WHITE DOVE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY MANUSCRIPT … › teaching-sets › White_Dove ›...

1

This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.

WHITE DOVE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY

MANUSCRIPT (ROUND 1)

Abstract

This study identifies and defines an emerging consumption model, access based consumption,

conceptualized as market mediated transactions where no transfer of ownership takes place. We

distinguish access based consumption from ownership and sharing. We identify four primary

characteristics of access based consumption: 1) consumers avoid identification with the objects

being accessed; 2) consumption is motivated by use value; 3) consumption is regulated by the

market’s norms of negative reciprocity; and 4) consumption is governed by a big-brother model

of governance. We also identify an important consequence of access based consumption: lack of

brand community. The primary reasons why access based consumption has the characteristics it

does is because of the market mediation and because the self is not extended. We discuss the

implications of our findings for understanding the nature of various forms of exchange, and for

understanding how and in what ways the marketplace affects these forms of exchange.

2


During the last decade observers have noted that markets are giving way to networks, and

alternative modes of acquisition and consumption are emerging beside ownership. While

property continues to exist, it is less likely to be exchanged in the market (Rifkin 2000). Instead

of buying and owning things, consumers want access to goods, and prefer to pay for the

experience of temporarily using a consumption object. Ownership is no longer the ultimate

expression of consumer desire (Chen 2009; Marx 2011). Indeed, we have seen a proliferation of

consumption models, where access is enabled through sharing or pooling of

resources/products/services redefined through technology and peer communities (Belk 2010;

Botsman and Rogers 2010; Gansky 2010; Giesler 2006). Examples of access models vary from

time share real estate to developments in car sharing programs (e.g. Zipcar, Relayrides, etc.) or

bike sharing programs, such as the city of Paris’ public program, to bag or fashion borrowing

programs (e.g. Bagborroworsteal.com; Renttherunway.com) and jewelry renting programs (e.g.

Adornbrides.com and Borrowedbling.com). While public access to goods, such as renting books

or toys from public libraries (Ozanne and Ballantine 2010), have been and continue to be the

norm in some cultures and social contexts, observers argue that models of access based

consumption mediated by the marketplace, such as Zipcar, are gaining and will continue to gain

popularity fueled by the internet, as well as by a capitalist marketplace trading in cultural

resources rather than material objects (Belk 2010; Botsman and Rogers 2010; Gansky 2010;

Rifkin 2000). The goal of this study is to examine the nature of consumption when it is access

based.

We define access based consumption as market mediated transactions where no transfer

of ownership takes place. In comparison to owning or sharing, consumers attain benefits by

gaining the right to use products/facilities or enter a network based on rental/access based

payments (Lovelock and Gummersson 2004). Access rights enable consumers to use a product or

service exclusively, but temporarily. Consumers are able to access objects or networks that they

could not afford to own, or that they choose not to own due to concerns such as space constraints

or the environment. Access is derived from the sharing or pooling of resources as consumers

participate in an economy of scale that enables sharing of common resources (Belk 2010).

Ownership and possession practices have historically been of central interest to consumer

researchers. Research in alternative modes of consumption besides the ownership/possession

mode is limited to Belk’s (2007; 2010) conceptual explorations of sharing and Chen’s (2009)

empirical study of experiential access to art via museums and galleries. This research stream has

demonstrated that mode of consumption shapes consumer’s relationship to products and services,

and their preferences, values and desires. For example, Chen (2009) points out the contrast

between art collectors and visitors to art museums, and suggests that the mode of consumption

shapes consumer’s perception of value. She also finds that each mode of consumption is

underlined by distinct consumer desires. Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) find different consumer

preferences associated with each consumption mode (possession versus access) in a peer-to-peer

sharing online network. Further, Chen (2009) and Rifkin (2000) propose that access produces

different object-self relationship than possession. While the phenomenon of access based

consumption has been noted in the literature, we lack an understanding of what the nature of

consumption under conditions of access looks like.

In this study we provide a systematic theoretical development that integrates and extends

prior work on shared resources and that compares and contrasts access systematically with

modes already represented in the literature, namely owning and sharing. We undertake an

analytical investigation into the phenomenon of market mediated access by examining why

3


consumers engage in access based consumption; what are the processes involved in how

consumers interact with objects under access; and what are the implications of access based

consumption on consumer’s relationship to others, specifically the company and other

consumers. In this way, our theoretical contribution lies at introducing and mapping the nature of

access based consumption, as well as its implications for consumer research. Mapping a

construct and its implications is deemed an especially valued and relevant theoretical

contribution in the study of newly coined constructs such as access (Fischer and Otnes 2006, p.

25). In this way, we follow the tradition of several influential works that have introduced and

developed constructs in the consumer research literature, such as the studies of the extended self

(Belk 1988), sharing (Belk 2010), invisible brands (Coupland 2005) and commercial friendships

(Price and Arnould 1999). Additionally, this study sheds lights on the underlining characteristics

that make consumption when objects are being accessed different from consumption under

ownership, and also different from sharing (Belk 2010). Thus, our findings highlight why

consumers would behave differently when accessing objects compared to other modes of

consumption.

We explore these issues in a context of what is commonly known among the general

public as car sharing1, where consumers gain access to cars for short-term periods of time by

paying per use. More specifically, we examine the relationships between the consumer and the

accessed object, including the hedonic and symbolic identity value, the consumer-consumer

relationship, and the consumer-marketer relationship. Our study differs from Chen’s (2009)

study of art viewership in that she defines access as an experience. While we agree that the

experience of the object becomes essential during access as it “transforms goods into services”

(Rifkin 2000, p. 74), in our data, access is not equated to experience. Further, we do not study an

experiential consumption context (art), but one where the object has functional value. In this way

we challenge Chen’s conclusion that consumers do not derive value from functional products

unless they are owned (p. 927). Access for functional products is gaining popularity in the

marketplace and our findings show that access is especially preferred for its utilitarian (use)

value rather than sign value.

We suggest that access based consumption is ultimately a unique form of consumption,

and that there is a lack of understanding about its features and complexities, outside of the

context of sharing within the family, or accessing experience based objects such as attending an

art museum. We now outline our conceptual foundations, and go on to describe our methods,

outline the four characteristics of access based consumption that emerged from our analysis as

well as an important consequence, and finally discuss the significance of these to the evolution of

consumption models in the marketplace.

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

The phenomenon of access was first introduced in the popular business press by Rifkin

(2000), who primarily examines developments in the B2B sector, and argues that we are living in

1 Note: The term ‘car sharing’ is widely used as an emic term in everyday vocabulary as well as in the popular

business press to refer to the phenomenon of gaining access to cars on a short term basis through a membership to a

company such as Zipcar. However, from an etic perspective, we see car sharing as an example of access rather than

sharing, as it does not have the properties of sharing identified by Belk (2007, 2010). As such, we utilize the emic

term car sharing when we refer to our context of study as well as in the findings section where we represent the

voice of our informants, and use the etic term access based consumption in our theoretical discussions.

4


an age of access where property regimes have changed to access regimes characterized by short-

term limited use of assets controlled by networks of suppliers. Historically, in the consumer

sector, consumption through access has existed in the public sphere rather than the market as, for

example, consumption of art by visitors to free museums (Chen 2009) or short-term borrowing

of books and toys from public libraries (Ozanne and Ballantine 2010). Recently, as demonstrated

by the numerous examples in our introductory paragraph, market-mediated access is a pervasive

and increasingly important phenomenon as companies are finding ways to monetize access

(Botsman and Rogers 2010; Gansky 2010). However, the study of consumption behaviors related

to access rather than ownership has received little attention in the academic literature.

Until recently the focus of consumer research has been the study of consumption under

ownership. Ownership expresses the special relationship between a person and an object/entity

called “owning” and the object is called “personal property” or “possession” (Snare 1972, p.

200). There are two aspects of ownership addressed in prior research that we further examine in

access based consumption: 1) the nature of object-self relationship under the particular mode of

consumption; and 2) the rules that govern and regulate this relationship in itself as well as within

the broader context of the society. In the following paragraphs we summarize the findings on

each of these two issues for ownership and outline their implications for access.

Prior research has testified to a special relationship or connection between the self and

possessions, such as religious artifacts, special possessions, heirlooms, homes or cars, to the

extent that feelings of ownership are considered part of the human condition (James 1890;

Pierce, Kostova and Kirks 2001). This research has suggested that ownership of an object

transforms its meaning, and possessions carry and gain symbolic significance for individuals

(Czikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981). For instance, Beggan (1992) found that owners

tend to treat their possessions as social entities because ownership creates a psychological

association between object and owner. Possessions play such a dominant role in an owner’s

identity that they become part of the extended self (Belk 1988). Possessions are crucial in

maintaining, displaying and transforming the self because of the symbolic connections between

possessions and one’s personal history, values, relationships, and ethnic or national identity

(Belk 1988; Kleine, Kleine and Allen1995; Noble and Walker 1997; Richins 1994; Schouten

1991; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988). As such, ownership is used to define one’s identity,

express self-identity to others and ensures the continuity of the self over time and space (Mehta

and Belk 1991; Price, Arnould and Curasi 2000; Richins 1994; Tian and Belk 2005). In fact,

Barone, Shimp and Spott (1999) found that the self-congruity effect occurs among owners, but

not among non-owners. As such, ownership is associated with important psychological and

behavioral effects, such as an uplifting effect as well as high attachment, familiarity, knowledge,

and involvement with the object (Ball and Tasaki 1992; Kirmani, Sood and Bridges 1999; Pierce

et al 2001). Owners are also found to spend greater efforts on maintaining the object and have

greater emotional difficulty accepting deterioration or loss of the object than non-owners (Ball

and Tasaki 1992; Belk 1988; Sayre 1994).

This stream of research has also outlined the characteristics of ownership that lead to the

unique relationship with owned objects. For instance, acquisition and the legal right of owning

the object is found to change the way consumer’s value and relate to objects as highlighted by

the endowment effect. The endowment effect demonstrates that people value a good more once

their property right to it has been established (Strahilevitz and Loewenstein 1998; Thaler 1980).

In other words, people place a higher value on objects they own relative to objects they do not.

Additionally, even if the consumer does not own the object legally, the time of use and

5


interaction with the object may also lead to a perceived sense of ownership (Peck and Shu 2009;

Pierce et al 2001). Belk (1988) emphasizes the appropriation practices which consumers engage

in as they are incorporating the object into the extended self. Pierce et al (2001) also argue that a

sense of ownership is developed when individuals come to intimately know an object, control it,

and invest him/herself into it through labor even though he/she may not legally own the object.

However, in contrast to the permanent interaction with the object that characterizes

ownership, access is a temporary and circumstantial consumption context (Chen 2009). In access

based consumption, the consumer does not have ownership of the object and typically uses it on

a short-term basis. This raises questions regarding the nature of the relationship that consumers

form with the object when it is accessed compared to when it is owned. We investigate this by

examining the nature of the relationship that consumers form with objects. More specifically, we

address the questions of whether consumers experience a perceived sense of ownership towards

accessed objects and whether the symbolic role of objects in consumer identity and its hedonic

value found in ownership are also experienced during access.

In addition to the specific relationship between the consumer and the object, ownership is

also related to property rights that influence the incentives and behaviors related to owned

objects. Property rights refer to “the sanctioned behavioral relations among men that arise from

the existence of things and pertain to their use” (Furubotn and Pejovich 1972, p. 1139). As such,

they guide the relationship between individuals and things by specifying the norms of behavior

that individuals must observe with regard to things. Property rights constitute a system which

allocates rights, obligations and duties to such a relationship (Snare 1972). In the case of

ownership, the individual has full property rights implying that the consumer has de juro and de

facto rights over the entity. In other words, the owner has four basic property rights: the right to

use it; to retain benefits from its use; to change its form and structure; and to transfer rights to

others (Furubotn and Pejavich 1972; Moeller and Wittkowski 2010; Snare 1972). However, in

access based consumption, consumers do not have any de juro ownership of the object of

consumption.

Access is similar to sharing in that both modes of consumption do not involve a transfer

of ownership. Belk (2010) argues that in sharing, especially in the intra-familial sharing that he

discusses, possession or ownership is joint, with no separate terms to distinguish partners in

sharing. In contrast to sole ownership which enables freedom and responsibility towards the

object with clear boundaries between self and others, Belk (2010) suggests that in sharing, joint

possessions are free for all to use generating no debts. In addition, responsibilities are also

shared, such as caretaking or not overusing the object. In sharing, two or more people may enjoy

the benefits and costs that flow from possessing a thing (Belk 2007). However, access is market

mediated and the sharing occurs from the company that owns the objects of consumption not the

consumers. Resources are not access through sharing of personal property among consumers

which characterizes the fundamentals of sharing (Belk 2007, p. 129). Thus, in access based

consumption the role of the subject may move from that of the consumer to that of the user

(Humpreys and Giesler 2007; Rifkin 2000). This has implications for the experience of

ownership as well as the consumer freedom and obligations towards the object being accessed.

What are the governing mechanisms that regulate the relationship to the object and allocate

rights and obligations under conditions of access? We examine this in our study.

Finally, property rights theory points out that ownership is exclusive. As Snare (1972)

argues, “ownership implies not merely that the owner has certain rights [towards the object] but

that the owner is the only one who has these rights with regard [to it]” (p. 203). Consumption in

6


access is shared with others to the extent that participants are accessing products that other

participants use and have to depend on each other for their usage. Similar to sharing, governance

of access consumption has to also regulate the relationship among users as well as users and

accessed objects. In his theory of sharing, Belk (2010) puts forth a model of altruistic sharing

that he characterizes as pro-social. Based on his review of anthropological work on hunter and

gatherer societies, Belk suggests that sharing saves resources, fosters a sense of community and

creates certain group or social synergies. Belk (2010) places sharing and its communal outcomes

in contrast to economic exchange in that sharing is a powerful way of creating feelings of

solidarity and bonding. In access based consumption, which is market mediated, there is

economic exchange. Thus, we examine the implications of access based consumption on the

relationship among consumers and their sense of community and social synergies.

In sum, we propose that access based consumption is a distinct from both ownership and

sharing on significant dimensions. As such, we set out to define the nature of access based

consumption, and uncover the reasons underlying why access based consumption looks as it

does.

CAR SHARING

We examine access based consumption in the context of car sharing. In the past decade

car sharing has become a worldwide phenomenon, with copious news coverage and uptake by

consumers (Naughton 2008; Levine 2009). Originating in Switzerland and Germany more than

20 years ago, car sharing is a popular alternative to car ownership, and has grown systematically

even in the US where other modes of commuting such as ride sharing or carpooling continue to

be unpopular (Katzev 2003). Typically, in car sharing consumers access cars owned by a

company and in this regard it is different from carpooling or neighborhood car sharing programs.

Car sharing is one of the most high profile market mediated, access based contexts in today’s

marketplace (Bostman and Rogers 2010). Further, the automobile is full of symbolism in the

American cultural context. As prior research has documented, American consumers forge strong

attachments to their cars (Ball and Tasaki 1992) and cars symbolize a sense of consumer identity.

Owning one’s first car is a rite of passage to adulthood and often cars can be symbols of

masculinity and independence. Consumers forge strong relationships to their cars and often

brand communities take place around this product (Schouten and McAlexander 1995; Muniz and

O’Guinn 2004). Thus, the context of car sharing allows us to examine whether the symbolic and

experiential benefits that car ownership enables can also be experienced in the access based

consumption.

Car sharing consists of a group of paying individuals who access a fleet of cars along

with other paying members (Katzev 2003). Cars in membership-based groups are used almost

exclusively for short, local trips, as the cost becomes prohibitive for longer distances. Car

sharing also differs from car renting in that it gives individuals access to a car for brief trips, in

some cases as short as half an hour, charging only for the time and duration of the trip. It also

provides members with the flexibility to experiment and try various car models frequently,

making a durable good, the car, a simple lifestyle choice.

Specifically, our study is conducted in interviews with Zipcar users, the world’s largest

car-sharing company and the sole car sharing company in the US for a decade. Zipcar has

become an icon of sharing among the business community (e.g. Botsman and Rogers 2010).

Zipcar has more than 400,000 members and 7,000 cars in urban areas and college campuses

7


throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Since its beginning in 2000,

Zipcar has experienced 100%+ growth annually, and their annual revenue tops $100 million.

Sixty percent of new members said they had sold their cars or abandoned plans to buy a car and

decided instead to use Zipcar, which charges a small annual fee as well as per hour rental rates

(Zipcar 2009).

Essentially, Zipcar works as follows: For anyone to use Zipcar, they have to be 21 years

old and become a member of Zipcar by going through a rigorous member check, which includes

their driving history. Members, whom Zipcar calls Zipsters, receive a Zipcard, which serves as

an automatic key to unlock the door of each car, enabling members automated access to any

Zipcar they reserve. Zipsters can reserve Zipcars online or by phone in minutes or up to a year in

advance. Rates are as low as $6 per hour and $60 per day, with gas, parking, insurance, and

maintenance included. Zipcar also offers frequent driver and business programs with additional

discounts. Zipcar has established partnerships with 10000 businesses and 150 universities

(Zipcar 2009).

Zipcar has around thirty car models in their fleet from basic functional models, such as

Toyota trucks, to luxury brands such as BMW, to green cars such as the Toyota Prius. Zipcars

are typically conveniently located close to the user’s residence or place of work and are returned

to their permanent parking space at the end of the rental period. The Zipcar service is designed as

a self-service model that guarantees lower costs for its members. There are no employees on-site

for car pick-up or return. Thus, the company relies on its customers to return the cars on time,

maintain the cars and report damage. Zipcar has in place numerous mechanisms to manage and

monitor consumer behavior. First, Zipcar has introduced what they call the “six rules of the

road” where they outline customer responsibilities to return the car on time; to clean the cars up;

to report damage; to not smoke in the car; to fill up the gas tank; and to not bring/keep pets in the

car (http://www.zipcar.com/is-it/rules). Second, vehicle usage data is monitored by technology

for each driver. Third, Zipcar has instituted a penalty system where customers are charged for

not bringing the car back in time ($50 per late hour) as well as for any other violations of the six

rules ($50 per violation) (see also Frei 2005). Customers are rewarded for taking the initiative to

wash and clean the cars themselves ($15 reward) (Zipcar.com).

In addition to these instrumental control mechanisms, Zipcar has attempted to use the

power of normative controls to manage its customers by trying to establish a Zipster brand

community (see also Frei 2005). Zipcar makes sure that all its customers know that they are

members of a community by sending a monthly newsletter via email to its members, organizing

Zipster gatherings or events in each city, and engaging its customers for feedback as well as

competitions such as name a car (each car is given a human name beginning with the first letter

of the model name; eg, Mia Mini). Further, Zipcar has positioned itself as a green brand by

promoting car sharing as a more sustainable driving practice, pricing hybrid and electrical cars

lower than other car models, and being eligible for state tax reductions in some US states, such

as Illinois. In sum, Zipcar positions its brand as young, innovative and green.

Finally, in using car sharing as our context for studying access based consumption, we

recognize that in some ways it is a unique context from a temporal perspective. That is,

consumers have access to the cars for a relatively short period of time – typically between one

and a few hours – compared to other consumption contexts where the time period of access

might be longer. This is typical of most access models in the marketplace. Now that we have an

understanding of the characteristics of the research context, we explain the nature of our data

collection.

8


METHOD

We conducted forty semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of Zipcar users

located in a US Northeastern metropolitan area where Zipcar has become commonplace. Zipcar

users are typically characterized as young, professional and urban (Frei 2005; Levine 2009;

Zipcar 2009). As such, we sampled along these dimensions. Table 1 provides a summary of our

informants. Our sample consists of an almost equal distribution of men and women, 17 of which

are in the 21-23 age group and 23 informants between 24 and 38 years old. 25 of our informants

represent urban professionals, while the rest of the sample consists of university students. Thus

the majority of our sample is single and lives alone with 14 of them owning a car of their own

while using Zipcar.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

We began data collection through non-participant observation of car sharing. We rode in

Zipcars with Zipcar users which enabled us to gain a first hand understanding of how consumers

use Zipcars, conduct transactions, follow company regulations, relate to others and to the

company. This observational data, as well as immersion into the literature on ownership and

sharing guided the construction of the interview guide (Bernard 2002; McCracken 1988). In the

interviews, we focused on consumer motivations for joining car sharing, relationships with the

car, similarities and differences between Zipcars and owned cars, their behavior with Zipcars, as

well as their feelings about belonging to a car sharing club and towards the Zipcar brand. The

interviews lasted an hour on average.

We conducted a hermeneutic, iterative analysis (Spiggle 1994; Thompson 1997) of the

interview data with the purpose of identifying how access based consumption was being enacted.

In the first phase of data analysis, we each read the individual interview transcripts to identify

consumer motivations and relationship to Zipcars and to the brand for each informant. In the

second phase, the emphasis was placed on cross-case analysis among informants where we

followed a grounded theory approach to identify emerging codes and categories relevant to the

concept under development (Fischer and Otnes 2006). As we were concerned with the nature of

a construct, an important step in the analysis was to identify properties of access as they emerged

in our data (Strauss and Corbin 1998). We used prior research to identify properties of access

based consumption along two dimensions: the nature of object-self relationship and the

mechanisms that govern this relationship. We engaged in constant comparison of each of the

incidents identified in our data along these dimensions. In this way, four properties of access

emerged from our analysis that makes it distinct from other modes of consumption (ownership

and sharing). Further, a key consequence of access on relationships among users (sense of

community) emerged.

In addition to the interview data, we conducted analyses of company secondary data,

including Zipcar promotional material, newsletters, videos posted on the Zipcar website, and

interactions with customers through the Zipcar Facebook page. This additional data allowed us to

examine how Zipcar is trying to promote the idea of car sharing to its members, potential

members, and investors, as well as to triangulate our interview data (Arnould and Wallendorf

1994). As we illustrate in our findings, consumer’s emic perspectives were contrasted with

company brand positioning and governance mechanisms. Ultimately, we arrived at four

characteristics of access based consumption, which we elaborate on next.

9


THE NATURE OF ACCESS BASED CONSUMPTION

We find that the types of behaviors occurring in access based consumption divides

resources among discrete economic interests – the company and the consumers – and preserves

the self/other boundary. This is in contrast to what would be expected in a sharing model. The

type of access based consumption we uncover is not motivated by altruistic concerns. In contrast

to ownership and sharing, our analysis identifies four characteristics of access based

consumption that we outline below: 1) consumers avoid identification with or extension of the

self to the accessed objects; 2) consumption is motivated by use value rather than sign value; 3)

consumption is regulated by the market’s norms of negative reciprocity; and 4) consumption is

governed by a big brother governance model. Additionally, we outline a consequence of access

based consumption, which is that our informants do not perceive themselves to be a part of a

brand community, despite the company’s efforts to build one.

Avoiding Identification

Our study represents a context where access is achieved through short-term usage of

goods regulated by contractual agreements in the market. Thus, Zipcar users have no legal

ownership of the cars they are using. The question remains then whether and how Zipcar users

experience any sense of de facto ownership, individual or shared, towards the object they are

using. This is known as perceived ownership, a feeling that something is “mine” without the

individual actually owning the product (Peck and Shu 2009; Pierce, Kostova and Kirks 2001).

Prior research has demonstrated that consumers incorporate products into the extended self and

feel a sense of perceived ownership through simply touching them (Peck and Shu 2009),

appropriating or controlling them, creating them, or by getting to know them (Belk 1988, p. 150;

see also Pierce et al 2001). Similarly Belk (2010) proposes that consumers experience a de facto,

shared sense of ownership over shared objects. This suggests that in access based consumption,

consumers may also experience a sense of perceived ownership even though no transfer of

ownership is involved.

Indeed, Zipcar has attempted to encourage consumers to experience a sense of perceived

ownership towards their cars. For instance, in efforts to encourage personalization of the cars,

Zipcar engages users in online forums, such as Facebook or competitions to name its cars, and

uses the human names given to the cars in the booking form for the users (you book the Mia

Mini rather than the 2002 Mini Cooper located at the intersection of High and Main Sts).

Additionally, as cars are located around one’s house or work, our informants tend to habitually

use the same cars parked near them, so they have the opportunity to feel proprietary toward the

cars they use most often. However, a perception of perceived ownership towards Zipcars was not

evident among our informants. As Brian narrates, car sharing provides access to services he

needs, and that is as far as his relationship to Zipcar goes:

“I really don’t care [about the car]. I know that it’s a shared car. I get a little grossed out

because people have smoked cigarettes in the car. There is nothing like owning my own

car! I know that it’s not my own car. I know that it’s a communal car, and I know what

I’m expecting which is why the cigarette smoke is ok. A communal car is shared and it’s

not my car.” (Brian)

10


Brian discusses practices of other Zipcar users that he does not like, such as smoking, but

he is willing to put up with because he feels no shared sense of ownership of the car. In essence,

he can disassociate himself from other users because they smoke, as he doesn’t want to identify

with this car he doesn’t own. Sharing the car with others reinforces in this case the sense of “It is

not mine” and any obligations or expectations that come with perceived ownership of the car.

This is in contrast to Giesler (2006), who found that music consumers who engaged in file

sharing did indeed feel obligations and expectations that came along with sharing the same

object (a music file), such as the obligation to contribute to the community, not just take from the

community.

Furthermore, Brian points out that sharing a car with others raises concerns of contagion

when he describes being grossed out by some members breaking the non-smoking ban in

Zipcars. Contagion refers to a feeling of disgust that consumers feel when they are aware that an

object has been physically touched by someone else (Argo, Dahl and Morales 2006; Rozin and

Fallon 1987). Contagion typically manifests itself when the other is an unknown person. This is

in contrast to a lack of fear of contagion that is characteristic of sharing in the context of familial

relationships based on trust and open self boundaries (e.g. Belk and Llamas 2011). As Brian

notes above, fear of contagion distances Zipcar users from the cars and each other.

To eliminate the negative effects of contagion, Zipcar attempts to establish boundaries

between users by periodically maintaining the cars, and preaches responsible sharing as we

explained in the “six rules of the ride” and their fining practices (Frei 2005). However, as Ashley

points out, these efforts further alienate Zipcar users from responsibility towards the car and each

other:

“I know that they have this perception, they try to create an atmosphere of it’s your car.

You know, I don’t really have any connection to it. Zipcars are clean--they’re sort of like

hotel rooms, like they’re clean, anonymous, and comfortable but not really cozy. It’s like

a hotel room kind of experience, where you’re in some place that’s really not yours;

you’re never going to be really comfortable. You’re not that worried about getting the

seat perfect because you’re only driving it for one day. You don’t fiddle with the presets

of the radio, they’re on stations I don’t like, or you don’t have your CD’s in the car. It’s

not the same sort of cozy intimate feel you have with like your own car where you’ve

developed a relationship to it. It’s a nice car, they’re great, they’re in good condition,

they’re clean and everything, but, they’re sort of like a hotel room where you’re going to

use it once.” (Ashley L.)

As Ashley indicates, Zipcar users do not engage in appropriation practices that

incorporate the car into the extended self as illustrated in other consumption contexts (Belk 1988;

Tian and Belk 2005), such as personalizing the car seat or the radio stations, or bringing personal

items in the car. They don’t identify with the cars. Her narrative points out that because access

based consumption is temporary rather than permanent, our informants are not motivated to

appropriate the cars and do not feel a sense of ownership. Moreover, Ashley points at the

alienating effects of market mediated access. Similar to other services like hotel rooms, the

relationship to the shared cars is one of instrumental utility rather than connection. Douglas

(1991) points out that hotel rooms have this type of utility – as opposed to the connection of

those sharing a home – because it is based on the principle of market exchange rather than

11


sharing. Similarly, as Ashley points out, informants are not attached to the car, as Zipcar is a

system based on market exchange. Mike reaffirms this by using examples of practices he

engages in that Belk and Llamas (2011) characterize as negative sharing, because he feels no

sense of perceived ownership:

“I’ll double park a Zipcar real quick if I’m just running into Starbuck’s or something.

Which I wouldn’t want do with my car. Or, I’ll parallel a Zipcar in a tighter spot than I

would with mine because it’s not mine. I’m just not worried about it. When I’m driving a

Zipcar, it’s like any other service that you do. It’s convenient. Like if I’m in a restaurant,

I don’t think I own the kitchen. If I’m in a Zipcar I don’t feel like I own the car, I’m just

using the service.” (Mike)

As this quote illustrates, the care and stewardship that is directed towards owned cars is

absent in access where Zipcar users abuse the cars and behave opportunistically. Further, Mike’s

experience outlines that a good is transformed into a service in access when market exchange

dominates. Rifkin (2000) describes the market exchange relationship as one where “traditional

reciprocal obligations and expectations … are replaced by contractual relationships… “(p. 9).

These contractual relationships inhibit the attachment and the connections to the extended self in

access based consumption. In sum, while we expected our informants to connect the cars they

were accessing to their extended selves, we found the opposite. We attribute this to the market

mediation that is a key characteristic of access based consumption. As we will see later, one of

the consequences of this market mediation is the lack of identity connection to the brand Zipcar

itself, in addition to the lack of identity connection to the objects being accessed. Now we turn to

investigating why consumers are engaging in access based consumption if they are not

incorporating the objects they are accessing into their extended selves.

The Significance of Use Value in Access Based Consumption

Consumer research has established the salience of ownership in consumer culture by

pointing out that possessions carry important experiential and symbolic value for the owner.

However, as Zipcar users do not feel a sense of shared or individual ownership towards, and

avoid identification with the car they access, the value they derive from such consumption

behavior is unclear. To try and understand the relationship that consumers have with accessed

goods, we asked Zipcar users to elaborate on their relationship to Zipcars as well as the practice

of car sharing. While Zipcar uses environmentalism, sustainability, communitas, and brand

affinity heavily in its marketing approach and materials, our informants rather discuss

consumption motivations such as reducing expenses and increasing convenience as the primary

reasons for their participation in the car sharing program. That is, they want to access cars

because it increases their own personal utility, rather than contributes to a collective utility, like

reducing global warming for example. This is in line with Hardin’s (1968) characterization of the

tragedy of the commons, in that individual utility is more important to individuals than collective

utility when resources are shared. As Alex and Rachel explain below:

“I would try and find the cheapest car I could get. So, I would usually try and find either

a hybrid since those are $7 an hour or one that had an advertising sticker on it.” (Alex)

12


“I always try to get the [Toyota] Prius because it’s the cheapest. I don’t care what kind a

car I drive, as long as it gets me to point A to point B. You do feel a little bit better about

the environmental factor, but mainly it’s because it’s $7 an hour versus $9.25 an hour.

When it comes down to it, it’s just a matter of money. More people get Zipcar because

it’s convenient than because they’re giving up their carbon footprint.” (Rachel)

The above utilitarian discourse was dominant throughout our data. In many ways it

provides an explanation for the disassociation we saw in the previous theme. Guided by prior

work on consumers’ attachment to cars, we probed informants on their experiential and symbolic

motivations. However, we found that in stark contrast to the hedonic experiences with cars that

past research has identified (e.g., Askegaard 2010), these experiences were absent from our data.

As Rebecca stresses, the relationship to Zipcars is predominantly utilitarian:

“I’d say most of my experiences with Zipcar are really not very memorable. I don’t know

there’s anything that you can really talk about that’s like oh my God, it’s the greatest

experience driving. You know the relationship I have is, I need a vehicle I need to get

from A to B, or I have a job. It’s very utilitarian, like using a wrench. I wouldn’t be like

oh my God, this is the best wrench ever. It just does a job, it gets it done perfect, that’s

what I need it to do. But, it doesn’t wow me or anything. It’s not like girls run up to me

like oh my God, you’re a Zipcar owner, let me talk to you, you know.” (Rebecca)

In contrast to findings of prior research on the hedonic value of owning a car as well as

Chen’s (2009) finding that hedonic aspects are at the center of perceived value derived under

conditions of access, such hedonic value was absent from our data. The relationship to the

accessed car was that of functionality, and our data was void of exciting and fun experiences

with Zipcars, even though we specifically probed for them. To build on this, in the following

quote by Tim, the symbolic relationship American consumers have with their cars as an

expression of their identity is absent towards Zipcars, regardless of the brand they drive. This is

consistent with Chen’s (2009) findings in the context of art, where she finds that when

consumers have access to rather than possess objects, there is a lack of self identification with

the object, and a more distant relationship with the object.

“A Zipcar is just kind of a means. It’s not really an expression of me, or, you know,

something that is close to me. It’s just a means to get where I want and what I need.”

(Tim)

In contrast to Belk (2010), who proposes caring and love as the motivations behind

sharing, we find that utilitarian motivations drive access based consumption. Thus, motivations

for access based consumption are more comparable to those Belk (2010) identified for

commodities or gift exchange. Our data suggest that use value, the utilitarian value of the

function that a material object can perform (Marx 1930), underlines the relationships consumers

have with products they access as in the case of Zipcar. According to Marx (1930), use-value is

the utilitarian value of the function that a material object can perform, and Miller (1987)

emphasizes that it is the work of consumption through which use value is realized. Meanwhile,

Baudrillard (1981) has shown that use-value, utility, and functionality have themselves become

part of the reflexive symbolic repertoire of things in consumer culture. That is, “far from the

13


individual expressing his needs in the economic system, it is the economic system that induces

the individual function and the parallel function of objects and needs” (Baudrillard 1981, 133).

While investigations of consumer culture have tended to privilege symbolic value, we suggest,

following Baudrillard, that market mediation (the economic system) induces the functionality

and the utility that our consumers value.

Although the Zipcars themselves are valued because of their use value, we did find that

the act of engaging in access based consumption can have sign value. Access has emerged in the

popular business press as a cool, trendy, hip, green consumption alternative to ownership (e.g.

Botsman and Rogers 2010; Gansky 2010; Wingfield 2005). Additionally, Zipcar positions car

sharing in contrast to ownership as a more hip and economically viable consumption model for

consumers in the know (Levine 2009). We find such narratives among our informants’

motivations for participating in car sharing where car sharing emerges as a lifestyle facilitator

(Bernthal, Crockett and Rose 2005). For instance, Adam proudly states:

“I felt a lot smarter than people who own cars in D.C., because I saw what they had to go

through, like, a parking ticket’s a hundred dollars… Parking itself cost around $150 a

month; gas was $4 a gallon. I saved so much money by not owning a car. I don’t think

owning a car would bring me any more happiness.” (Adam)

Participating in access is utilized by Adam as a symbolic resource to establish his identity

as a smart consumer because car sharing ends up being cheaper than owning a car (a utilitarian

value). Further, car sharing does not only facilitate an identity position of the Zipcar users as

economically savvy consumers, but it also enables them to participate in lifestyle spaces that

they could not otherwise. There is a lifestyle freedom experienced as informants can try new car

models that they would not have a chance to otherwise, like in the case of Chuck below, or

exchange car models according to their daily needs, as pointed out by Rebecca:

“… the best thing about Zipcar is that you can get any kind of car you want. So, if you’re

helping someone move, you can get a pickup truck. If you feel like driving around, you

can rent a little Mini Cooper convertible… I can go to places I couldn’t get to on a T

[subway], or if I was going to carry a lot of things…” (Rebecca)

“It was funny because I got to test drive a lot a different cars. Like, I would be surprised

sometimes that I would like a car that seemed like it would suck, like a Honda Fit. But

you’d get in it, and it’d be like, it’s actually a lovely car…” (Chuck)

Our data suggests that participating in access enhances our informants’ symbolic capital

as it is positioned and experienced as a more economically savvy as well as liberating

consumption alternative to ownership. As such, the act of engaging in access based consumption

has sign value, but the use value predominates our informant’s understanding of the objects they

are accessing. Now that we have looked at the consumer’s relationship to the objects being

accessed, we turn to examining their relationships with fellow consumers and the company.

Negative Reciprocity

14


Sahlins (1972) suggests that there are three types of reciprocity that can emerge when

humans exchange objects: generalized reciprocity, where there is no expectation of receiving

anything in return; balanced, or tit-for-tat reciprocity, where goods and services are exchanged

with an expectation that an equal return will be forthcoming; and negative reciprocity, where

goods and services are exchanged, but only in one’s self interest, and typically only one side

benefits from this type of exchange. Generalized reciprocity tends to take place within groups

with high levels of trust, such as family, and is closely connected to the construct of sharing

(Belk 2010). Tit for tat reciprocity tends to represent the open marketplace, where goods are

exchanged for their fair market value. Negative reciprocity tends to represent the case chronicled

by Hardin (1968) in his conceptualization of the tragedy of the commons, whereby individuals

act with communal goods only in their own self interest. In terms of Zipcar user’s interactions

with each other, our data reveals that negative reciprocity is strongly represented. That is, they

acted in their own self interest, and assumed that others were doing the same. The following

sentiments are representative of this view.

“I always feverishly check to make sure I don’t lose anything when I deliver the car…”

(Chris)

“I found a GPS system in the car once and I just left it there.” (David)

“People leave stuff in them all the time. I’ve got so many free umbrellas from Zipcar

(laughs). It’s great!” (Mike)

“You can just beat the hell out of it; it’s not your car. Like, I don’t have to think about

changing the oil; I don’t have to care whether or not the tires are flat. I don’t care about

any of it; it’s not my car. And you know some magic car fairy will come and fix whatever

is not right with it later. So if I destroy the suspension, so be it! Somebody will fix it. Not

me.” (Chuck)

These narratives point toward a lack of distrust towards other Zipcar users. If they find

someone else’s personal property they will make no attempt to return it, and they assume that

others will act in the same way. This is despite Zipcar setting up a lost and found system that is

clearly articulated in their communication materials. Our informants also point out that the

individual contractual transactions that underline access further inhibit any need for

interdependence among Zipcar users as co-producers of the service outcome. As Chuck points

out, the ‘magic car fairy’ has the responsibility to manage the shared resources, while Zipcar

users have to watch out and protect their own interest. They assume the other users are in a

similar negative reciprocal mentality and make sure not to leave their goods behind as they

would never be returned. Further, some informants also behave opportunistically towards others

in addition to the objects they use.

The monitoring and instrumental control mechanisms put in place by Zipcar to control

and manage consumer behavior are seen as something positive by our informants. For example,

although users who drop off the car late are fined by Zipcar, Rachel wants the company to do

something for the person who was left waiting:

15


“I: SO WHAT ABOUT IF YOU’RE INCONVENIENCED BY THE CAR NOT BEING

READY FOR YOU?

R: Well that was definitely something I was really disappointed in. They just, they let me

take another car for the same price of the Prius, which I think was a more expensive car.

It was just like well, there’s nothing we can do for you. That’s not how we operate. We

operate based on people are responsible to return their car on time, and it’s not our fault

that it’s not there. Well, how are you going to have that person whose fault it is

compensate me? That doesn’t happen.” (Rachel)

Rachel sees Zipcar’s role as enforcing reciprocity on the users. That is, if someone is late

bringing back the car, and cuts into Rachel’s booked time with the car, she expects compensation

from the Zipcar user, not just access to another car from Zipcar. She acknowledges that Zipcar

does not enforce this type of interpersonal reciprocity, but thinks that they should, again

reinforcing the notion that Zipcar users assume others will only have their own self interest at

heart. The regulatory role of the company may in fact have freed Zipcar users of any

responsibility towards each other and the cars, which in turn has socialized them into a system of

negative reciprocity, self-destructive to any collaborative efforts. Given this negative reciprocity,

and Zipcar user’s desire for Zipcar to assume a regulatory role, we now investigate how Zipcar

takes on this responsibility.

Big Brother Model of Governance

Here we demonstrate that access based consumption needs command control, rather than

shared control, to ensure it works properly. Zipcar users have to rely on each other to bring the

cars back on time, clean up the cars, and fill up the gas tank in order for the system to work.

Given the negative reciprocity which seems to be embedded in the system, managing the system

presents similar challenges to managing shared resources in Hardin’s (1968) conceptualization of

the commons. Shultz and Holbrook (1999) offer four ways in which to control and manage the

commons. These are regulation, organization, social responsibility, and communications. We

have seen that Zipcar has attempted to use normative controls, such as social responsibility and

communications (inculcation of altruistic values), but these methods have not been successful

with our informants. Our data suggest that the method that is successful among Zipcar users is

regulation. Regulation includes instrumental controls, such as cost/benefit incentives through

taxes, fees or prices (Schultz and Holbrook 1999). As Nancy describes, informants follow the

rules Zipcar has established not because of altruistic or community based reasons, but rather

because of the surveillance that Zipcar engages in.

“I notice the gas level, because you get fined if you leave it underneath a quarter tank.

But if it’s at a quarter tank, that’s for the next person.” (Nancy)

Nancy only fills the gas tank before bringing the car back because of the fines in place.

There is no mention of the other Zipcar users and the consequences that her actions could have

on the next driver. Rebecca echoes this idea, in that she will follow the rules, but only to the

extent that she will not get fined:

16


I: “HAVE YOU EVER USED THE ZIPCAR CARD TO FILL YOUR PERSONAL CAR

GAS TANK?”

R: “No… I know that they track it. I think that if you were to do it, potentially you would

get caught, depending on how much is in there. ‘Cause they track it with the, you know,

how much, how many miles it is. And you put in your own ID number. So they know

when you’re taking it, when you’re putting gas in it.” (Rebecca)

Essentially, Zipcar adopts a Big Brother governance model to regulate the system, and

our informants report that it does indeed induce them to behave in a manner conducive to the

well being of the larger group rather than just themselves. In fact, our informants emphasized

that they felt this regulation was necessary, and that they did not resent the Big Brother presence

of Zipcar at all, but felt others would take advantage of them if the enforcement was not there.

This supports McGrath’s (2004) contention that we have much to gain from being surveilled.

McGrath (2004) posits that we desire to and enjoy being surveilled, and as a way of regulating

car sharing, our informants do exhibit this tendency.

“Zipcar tracks you. And it’s kind of cool. It’s very state of the art I feel.” (Lisa)

“… because Zipcar does such an extensive background check on you, like you have to fill

out your information, driver license information and, I think in general, maybe the

integrity is maybe higher in the Zipcar community than average. Otherwise, there will be

just people stealing cars with keys just locked in there, in visible sight of the window….”

(David)

Our informants see the monitoring and regulatory role of the company as what is needed

to ensure the system works. They anticipate the system breaking down without the Big Brother

role of Zipcar. In other words, our data suggest that market control is seen as a necessary device

for access based consumption. Pridmore (forthcoming) calls this type of consumer surveillance

collaborative surveillance, meaning that consumers participate willingly in it, in collaboration

with the company doing the surveilling. Although collaborative surveillance has been

conceptualized in the literature, we provide empirical support to the notion that consumers are

readily assenting and even requesting to be surveilled. They see surveillance as necessary for

regulating access based model and its negative reciprocity.

We have outlined the four primary characteristics of access based consumption that

emerged from our data. We now turn toward analyzing an important consequence of not

incorporating the extended self, the emphasis on use value, the negative reciprocity and the

surveillance model of governance that is evident in access based consumption: the lack of brand

community that these foster.

Lack of Brand Community

A distinguishing characteristic of access based consumption is the interdependency

between participating consumers. Consumers not only share use of the cars with others, but they

are also responsible for bringing the car back on time, maintaining it and filling it with gas, so

that the next passenger can have a positive experience. In other words, consumers act as

prosumers (Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye 2008), where they need to co-create the service outcomes

17


not only with the company but with each other. In consumption contexts where the outcome

depends on collaboration, Belk (2010) suggests that communal links between participating

individuals should be facilitated. In contrast to this, and in contrast to Shultz and Holbrook’s

(1999) recommendation to use community building to control shared resources, we find our

informants do not have or want to have communal links with the company or with each other.

There is a distinct lack of community among Zipcar users, even though the company follows best

practices for building one, as described in the brand community literature (e.g., Fournier and Lee

2009). Our informants do not feel a connection to other Zipcar users, or to the brand, beyond a

utilitarian one.

“I get emails from them [Zipcar] and I just delete them. I don’t bother reading them. Why

would I? It doesn’t change what I use Zipcar for.” (Rachel)

“You see the people in the parking lot, but I don’t feel like an attachment to them as

being another person using a service I’m using.” (Mike)

“I forgot a pea coat of mine, which was a family heirloom. And I put a listing up on the

Zipcar message board for that, and no one ever responded.” (Alex)

Informants see Zipcar as a service provider as well as the enforcer and governing body,

rather than as a facilitator of a brand that helps them to connect to like minded people. As

indicated by Rachel and Mike, Zipcar users do not really have an interest in meeting and

socializing with other Zipsters and ignore or resist Zipcar’s efforts to build a community, such as

the newsletters Rachel refers to. As outlined earlier, fear of contagion and negative reciprocity

reinforces self-boundaries rather than motivates or invites consumers to extend their self through

participation in a community of car sharing. Further, our data suggest that the lack of a sense of

caring or altruism associated with negative reciprocity among Zipcar users, as articulated by

Alex above, further inhibits motivations to relate to others.

“The Beamer [BMW] has a small little thing that says Zipcar on the back of it. Most

people won’t notice, but still a chance. And, then, the other cars have it like written on

the entire side of it says Zipcar. It makes you feel you’re really cheap when you’re

driving around with those.

I: IS THAT SOMETHING THAT APPEALS TO YOU ABOUT THE BEAMER, THE

FACT THAT IT’S NOT PLASTERED WITH ZIPCAR LOGO ALL OVER IT?

Yeah, definitely.” (Joe)

“I get a bit like a feeling of embarrassment a little, because they plaster the Zipcar

stickers all over the car, and it’s like, that’s how they do their advertising, and I just… I

feel a little bit kind of embarrassed.” (Priscilla)

While Zipcar users clearly get utilitarian benefits from using Zipcars, because their

consumption is not an extension of their self, they do not feel the pride in being part of a brand

community, like we have seen with other brands (eg, Brown et al 2003). As Priscilla and Joe

articulate, they are actually embarrassed to be seen being connected to the Zipcar brand in

public. In addition to having the brand on the cars, Zipcar tries to get Zipsters to wave to each

18


other on the road. To that end, having the Zipcar logo on the cars is meant to facilitate

community. Yet we can see from above quote by Pricilla that they cause embarrassment. This is

in contrast to brands such as Harley Davidson or the VW Beetle (Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry

2003; Schouten and McAlexander 1999), which have been well documented in the brand

community literature as being able to use these types of signals to bond their consumers together.

One of the ways in which Zipcar tries to foster community is to rally its users around the

“green” advantages of using car sharing. Similar to the newsletter that get deleted, the meet ups

that don’t get attended, the brands that cause embarrassment, and the lack of Zipster waves on

the highway, our informants are not buying into the green discourse to foster community.

“Zipcar is trying to jump on the green bandwagon, being good for the environment. It’s

more of a marketing ploy, I mean, anybody can say they’re eco friendly. I mean heck,

Chevron has all these commercials about how they’re environmentally sound, and they’re

the fricking problem.” (Rachel)

“I’ll keep on using Zipcar until I get a real – my own car. Hopefully that’ll be sooner

rather than later.” (Meissner)

We can get a sense of some of the reasons why there are tensions in building a band

community in access based consumption contexts from Rachel and Meissner’s comments. The

company’s motives are constantly being questioned, similar to how we saw other user’s motives

were constantly being questioned. And in many cases, consumers are using the system only until

there is a better option. These types of conditions, combined with what we have already seen in

terms of lack of symbolic value, do not lend themselves to consumers wanting to invest identity

building resources into a community. When use value dominates, even when consumption

surrounds such a highly symbolic product such as cars, we do not see desire for community

amongst users.

In sum, the variables that emerge as important in understanding the reasons why access

based consumption has the characteristics that we identify are (1) market mediation, (2) lack of

extension of the self, and (3) negative reciprocity. We expand on these insights in the discussion,

where we relate our findings to our understanding of emerging modes of consumption.

DISCUSSION

This study advances our understanding of the nature of consumption under conditions of

access by conceptualizing it, identifying its properties, pointing toward the reasons underlying

why it has different properties compared to ownership or sharing, and investigating its

implications for brand communities. While access based consumption is an emerging

consumption mode in the marketplace, the state of knowledge and research on the topic remain

scarce and confusing. For example, at the conceptual level, various terms have been introduced

in the academic and business literature to describe consumption modes which do not involve

ownership, including sharing (Belk 2007, 2010), access as experience (Chen 2009), services

(Lovelock and Gummersson 2004), and collaborative consumption (Bostman and Rogers 2010).

Prior literature discusses access as a collaborative, prosocial consumption alternative, or an

altruistic and environmentally sustainable model of consumption, or an experiential mode of

consumption. However, as our findings illustrate, access based consumption when market

19


mediated does not exhibit these qualities. Our study sheds light on the nature of access and

clarifies the confusion in the existing terminology by clearly outlining the properties of access,

and distinguishes access from other modes of consumption, specifically sharing and ownership.

In this way, our study addresses calls to “advance our understandings of the distinctions between

sharing, lending/borrowing and commodity exchange” (Belk 2010, p. 729). The key to this

distinction lies in the theoretical arenas of market mediation, extension of the self, and negative

reciprocity, which we now elaborate on.

We identify four properties of access based consumption, as well as a consequence. First,

our study shows that in contrast to both ownership and sharing, consumers do not experience

perceived ownership and avoid identification with the object of consumption. Our findings

indicate that usage of objects that other strangers also use leads to experiences of contagion,

inhibiting the extension of the self into the object consumed or towards the other users. This

finding is in contrast to sharing (Belk 2010) where sharing within the family or among friends

lacks fear of contagion and has an experience of shared ownership (see also Belk and Llama

2011). Further, we show appropriation practices are absent in access based consumption. Our

findings suggest that the market mediation of sharing and the temporal use of the products may

inhibit appropriation practices from taking place. Thus, as consumers’ role shifts to that of the

user, the user is alienated from the object of consumption.

This alienation has implications for the second characteristic of access that we identify.

Our findings suggest that the predominant object-self relationship is that of use value. Counter to

the altruistic discourses that dominate the theoretical descriptions of sharing (e.g. Belk 2010) or

the hedonic value of imagination, sharing and excitement found in the experiential access of art

(Chen 2009), we find that access based consumption is similar to market exchange in the sense

that it is motivated by self-interest and utilitarianism.

Third, we find that consumers engage in negative reciprocity. Because the objects being

accessed are a commons, in the sense that although they are owned by Zipcar, they need to

managed by all the participants in the service to function properly, notions of reciprocity become

important to understanding how access functions. In access based consumption, negative

reciprocity emerges as the type of exchange that occurs (Sahlins 1972). That is, consumers are

not engaging in any egalitarian or pro-community behaviors, but rather look out for their own

interests only, at the expense of the cars as well as the other Zipcar users. We find some

informants engage in opportunistic behaviors towards the company and others. This is in contrast

to other consumption situations which also revolve around shared resources, such as shared

digital music files, where consumers do seem to feel a sense of responsibility towards each other

and the community (Giesler 2006).

Finally, the fourth characteristic of access that emerged in our study is the type of

governance that controls this consumption mode. To regulate access, surveillance style

governance models are used to induce equitable usage amongst the community. Because Zipcar

users expect others in the system to also be engaging in negative reciprocity, the surveillance and

command controls are welcomed, supporting McGrath (2004), who suggests that big brother

control models can be beneficial to consumers. Further, this finding also supports recent

theorizing on collaborative surveillance (Pridmore, forthcoming), when consumers and

organizations are both active participants in the surveillance mechanisms. In access based

consumption, we suggest that consumers want to be surveilled and actively engage with

organizations to make this happen.

20


Our findings further suggest that brand community does not emerge in access based

consumption regardless of the company’s effort to build one. Prior work has systematically

established the emergence of brand community under ownership of a variety of product and

cultural contexts (Schau, Muniz and Arnould 2009; Muniz and O’Guinn 2004) as well as

sharing, where Belk (2010) suggests that the altruist model of sharing within the family is

prosocial (see also Epp and Price 2010). However, we show that consumers participate in access

based consumption because of use value and resist any co-creation efforts from the company to

engage in community building or identity connection that go beyond market exchange (Zwick,

Bonsu and Darmondy 2008). Product usage among strangers as well as the market mediation of

the transactions inhibits motivations to engage in community building. Thus, the individualized,

contractual nature of access alienates consumers from each other as market norms of negative

reciprocity dominate. Paraphrasing Sahlins’ (1972), Marcoux (2009) states that “as more and

more alien members and outsiders become participants in exchange and, most importantly, as

market people become involved in these exchanges, the fear of exploitation increases and there is

an inversion of the logic of reciprocity—a switch from reciprocity to exploitation” (p. 681). As

our findings show, access based consumption has similar properties to market exchange,

underlined by norms of negative reciprocity. As such, the altruistic model of sharing and the

generalized reciprocity associated with it does not apply.

The implications for the brand community literature are that due to the individually

motivated, non-communal nature of accessed consumption, users are more likely to be resistant

to community building strategies on the part of the marketer. Our study suggests that motivations

for engaging in access based consumption are primarily utilitarian as compared to identity

enhancing and there is also a preference for surveillance and command controls rather than

relying on trust and community. In this way, our model of access based consumption echos

Marcoux’s (2009) findings in emphasizing the benefits of the market over reliance on

community, and challenging the romantic view of sharing, collaborative consumption and access

as “ennobling, humanizing or of greater moral worth” (Marcoux 2009, p. 671). By identifying

the reasons why consumers engage in access based consumption, we show that consumers

choose the market because they are not interested in extending self to objects or others, and the

focus remains in use-value. In some ways, access through the market liberates consumers from

the emotional, social and property obligations that come with ownership or sharing. Further, in

access based consumption users prefer the instrumental control mechanisms of the market rather

than the normative control through brand community, to protect and govern their individual

interest when engaged in access based consumption with other strangers.

By developing the notion of access based consumption and distinguishing it from other

modes of consumption, our study contributes to outlining the boundaries of the theory of sharing

(Belk 2010). In Belk’s (2010) conceptualization of sharing, he proposes that access models, such

as car sharing within a large commercial car sharing organization such as Zipcar, represents a

case of “sharing-out,” which he defines as sharing that takes place outside the boundaries of the

extended self/family. However, as our findings demonstrated, we do not find characteristics

reminiscent of sharing. More specifically, while both access and sharing do not involve transfer

of ownership, in contrast to sharing where possession or ownership is joint, consumers avoid

extension of the self to the object and others and do not experience any perceived individual or

shared sense of ownership in access based consumption. In this conceptual work, Belk (2007)

defines sharing as “the act and process of distributing what is ours to others for their use, and/or

the act and process of receiving and taking something from others for our use” (p. 129). In our

21


market mediated context, sharing does not occur from the consumer side, but typically from the

marketer’s side. That is, Zipcar owns the cars, not the consumers, so the consumers are not able

to “share” what they don’t own. Our study of market mediated access builds upon Belk (2010) as

he points out that the examination of sharing outside the immediate family is where “the

phenomenon of sharing becomes the most interesting and has great social and theoretical

implications” (p. 725). We find that because of market mediation, in contrast to the altruistic

model of familial sharing, access is not prosocial, but instead is guided by individualistic and

utilitarian motivation and negative reciprocity.

Access based consumption also differs from collaborative consumption, a notion

introduced by the popular business press to define the practices of swapping, sharing, bartering,

trading and renting as practiced in the age of social media and Web 2.0 (Botsman and Rogers

2010; Felson and Spaeth 1978). Collaborative consumption represents a consumption situation

where consumers must work together to be able to consume the product, similar to what Giesler

(2006) identified within the Napster music sharing community. The focus in this perspective is

on the “collaborative”, peer-to-peer consumer actions that lead to social and moral benefits for

individuals and society, especially its environmental sustainability outcomes. In access based

consumption, however, consumers need not collaborate with each other; they only need to pay to

access goods or services for a temporary period of time.

Our study also suggests that property rights shape consumption and highlight a need for

more research in this area. Modes of consumption differ with regard to the property rights of the

individual in a continuum: while in ownership, individuals have full property rights (de juro and

de facto rights) over the entity, in other context, such as sharing or collaborative consumption,

prior work mentions a blurring of property boundaries (Humpreys and Giesler 2007). We do not

find this in the context of access; consumers do not experience a sense of ownership (not only de

juro, but also de facto) towards the cars they access and as such, the property rights do not guide

the self-object relationship. As our findings illustrate, a lack of any sense of ownership or

property rights is associated with negative sharing, opportunism and a lack of generalized

reciprocity or altruism. Lack of the governing systems associated with property rights reinforces

the need for surveillance and the control governance mechanism of the market. Thus, property

rights also diminish, and with that, our study suggests that the object-self relationship changes.

Our findings call for future inquiry into understanding consumer’s relationship to

materiality in other modes of consumption where property right boundaries are absent or blurred.

We study one particular type of access where individuals use tangible objects for short periods of

time with clear property boundaries. In other context of access, for instance time-share,

individuals continue to hold full property rights under such fractional ownership modes;

however, the benefits and obligations are shared with others and a shared sense of ownership

exists (Belk 2010; Orsi and Doskow 2009). However, we know little about the similarities and

differences between such modes of consumption and ownership, or about the specific

governance mechanisms that regulate such form of consumption, or the obligations and

expectations consumers feel. Future research could explore how opportunism is regulated and

monitored within and outside the boundaries of the extended self and the implications this has

for the object-self relationship. Finally, leasing is another important type of access that we know

little about. Leasing represents another form of access based consumption where consumers use

a good for an extended period of time without any legal ownership of it. Lovelock and

Gummesson (2004) propose that consumers have “extended possession utility and thus

experience de facto, if not de juro, ownership of the property” (p. 36). Thus, leasing may exhibit

22


different characteristics from the short-term access context we studied, especially with regard to

the object-self relationship, and this could be a fruitful area of future inquiry.

Our findings highlight an interesting shift in the structural system of the sign when

addressing the use and sign value in the context of access as compared to ownership. We find

that the focus on a utilitarian relationship to the goods being accessed frees consumers from the

burden of ownership: the obligations and commitments towards the object that come with

ownership and the associative identification with the object. In access based consumption, the

‘work of consumption’ is absent as consumers do not engage in appropriation practices, and as

such, access does not enable the value to be transformed from use to sign value (Miller 1987).

However, we show that engaging in access based consumption does carry sign value, and has

become a symbolic resource for identity construction among consumers. Thus, by resisting any

engagement in the system of objects beyond use value, consumers resist the process of

reification defined by Baudrillard (1981) as the “triumph of objects”, where things come to

dominate people. As enduring attachment to possessions is becoming problematic in a liquid

society, where identity positions and projects are not stable (Bauman 2000), access based

consumption is gaining sign value as it enables consumers freedom of lifestyles.

In sum, the consumer research literature is just beginning to investigate the various forms

of consumption that can occur in the marketplace, such as sharing (Belk 2010), collaborative

consumption (Giesler 2006), experiential access (Chen 2009), and now access based

consumption. The literature is also beginning to address when, how and in what ways the

marketplace can be useful to these types of exchanges (e.g., Marcoux 2009). We see our work as

building upon this stream of literature, and opening doors for other researchers to continue to

examine evolving relationships between companies, objects and consumers in the marketplace.

23


Table 1: Informant Demographic Characteristics

Name Age Profession Car

Owner

Relationship

Status

Income

Adam 22 Student Yes Single < $ 20,000

April 23 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Alex 23 Student Yes Single < $ 20,000

Alex O. 24 Employed (Sales) Yes Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Brian 23 Employed (Real Estate Agent) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Brittany 22 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Charlene 24 Employed (Teacher) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Chris 22 Student Yes Single < $ 20,000

Dave 25 Employed (Photographer) Yes Single < $ 20,000

David 24 Employed (Research) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Diego 28 Employed No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Elizabeth 21 Student Yes Single < $ 20,000

Emily 23 Employed (Environmental

Engineer)

Yes Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Erica 30 Employed (Hair Stylist) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Jaclyn 22 Student Yes Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Jason 22 Student Yes Single < $ 20,000

Jennifer 32 Employed (Director) No Single $51,000 – 80,000

John 25 Employed (Actor) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Joe 24 Employed No Single < $ 20,000

Kenneth 22 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Krishna 22 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Laura K. 37 Employed (VP- Operations for

Beverage Company)

Yes Single NA

Laura S. 23 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Mariella 24 Student No Married < $ 20,000

24


Reese 25 Employed (Account

Coordinator)

No Co-habiting $ 20,000 – 50,000

Meissner 22 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Mike 22 Unemployed Yes Single < $ 20,000

Jessica 26 Employed (Waitress) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Priscilla 21 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Scott 27 Employed (Musician) No Single < $ 20,000

Shane 24 Employed (P.R.) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Tim 31 Employed No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Chuck 21 Student No Single < $ 20,000

Steve 27 Employed (Educator) No Single $ 151,000 -250,000

Ashley 33 Employed Yes Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Rebecca 25 Employed (Consultant) No Single $51,000 – 80,000

Lisa 28 Employed (Program

Coordinator)

Yes Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Rachel 37 Unemployed Yes Married $ 20,000 – 50,000

Bob 32 Employed (Office manager) No Single $ 20,000 – 50,000

Nancy 26 Employed (Education

Administrator)

No Co-habiting $51,000 – 80,000

25


REFERENCES

Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl, and Andrea C. Morales (2006), “Consumer Contamination:

How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others,” Journal of Marketing, 70

(April), 81-94.

Arnould, Eric and Melanie Wallendorf (1994), “Market Oriented Ethnography: Interpretation

Building and Market Strategy Formulation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 484-

504.

Askegaard, Soren (2010), “Experience Economy in the Making: Hedonism, Play and

Coolhunting in Automotive Song Lyrics,” Consumption, Markets and Culture, 13(4),

351-371.

Ball, Dwayne A. and Lori H. Tasaki (1992), “The Role and Measurement of Attachment in

Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155-172.

Barone, Michael J., Terence A. Shimp and David E. Sprott (1999), “Product Ownership as a

Moderator of Self-Congruity Effects,” Marketing Letters, 10 (1), 75-85.

Baudrillard, Jean (1981), For Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, St Louis: Telos

Press.

Bauman, Zygmunt (2000), Liquid Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beggan, James K. (1992), “On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception: The Mere Ownership

Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229-237.

Belk, Russell (2010), “Sharing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (February), 715-734.

__________ (2007), “Why not Share Rather than Own?” Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 611, 126-140.

__________ (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15

(September), 139-68.

Belk, Russell and Rosa Llamas (2011), “The Nature and Effects of Sharing in Consumer

Behavior,” in Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-

Being, ed. David Glen Mick, Simone Pettigrew, Cornelia Pechmann, and Julie L.

Ozanne, New York: Routledge.

Bernard, Russell H. (2002), Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches, Third Edition, New York: Altamira Press.

Bernthal, Matthew J., David Crockett, and Randall L. Rose (2005), “Credit Cards as Lifestyle

Facilitators,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 130-145.

Botsman, Rachel and Roo Rogers (2010), What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative

Consumption, New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Brown, Stephen, John Sherry and Robert Kozinets (2003), “Teaching old brands new tricks:

Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning,” Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19-33.

Chen, Yu (2009), "Possession and Access: Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions Regarding

Contemporary Art Collection and Exhibit Visits," Journal of Consumer Research, 35

(April), 925-940.

Coupland, Jennifer (2005), “Invisible Brands: An Ethnography of Households and the Brands in

their Kitchen Pantries,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 106-118.

26


Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981), The Meaning of Things:

Domestic Symbols and The Self, Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Curasi, Carolyn F., Linda L. Price, and Eric J. Arnould (2004), “How Individuals Cherished

Posessions Become Families Inalienable Wealth,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31

(December), 609-622.

Douglas, Mary (1991), “The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space”, Social Research, 58 (1), 289-

307.

Epp, Amber and Linda L. Price (2010), “The Storied Life of Singularized Objects: Forces of

Agency and Network Transformation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (February),

820-837.

_______________________ (2008), “Family Identity: A Framework of Identity Interplay in

Consumption Practices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (June), 50-70.

Felson, Marcus and Joe Spaeth (1978), “Community Structure and Collaborative Consumption,”

American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4), 614-624.

Fischer, Eileen and Cele Otnes (2006), “Breaking New Grounds: Developing Grounded Theories

in Marketing and Consumer Behavior,” In Russell Belk (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative

Methods in Marketing, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 19-30.

Frei, Frances X. (2005), “Zipcar: Influencing Customer Behavior,” Harvard Business School

Case Study, June 30th

, 9-605-054.

Fournier, Susan and Laura Lee (2009), "Getting Brand Communities Right," Harvard Business

Review, April, 105-111.

Furubotn, Eirik G. and Svetozar Pejavich (1972), “Property Rights and Economic Theory: A

Survey of Recent Literature,” Journal of Economic Literature, 10 (4), 1137-62.

Gansky, Lisa (2010), The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing, New York, NY: Penguin

Group Inc.

Giesler, Markus (2006), “Consumer Gift System: Netnographic Insights from Napster,” Journal

of Consumer Research, 33 (September), 283-90.

Hardin, Garrett (1968), “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162, 1243-48.

Humphreys, Ashlee and Markus Giesler (2007), “Access versus Ownership in Consumer

Research,” Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 696-690.

James, William (1890), The Principles of Psychology, New York: Holt.

Katzev, Richard (2003), “Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban Transportation Problems,”

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3 (1), 65-86.

Kirmani, Amna, Sanjay Sood and Sheri Bridges (1999), “The Ownership Effect in Consumer

Responses to Brand Line Stretches,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 88-101.

Kleine, Susan S., Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen (1995), “How is Possession “ME” or

“Not Me”? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 327-343.

Levine, Mark (2009), “Share my Ride,” New York Times Magazine, March 5th

.

Lovelock, Christopher and Evert Gummesson (2004), “Whither Services Marketing? In Search

of a New Paradigm and Fresh Perspectives,” Journal of Service Research, 7 (1), 20-41.

27


Marcoux, Jean‐Sébastien (2009), “Escaping the Gift Economy,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 36 (4), 671–685.

Marx, Karl (1930), Capital, London: Dent.

Marx, Patricia (2011), “The Borrowers,” The New Yorker, January 31st, 34-38.

McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, Qualitative Research Methods Series, London:

Sage Publications.

McGrath, John (2004), Loving Big Brother: Performance, Privacy and Surveillance Space, New

York: Routledge.

Mehta, R. and Russ W. Belk (1991), "Artifacts, Identity, and Transition: Favorite Possessions of

Indians and Indian Immigrants to the United States," Journal of Consumer Research, 17

(March), 398-411.

Miller, Daniel (1998), Material Culture and Mass Consumption, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Moeller, Sabine and Kristina Wittkowski (2010), “The Burdens of Ownership: Reasons for

Preferring Renting,” Marketing Service Quality, 20 (2), 176-191.

Muniz, Albert M.Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2004), “Brand Community,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412-432.

Naughton, Keith (2008), “Can you Give your Car Up?” Newsweek, August 4.

Noble, Charles H. and Beth A. Walker (1997), “Exploring the Relationships among Liminal

Transitions, Symbolic Consumption, and the Extended Self,” Psychology and Marketing,

14 (1), 29-47.

Orsi, Janelle and Emily Doskow (2009), The Sharing Solution: How to Save Money, Simplify

your Life & Build a Community, Berkeley: Nolo.

Ozanne, Lucie and Paul Ballantine (2010), “Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An

examination of toy library users,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9, 485-498.

Peck, Joann and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (October), 434-47.

Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks (2001), “Towards a Theory of Psychological

Ownership in Organizations,” Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 298-310.

Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Carolyn Folkman Curasi (2000), “Older Consumers'

Disposition of Special Possessions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September),

179-201.

Price, Linda and Eric Arnould (1999), “Commercial friendships: Service provider – client

relationships in context,” Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 38-56.

Richins, Marsha L. (1994), “Special Possession and the Expression of Material Values,” Journal

of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 522-533.

Pridmore, Jason (forthcoming), “Collaborative Surveillance: Configuring Contemporary

Marketing Practice,” Surveillance and Society.

Rifkin, Jeremy (2000), The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism where all of Life

is a Paid for Experience, New York: Penguin.

Rozin, Paul and April E. Fallon (1987), “A Perspective on Disgust,” Psychological Review, 94

(1), 23–41.

28


Sahlins, Marshall (1972), Stone Age Economics, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

Sayre, Shay (1994), “Possessions and Identity in Crisis: Meaning and Change for Victims of the

Oakland Firestorm,” Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 109-114.

Schau, Hope, Albert Muniz and Eric Arnould (2009), “How brand community practices create

value,” Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30-51.

Schouten, John W. (1991), “Selves in Transition: Symbolic Consumption in Personal Rites of

Passage and Identity Reconstruction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 91 (March), 412-

425.

Schouten, John and James H. McAlexander (1995), "Subcultures of Consumption: An

Ethnography of the New Bikers," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June) 43-61.

Snare, Frank (1972), “The Concept of Property,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 9 (2), 200-

2006.

Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 491-503.

Shultz, Clifford and Morris Holbrook (1999), “Marketing and the Tragedy of the Commons: A

Synthesis, Commentary and Analysis for Action,” Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 18(2), 218-229.

Strahilevitz, Michal A. and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Effect of Ownership History on

the Valuation of Objects”, Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 276-289.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Second Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Tian, Kelly and Russell W. Belk (2005), “Extended Self and Possessions in the Workplace,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 297–310.

Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic

Behavior & Organization, 1 (1), 39-60.

Thompson, Craig (1997), “Interpreting Consumers: A Hermeneutical Framework for Deriving

Marketing Insights from the Texts of Consumers’ Consumption Stories,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 34 (November), 438-55.

Zipcar (2009), Media Kit, http://zipcar.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=23.

Zwick, Detlev, Samuel K. Bonsu and Aaron Darmody (2008), “Putting Consumers to Work:

‘Co-creation’ and New Marketing Govern-Mentality,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 8

(2), 163-196.

Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould (1988), “My Favorite Things: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry

into Object Attachment, Possessiveness and Social Linkage,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 14(4), 531-547.

Wingfield, Nick (2005), “In a Dizzying World, One Way to Keep UP: Renting Possessions,”

Wall Street Journal Online, October 17th

.

Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, Sigurd V. Troye (2008), “Trying to Prosume: Towards a

Theory of Consumers as Co-Creators of Value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 36 (August), 109-122.

WHITE DOVE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY MANUSCRIPT … › teaching-sets › White_Dove ›...

Documents

Transcript of WHITE DOVE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY MANUSCRIPT … › teaching-sets › White_Dove ›...