymmetrical relationships. Integrative domination emphasises inclusivity by promoting participation and cooperation. The engaged parties are embraced and integrated into a working system that looks to be non-hierarchical. Likewise, students as Cicil’s users appeared to enjoy the embracing nature of Cicil’s work system despite experiencing overworked and inadequate compensation. Moreover, cooperation has emerged as a popular term that enhances the increasing rivalry and free competition among students as Cicil’s workers. The antagonism of cooperation and competition was evident in the prosumption practice of Cicil’s online lending services. By utilising Cicil’s lending services, users were convinced to become liberated and independent before their parents and fellow students. Through Cicil’s Student Ambassador, Cicil Job, or Inviting Friend programmes, students were motivated to ‘work for’ Cicil in the guise of ‘work with’ Cicil, generating the impression of collaborative work, sharing, and partnership. They were also persistently urged to continue consuming Cicil’s lending services. Under the guise of promoting a new empowering entrepreneurial culture, Cicil continuously led students into a cycle of loan-driven hyperconsumption.