HugoGuyader,PhDCandidateinMarketingDepartmentofManagement&Engineering

3rdIWSE—15September2016UniversityofSouthampton,UK

P2P Service Exchangesin a Quasi-Commercial Context

The Mutual Benefits of Ridesharing

Sharing Economy

• In general, (still) academically poorly understood.

• Marketing studies: too focused on B2B/B2C relationships.

• Few studies have conceptualized access-based consumption, P2P renting, and non-ownership services, as different from true sharing (Belk).

Research needed on what people actually do when they interact and exchange P2P services.

Collaborative

Heart and Wallet paradox• ‘Hybrid economy’ with ideological tensions:

1. a logic of economic market-mediated exchange with aspects of profit-maximization, negative reciprocity, independence between parties who have self-interested motivations

2. a logic of non-market exchange with elements of solidarity, mutuality, generalized reciprocity, and communal norms establishing interdependence between participants

Value cocreation practices are the result of both pro-social (or communal) motives and monetary (or utilitarian) self-interests.

ACTOR ACTOR

Service(e.g.mobility)

Service(e.g.cashcontribution)

SharingPractices

P2P Service Exchange

Study aim: Identify sharing practices that mutually benefit all actors.

Study DesignBlaBlaCar

‣ Netnographic pre-study-> insights on the ridesharing culture, social experiences and interactions prior the actual offline exchange between actors

‣ Participant observations -> facilitates the exploration of responses in context and the obtention of in-depth information on a new phenomenon

Pre Study

• Netnography:online conversations, testimonials, opinion articles, presentations, blogposts, forum messages, videos, documentation (FAQ), and other artifacts - published online between 2009 and 2015

(900 pages of text)

Main Study

• Participant observation: Online interactions with 35 platform users 5 shared rides planned with 14 participants Distance driven: 2250 km ≈ 277 km/passenger

• Ethnographic interviews: 11 passengers (2 cancel. 1 no-show) 31h in the car

Passengers could reserve by internal message and pay cash (💶), or reserve and pay online with a “Manual Approval - guaranteed within 3h” (💳).

anonymised data

ID Gender Age Nation-ality

FacebookFriends*

RidePref.†

Signedup

Experi-ence‡

Reputa-tion§

E-messagesExchanged

BookingAhead

DistanceShared

GivenRating§

Rueben M 29 German n/a BlaBla 1year High Notyet 12 1day 124km n/a

Magda F 22 German 491 BlaBla 2months n/a Notyet 12 1day cancelled cancelledMoundir M 27 n/a n/a BlaBla 12days n/a Notyet 20 3days cancelled cancelledAllan M 29 Syrian n/a BlaBla 1.5month Low Notyet 11 2days 366km n/a

Sofia F 22 German n/a BlaBla 8months High 1.0(n=1) 7 5days 126km 5

Yuliya F 22 Ukrainian 155 BlaBlaBla 1.5year New Notyet 38 6days 268km 4

Omar M 19 German n/a Bla 6months High Notyet 11 11days 90km 4

Omar+1 M n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Low n/a n/a 11days 90km n/a

Joseph M 24 German 1236 BlaBla 1year High 1.7(n=3) 26 15days noshow n/a

Nelia F 30 Bosnian n/a BlaBla 3days New Notyet 10 2days 224km 5

Julie F 21 French n/a BlaBla 3weeks Low Notyet 14 20days 311km n/a

Julie+1 M 21 French n/a n/a 1year Low n/a n/a 20days 311km n/a

Marie F 20 French 277 BlaBla 3weeks Low Notyet 6 8days 508km 5

Juiio M 23 Brazilian 1439 BlaBlaBla 3months High Notyet 15 4days 627km 5

InformationwasgatheredfromBlaBlaCarandthediscussionsinthecar.

*EachusermustverifytheirphonenumberandconfirmtheiremailaddesstoaccessBlablacarservices.Facebookisoptional.

†Usersindicatetheirchattinesslevelwith“Bla”,“BlaBla”or“BlaBlaBla”dependingonhowmuchtheyenjoychattinginthecar.

‡Usersareeithernewtoridesharing(firsttimewithme),orwithlowexperience(1-2tripsbefore)orhighexperience(3tripsormore).

§Users'averageratingscorefrom1to5(n=totalofratings).RatingsrangefromVeryDisappointing(1),toPoor(2),toGood(3),toExcellent(4),toOutstanding(5).

anonymised data

Data Analysis• Framework analysis

• Practice Theory Procedures, ‘explicit know that’, rules, principles Understandings, ‘tacit know-how’ of what to say and do Engagements, commitments, emotionally charged purposes

Ridesharing Practices• Delivering (i.e. driving)

• Saving costs

• Paying online/offline

• Rating peers

• Trusting strangers

• Conversing

• Coordinating with others

• Individualistic activities (i.e. no-shows, sleeping in the car)

• Making money

• Professional marketing activities (i.e. pricing, competition)

Sharing Styles

Communal Sharing

Conspicuous Sharing

Opportunistic Sharing

Styles Practices

Communal Sharing elements of ‘true’ sharing, courtesy, pro-social orientation, altruism and generalized reciprocity

Delivering Saving costs Paying

Rating peers Conversing Coordinating with others Greeting new members

Trusting strangers

Conspicuous Sharing individuals seek status and convenience, following a lifestyle trend, with minor commercial interests

Delivering Saving costs Paying

Rating peers Conversing Coordinating with others Greeting new members

Professional marketing activities

Opportunistic Sharing individuals seek personal benefits from deviant practices, regardless of the sharing culture and norms

Delivering Saving costs Paying

Individualistic activities Making Money

Professional marketing activities

Communal SharingPro-social context: actors share with others without expecting anything in return. They act altruistically for the benefit of the community at large as well as others with whom they exchange directly.

Benefits of a feeling of social belonging and community values of ethics, egalitarianism, transparency and generosity.

Close to true sharing-in (Belk) and a generalized sense of reciprocity in altruistic transactions (Price; Sahlins).

“We are in it for the long haul” Even though actors feel indebted in a dyadic exchange (direct reciprocity in a market logic), they also feel part of a bigger community (generalized reciprocity in a social context).

Conspicuous SharingMarket logic of resource exploitation and profit maximization.

Self-interest and utilitarian motives (convenience, cost-saving), and lifestyle trend orientation (seeking status and variety).

In line with Schor et al. (2016) who argue for distinguishing practices among sharing actors seeking to achieve high-status and efficiency by acting with professionalism.

Yet, conspicuous sharing practices are performed in a context regulated by platform rules and community norms, which make P2P service exchanges also embedded with sharing out (Belk).

Opportunistic Sharing$$$ Actors take advantage of being able to do something that they could do to a business corporation, but not to friends.

$$$ Individualistic and opportunistic practices are performed to yield personal benefits by abusing the trust of a community.

$$$ Such mis-sharing practices manifest in deviant behavior in P2P file-sharing (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2007), opportunistic behaviors in commercial car sharing (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012), egoism and distrust in other community members (Hartl et al., 2015), and misbehaviors in access-based services (Schaefers et al., 2016).

Further Research➡ Investigate what attributes influence P2P service

satisfaction in the sharing experience, and how to raise participation likelihood of communal sharing practices in future exchanges. ✓ Quantitative methodologies could measure the

difference in sharing styles, comparing grass-roots movements to “Big Sharing” unicorns.

➡ Investigate the various roles enacted by sharing actors and how it impacts the overall experience.

Thankyou!

Anyquestions?remarks?

Hugo Guyaderhugo.guyader@liu.se