LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
Exchange of P2P services in the Collaborative Economy (PhD research-in-progress)
P2P service exchange
FEK PhD Workshop
Hugo Guyader, PhD Candidate in Marketing
Department of Management & Engineering (IEI)
Division of Business Administration (FEK)
value by sharing
existing products that
are only temporarily
needed, rather than
Consumers access to
more convenience and
at lower costs.
What’s Mine is Yours
- Collaborative Economy: An economy built on decentralized networks
and marketplaces that unlocks the value of underused assets by matching
needs and haves, in ways that bypass traditional middlemen and disrupt
- production (Design, production, and distribution of goods through
- finance (P2P banking and crowd-driven investment models that
- education (Open education and person-to-person learning models that
- consumption (Maximum assets utilization through models of
redistribution and shared access)
Botsman 2010; 2013; 2015
- Collaborative Consumption: An economic model based on sharing/
swapping/renting/consuming products & services, that enable access-based
consumption over ownership, thanks to technology and the internet.
- Redistribution markets (Unwanted or underused goods are redistributed)
- Collaborative Lifestyles (Non-tangible assets such as space, skills and
money are exchanged)
- Product Service Systems (Pay-to-access the benefit of a product instead of
- Sharing economy: An economic model based on sharing underutilized
products & services for monetary or non-monetary benefits among private
- Peer economy: Person-to-person marketplaces that facilitate the sharing and
direct trade of assets built on peer trust (the pure P2P slice of the sharing
Botsman 2010; 2013; 2015
$335 billion by 2025
+25% each year
68% of 30.000 US consumers
are willing to share for a fee
• Sharing behavior is nothing new,
but it is being revolutionized and facilitated by ICT
• Primary drivers of the collaborative economy:
- economic incentive
- an urge to reduce the socio-environmental impact of
consumption and a belief in “the commons”
- normative desires to satisfy altruistic needs and of
- shift from ownership to access
• Trust, reputation and peer-reviews
‣ trust is the first barrier to sharing
‣ control mechanisms for perceived risks
‣ role of communities?
‣ institutional trust & “we-washing”
• Social proof and critical mass of users
‣ choice and convenience depend on the size of the opposite network
‣ reputation system requires input
‣ platform re-usage
• Dichotomous network users: consumers and/or providers
‣ users can be on both sides of the exchange
‣ different expectations of service quality
‣ dyadic relationship
Tentative Research Questions (RQs)
. RQ1 What are the determinants of satisfaction in P2P service
. RQ2 What are the determinants of re-usage (loyalty) of P2P
. RQ3 What is the role of a community for sharing platforms?
. RQ4 What is the impact of trust and reciprocity in P2P service
. RQ5 How can sharing platforms reach a critical mass of users?
. RQ6 What differs between user-providers and user-consumers
of P2P services?
. RQ1 What are the determinants
of satisfaction in P2P service
. RQ2 What are the determinants
of re-usage (loyalty) of P2P
. RQ3 What is the role of a
community for sharing
. RQ4 What is the impact of trust
and reciprocity in P2P service
. RQ5 How can sharing platforms
reach a critical mass of users?
. RQ6 What differs between user-
providers and user-consumers of
P2P platform data
• the collaborative economy is “new”
- popular science books, essays, online articles, etc.
• few academic studies, mostly published in JCP,
consumer behavior and some marketing journals
• mainly descriptive (case studies, interviews)
‣ Marketing: Service-Dominant Logic, Service
‣ Consumer Behavior: Sharing and Access modes of
consumption, Consumer Communities
• The more network users,
the more valuable it becomes,
the better services can be provided.
• Service organizations develop
online platforms that enable their
users to exchange P2P services.
• With its network-centric perspective, the SDL framework on the
collaborative economy potentially allows a deeper understanding of how
online platforms create mutual value for their users.
• The actor-to-actor (A2A) perspective on co-creation within networks
focus on exchanges between all actors of the service ecosystem.
• The service platform “[...] helps to liquefy resources and enhance
resource density through efficient and effective service
exchange” (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015, p.161).
• Service marketing concepts and particularly the SDL have already
demonstrated to be promising in understanding the exchange of P2P
services in the collaborative economy (QUIS14: 4-5papers).
Research Priorities in Service Marketing
➡ “[s]ervices are increasingly ‘prosumed’ (produced and consumed)
in settings that combine actors from multiple sectors, creating a
‘demand for research that moves from bilateral supplier–customer
service–value cocreation to a multi-actor perspective and an
ecosystem service–value cocreation’” (Ostrom et al., 2015, p.136).
➡ Existing theoretical models do not fit the empirical phenomenon:
there are no employees performing services in P2P platforms, only
users who act as producers and/or consumers. Thus, “[r]esearch
should also address service innovation that involves new or
changed roles of service firms, customers, and employees, such as
when conventional employee roles are delegated to
customers” (Ostrom et al. 2015, p.131).
• Belk (2007) definition of sharing:
“voluntary lending, pooling and allocation of resources, and authorized use of
public property, but not contractual renting, leasing, or unauthorized use of
property by theft or trespass”
=> the sharing economy is not true sharing (Belk 2014):
“presence of profit motives, absence of feelings of community, and
expectations of reciprocity”
Sharing is driven by altruistic motives, a sense of commonality, in-
direct economic benefits, fame or reputation, utilitarianism, feeling
of belonging to a community (Belk 2007, 2010, 2014).
• True sharing involve caring and love, it is inalienable, interpersonal
and dependent, as well as communal as it creates trust and social
bonds without contracts or legal requirements (Belk, 2010).
• Sharing out (vs. Sharing in) “involves giving to others outside the
boundaries separating self and other, and is closer to gift giving and
commodity exchange” (Belk 2010 p.725).
• “If we conceive of a continuum commodity exchange lies at one end
and sharing at the other, with gift giving somewhere in the
middle” (Belk, 2007, p.127).
Other Relevant concepts: access-based consumption, mutuality or generalized
reciprocal exchange, anti-consumption, pure opportunistic behavior.
The importance of community
What’s Yours Is Mine
• “wewashing”, “share-washing” or “collaborative washing”:
online businesses claim to foster community sharing, whereas
they are mostly benefiting from enabling renting services
rather than social exchange.
• Sharing platforms use peer-review and reputation-based trust
systems to alleviate the problem of “free-riders” who do not
contribute (Hamari et al., 2015).
• Call for research on “the role of customer communities and
how best to develop and maintain such communities that have
positive outcomes for both customers and firms” emphasizing
the social aspect of value creation (Ostrom et al. 2015, p. 139).
The importance of community
—> Authenticity of a sharing platform?
• The ‘true sharing’ movement raises awareness of this loss of communities and
criticizes the profits of “Big Sharing unicorns” (Uber, Airbnb).
• For instance, Blablacar has been criticized for killing the original ridesharing
philosophy (i.e. saving travel costs, reducing environmental impact of driving, and
meeting people) when it changed its business model in 2012 and “forced” an online
With this change of business model, direct contact between users (exchange of
emails, phone numbers) became impossible and forbidden, and the price rose to take
into consideration the driver’s car depreciation.
The social aspect diminished (i.e. riders listen to music, sleep, claim reserved seats;
direct communication is impossible before a reservation) and the economic aspect
reversed (i.e. more than 10% commission, less flexibility with booking and pricing).
• Thus, I see two perspectives on the collaborative economy:
-> one driven by convenience (i.e. ICT) and economic benefits; and
-> one more authentic sharing philosophy, close to gift giving, not driven by
monetary profits and strongly relying on the social aspect of communities.
P2P service satisfaction
✴ information quality (i.e. availability and usefulness)
✴ technical quality (i.e. website’s design and usability)
✴ service quality (i.e. reliability, assurance, responsiveness,
✴ interaction quality (i.e. communication)
A recent CB study shows that satisfaction and the
likelihood of choosing a sharing option again is determined
by serving users’ self-benefits:
— high utility, trust, cost savings, and familiarity.
Cost savings are particularly important, as well as service
quality and community belonging.
Focus: organized ridesharing
Liftsharing (UK) or Carpooling (US)
TNCs: Uber, Lyft, Sidecar
✦ Individual travellers share a
vehicle for a trip and split travel
costs with others that have similar
itineraries and time schedules.
(Furuhata et al. 2013)
Focus: organized ridesharing
• Two-sided matching platforms “facilitate ridesharing services by
matching individual car drivers and passengers” (Furuhata et al. 2013, p.
• Ridesharing can include small detours, but it does not concern for-proﬁt
taxis and chauffeured vehicles in which drivers make a special trip to carry
a passenger and enable them to make proﬁts (e.g. the passenger pays
more than the trip gas costs).
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber, Lyft or Sidecar provide
such “ridesourcing service” (Rayle et al. 2014).
• Blablacar: largest platform in Europe with 20 million members in 18
markets, arranging 2 million rides per month (Dillet, 2015) and estimates to
enable drivers yearly total savings of $320 million (Cowan, 2015).
The average shared ride distance in Europe is 342 km.
Blablacar claims to raise car occupancy from 1.7 to 2.8 passengers.
Focus: organized ridesharing
✴ Main motivations and drivers for the sharing economy:
more convenience and efﬁciency (technology), economic beneﬁts
(affordability, cost-savings, monetisation of under-utilised assets; better
value/quality), environmentally friendliness, strong community, access
lifestyle, curiosity and fun (Matfoska 2015; Owyang et al. 2014; PWC
In Denmark, a recent ridesharing study reports the user perceptions of the
service as positive thanks to cost savings, greater comfort, ﬂexibility and
speed, and socialization with vehicle occupants;
…but also negative because of a lack of ride availability and inconvenience in
ﬁnding them, viewing ridesharing as unsafe or unsecure, and expectations of
social awkwardness and exclusion (Nielsen et al., 2015).
Economic and social attributes seem to be the strongest choice
determinants for adopting a ridesharing service.
Individual Mo,ves &
- Social interac3on
- Cost savings*
- Environmental consciousness
- Access/sharing lifestyle
- Reciprocal trust
*no pro'it is made by the participants.
Ease of use
P2P Trust Social
P2P exchange satisfaction: a (tentative) model
1. Flexibility: small time
frame, high expectations.
2. Monetary exchange
deﬁnes who is service
provider and consumer.
3. Communication: high
1. Flexibility: higher
than during the
2. Meeting points:
3. Sociability: “co-
sleepiness, and taxi
5. Trust and Safety:
proﬁle, car model
6. Comfort: breaks.
7. Music: background.
Traveling with other users:
·P2P car rentals
“Revolutionalizing the way people travel, and the overall infrastructure”
Imported ridesharing from Germany to Denmark, seeing an opportunity in the Danes’
concern for the environment and their discontent with public transportation (prices,
delays, cancellations). Organic growth (no marketing) as a non-profit platform for 6 years.
Enhanced the ridesharing platform with a new technology enabling online payment.
Begun to charge the drivers a 9% commission on their ride.
February – launch of P2P car rentals: Users could now borrow privately owned
vehicles from other users, or rent out their own car. An insurance-deal covers the rental
September – launch of leasing: when the car idles, it can be rented out to GoMore
members. By renting out their leased car 8 days/month, the Leasers can make up the
leasing cost, so the car can be used for free the rest of the month.
More than 300.000 users in Scandinavia.
Begun in Dec. 2013 as a
P2P car rental platform
In April 2015: they
partnered-up with BYD
to offer their users to
lease an EV (e6) for free if
they rent it out to other
Might add P2P
maintenance in private
garages and cleaning
services to the platform.