Title: Are we sharing in the sharing economy? A cross context investigation

Transcription

1 Title: Are we sharing in the sharing economy? A cross context investigation Extended Abstract Mohammad Habibi (PhD Candidate), Andrea Kim (PhD Candidate), Dr. Michel Laroche Concordia University Montreal, Canada Faculty of Marketing The sharing economy or collaborative consumption (CC) describes an emerging phenomenon that offers consumers an alternative to ownership of products and services by sharing, swapping, trading, or renting (Bostman and Rogers 2010). Though the terms are frequently discussed in media outlets, scholarly research on this topic is still limited with the exception of a few pioneering works such as that completed by Belk on the topic of sharing (e.g. 2013, 2014). We do not yet have a full grasp of what factors impact individuals willingness to participate in the sharing economy. Studies examining individual motivations to participate in sharing models have shown mixed and counterintuitive findings. The purpose of this research is to address these controversies and mixed results in the literature and provide a theoretical and empirical framework to explain these counter intuitive findings. We lack a clear analytical framework to distinguish and analyze nonownership modes of consumption. Research to date has given limited attention to addressing how different non-ownership contexts impact willingness to participate. Different labels are used to describe the same context (e.g. short term car rental schemes described as commercial sharing and access-based consumption; Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012; Lamberton and Rose 2012) and different contexts are categorized as the same phenomenon. The latter poses a larger issue if we are to understand the implications on consumer behavior. The first objective of this paper is to examine how and why non-ownership based exchange contexts differ from one another. We address this by creating a more precise definition by applying the prototypical characteristics offered by Belk (2010). Building on Belk s (2010) characteristics, we place different non-ownership exchange contexts on a continuum ranging from pure sharing contexts on one end of the spectrum to commodity-based exchange on the other end (Figure 1). Unlike previous research that study non-ownership contexts (e.g., Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012; Chen 2009), this is the first research that conceptually and empirically compares and contrasts three different non-ownership consumption practices. The continuum offers a more useful analytical tool to study the impacts, antecedents, and dynamism within each non-ownership based exchange contexts.

2 Figure 1 Non-ownership forms of exchange contexts continuum (Based on Belk 2010) Overview of Methodology Phase 1 of the qualitative study began with 7 exploratory interviews to better understand the phenomena. We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals participating in access-based systems (i.e. short term car rental schemes), ridesharing (peer to peer rides offered by individuals through an online classified forum), or an online donation group (offering unwanted goods used or new to other users in an online community). The interviews guided the creation of the interview protocol for phase 2 of the study. In the second phase, we conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with individuals participating in one of three contexts (Couchsurfing (CS), Airbnb, short term car rentals). We chose contrasting cases in the different contexts to support theoretical replication (Miles and Huberman 1994; Yin 2003). To ensure literal replication multiple participants were chosen for each context (Yin 2003).

3 Overview of Findings The first part of analysis consisted of categorizing each context according to Belk s (2010) characteristics of sharing or commodity exchange prototypes and forming a continuum ranging from pure sharing to pure commodity exchange. The results of this part allowed us to empirically situate the three non-ownership modes onto a continuum as illustrated in Figure 1. Next, we compared and contrasted consumer motivations to participate in each system. A summary of the characteristics in the three contexts is outlined in Table 1.

4 Commodity Exchange Sharing Table 1: Characteristics of non-ownership forms of exchange contexts (Based on Belk 2010) Couchsurfing Airbnb Short-term car rentals Nonreciprocal Social links to others De facto or de jure shared ownership Money irrelevant Singular objects Networked inclusion Inalienable Dependent Sharing context Social reproduction Love, caring Reciprocal Balanced exchange No lingering obligations Monetary Non-singular Calculation Alienable Impersonal Independent Trade/barter context Quantitative relations between objects Highlights of findings comparing and contrasting the three different contexts, revealed similarities and differences in user motivations. In all contexts, we see monetary incentives influenced user initial interest and ongoing use of the service. An interesting, and perhaps counterintuitive finding of our research is the lack of environmental and/or anti-corporation concerns for participants. We found that consumers even in the closest practices to sharing (i.e., CS) do not hold any particular environmental and anti-corporation values explaining their motivations to participate. The three contexts also showed some important differences. One difference was the level of sociality. As we move from left to right on the continuum, we see lower degrees of socialization. Almost all of our informants from CS unanimously agreed that their motivation was the social draw to connect with others. The degree of socialization and maintaining ties with other users were lower in Airbnb and absent in the short-term car rental contexts. We also questioned how participation in the three contexts differentially influenced views on ownership or traditional modes of exchange (e.g. hotels versus peer to peer house sharing as a means to access accommodations). Unlike CS users, who for the most part were dedicated only to this form of accommodation option and resisted participating in traditional modes of hotel/hostel accommodations, Airbnb and short-term car rental users toggled

5 between the two modes of exchange. Participating in one did not exclude participation in the other. The study builds on Belk s (2010) framework to demonstrate how context characteristics impact consumer responses. The implications of this study are relevant for marketers because it highlights what characteristics to leverage in order to reach consumers more effectively. Our findings contribute to the limited literature in this emerging field by addressing how and why consumers participate in different non-ownership models of consumption. And finally, unlike previous research we look more closely at the nuances of non-ownership forms of consumption, which contrasts existing literature that examines only one angle of the phenomena, access-based models.

6 References Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 2012, Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. What s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Belk, R. Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. The Anthropologist, 18, 2014, Belk, R. Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 2010, Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2014, Chen, Y. Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 2009, Lamberton, C. P, & Rose, R. L. When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76, 2012, Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. Focusing and Bounding the Collection of Data, chap. 2. Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994, Yin, R. K. Designing case studies, chap. 2, Case Study Research, 2003,