survey "i share! do you?" la fing and ouishare

The “I share! Do you?” survey was launched by la Fing and OuiShare under ShaREvolution in order to understand the motivations behind users of collaborative consumption as well as its trajectory. The survey, which was available online for three months, gathered 2150 responses from collaborative "consumers."

This survey was not carried out among a representative sample of the French population

La Fing and OuiShare campaign

Survey "I SHAre! DO yOu?"

Design by Collectif Bam

Fing is supported by its major partners


SuRvEy paRTIcIpanTSMain characteristics of "I share! Do you?" survey participants

accOMMODaTIOn vs MaRITal STaTuS DIgITal pRacTIcES OF paRTIcIpanTS

On the other hand, only 15.2% post content on a daily basis, 20.4% do it regularly and 35.1% occa-sionally. 29.3% never post anything.

IncOME

pROFESSIOn

agE

placE OF RESIDEncE

25 35 50 65 +

+ 5000 €

2500 à 5000 €

1800 à 2500 €

1200 à 1800 €

- de 1200 €

say they’re volunteers

16,6 %

19,5 %

2500 € to 5000 €40%

18

cHaRacTERISTIcS OF cOllaBORaTIvE pRacTIcES


Digital practices of participants

carpooling

Homestay

p2pcar rental

car-sharing Bike Sharing

47.4 %

49 %

11.1 %

28.6 %

27 %

25 %

Do it

Do it

Do it

Do it

Don’t do it but say they will at some point

Don’t do it but say they will at some point

MaIn REaSOn

FREquEncy

FREquEncy

FREquEncy

FREquEncy

aMOng THEM...

aMOng THEM...

aMOng THEM...

aMOng THEM...a vaST MaJORITy OF cITy DWEllERS(aS THIS SERvIcE IS ESSEnTIally uRBan)



Other collaborative consumption practices of respondents

p2p selling

Swapping /giving/ Renting

collaborative short food

supply chains

private exchange

of services

92 %

83 % 17 % 11 % 7 %

33 %

20 %

Do it

Have already given something away that they had no use for

Have already lent something to someone they didn’t know

Have already borrowed something from someone they didn’t know

Have already rented something out to an individual

Do it

Do it

aMOng THEM...

aMOng THEM...

aMOng THEM...

* Short food supply chains via community-supported agriculture or platforms. Buying directly from farmers has not been included.



What percentage of respondents has adopted multiple consumption practices?

23

45

prac

tices

prac

tices

prac

tices

prac

tices

46 %

25 %

22 %

11 %

11 %

3 %

45 %

26 %

19 %

at least

at least

at least

at least



Reasons for, concerns and vision of the collaborative economy

REaSOnS

ExpEcTED IncOME FOR an InDIvIDual SERvIcE

IMpacT On THE BuDgET IncOME gEnERaTED FROM cOllaBORaTIvE cOnSuMpTIOn

MOnTHly IncOME

MaIn cOncERnS FuTuRE OF cOllaBORaTIvE cOnSuMpTIOn pRacTIcES

your main reasons are...

40% of survey participants said it is about seeking fulfillment, while 36% cited financial reasons.

The respondents don’t expect collaborative consumption to give them consistent income

according to the respondents, collaborative consumption mainly allows them to make marginal savings. ... and marginal income

Most survey participants say they don’t make any substantial money from practicing colloborative consumption


gOIng FuRTHER10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption

1

2

“young people carpool“

“Collaborative consumption is an urban practice”

generally true

generally true

proportionally young people carpool on a much larger scale than their older counterparts especially those aged between 18-24 (especially as passengers) and 25-34 (both as passengers and drivers).However, there has been a resurgence in carpooling after retirement

city dwellers (cities with over 100, 000 inhabitants) practice collaborative consumption a lot more than people living in small towns. With certain practices, there is quite a significant difference:• Car-sharing and bike-sharing (particularly in Paris and big urban areas because there is a supply for it)• Short food supply chains via community-supported agriculture• Carpooling• Renting out cars privately as a car owner (particularly in Paris) via digital platforms.

On the other hand, it is incorrect to say that country dwellers and people

age (65+ as drivers and passengers), whereas younger people mainly carpool as passengers.usage is usually below the national average but is still high for carpooling(particularly as the driver) or for non-collaborative short food supply chains.

living in small towns don’t practise collaborative consumption. Theirs is usually below the national average but is still high for carpooling (particularly as the driver) or for non-collaborative short food supply chains.

collaborative practices



3

4

“Collaborative consumption exploded with the arrival of digital platforms“

“The most tech-savvy people are the most collaborative”

True

True

70% of respondents have seen their collaborative consumption activity increase in the last few years. Over half of the respondents (53%) say that their collaborative practices have generally increased over the last few years, 21% say they have greatly increased, and only 1% say that they have decreased.

However, the type of practice should be differentiated here: carpooling and lodging provided by local hosts or the buying or reselling of second-hand goods increase with the level of connection, and the least tech-savvy people are the most reluctant to try out these practices. However, the most connected people are more likely to engage in multiple practices (both as a supplier and a buyer) or at the very least as a buyer (passenger, traveller, etc.)If we look at short supply chains, it comes as no surprise that digital collaboration is more common with people who are more internet-connected (such as the purchase or sale of second-hand goods).The

Having said that, we can see that collaborative consumption practices have really risen for those who use digital platforms as opposed to those who don’t! 93.5% of respondents who have been using digital platforms for 1-4 years state that their collaborative activity has increased, and 33% of respondents even say that it has “significantly increased”.

difference is not as tangible for non-digital collaborative practices (community-supported agriculture, etc.) Similarly, there is a difference between the most connected and least connected people but it is less obvious in terms of exchanging objects or services which is more of a marginal practice.Is this correlation of collaborative practices and level of digital use really down to the practices or solely to the fact that the most tech-savvy people tend to be young people? In these circumstances, the trends can be seen in any age group as previously seen (24-35, 50-64 for carpooling, for example), but it’s among young people and the most connected people (e.g. lodging) that collaborative consumption is more substantial.

Digital practices



6 “Collaborative consumption allows you to save money on your budget”

TrueMost respondents (65 %) state their collaborative activity allows them to make marginal savings. 17 % say these savings really increases their purchasing power. nevertheless, this income does not really allow them to make ends meet or at the very least, this is not what these collaborative practitioners are experiencing. Several people (42.5%) state that it gives them a small income, but only 6% say that it really helps them make ends meet. This statement is subjective and depends on the respondents’ lifestyle (and standard of living). For people on a tight budget, savings are more substantial than for those who don’t have any money problems.

When we look at monthly income, 24% of respondents earn between €0 -30 thanks to their collaborative consumption activity, 11% between €30 and €100… only 2% say they earn over €300 a month. all practices are not in the same boat. carpoolers, those who turn to renting their cars or lodgings with individuals, state that for the most part, they have made small or substantial savings. It is less true for those who turn to short supply chains or exchange services.

Impact of collaborative consumption on the budget

5 “early adopters don’t have the same collaborative consumption expectations as recent users”

generally false

The reasons behind engaging in certain practices, notably carpooling (which is mainly for economic reasons) are pretty much the same however old the practices are: overall, economic reasons and sense-making come in first, followed by practicality and then curiosity. On the other hand, the practices themselves differ depending on these profiles: collaborative practice tends to be more frequent (undoubtedly more established) with the most versatile, pioneering collaborative

consumers: whether it be carpooling or peer-to-peer accommodation, these pioneers are both the suppliers and the buyers, significantly more so than the more recent users (possibly tend to be consumerists?) who are either the driver or the traveller. nevertheless, the pioneers get more income from their activity than recent consumers... For other practices, however, (buying or selling of second-hand goods, short supply chains, service exchange...), the recent characteristic of collaborative consumption doesn’t appear to come into play.

Time spent using collaborative consumption digital platforms



7

8

“People do not try out collaborative consumption because they prefer to own rather than rent or borrow”

“Bad experiences lead to giving up on collaborative practices.

not owning what we use is not really seen as a big disadvantage... The main deterrent is the time spent on research and the transaction (for more than 67% of respondents); followed by having to go on digital

While a third of those who were surveyed say that they have had a negative experience, only 10% of them stopped their collaborative activity. Most people continued as before and a third of them reduced or changed their practices. Who are the ones who “left” collaborative

platforms, and fewer people, only 10% of respondents, cite not owning what they use as being the main deterrent for them to try out collaborative consumption.

consumption?These are mainly people who don’t think collaborative consumption was economically beneficial to them; a big portion of them were homeowners of a certain age, often living in small-sized towns. unsurprisingly, this also included a certain number of people who don’t trust others (anymore?) and are also fairly ‘‘digitally unconnected.’’

Deterrents

Bad experiences with collaborative consumption

False

False



9

10

“People living in a flatshare or group housing practise collaborative consumption more than others”

“People who are already involved in some form of sharing (voluntee-ring...) will be more inclined to be involved in collaborative consumption”

If we look at the diversity of practices linked to collaborative consumption, people living in a flatshare/houseshare or in group housing are the ones most likely to turn to it. carpooling shows the biggest difference, both with owners as with ”individual” renters. In regards to homestays, once again, there is a significant difference, even if theoretically, the tenant needs to get permission from the owner to rent out their property.However, for other practices (exchange of services and goods between individuals) , there isn’t much difference.

carpooling, exchange of services, buying fresh products from farm-to-table (particularly via community-supported agriculture) are practised more by people who are involved in volunteering than those who aren’t. This is also the case, to a lesser extent, for homestays. “volunteers”

In reality, the differences between those who live in group housing and those who live alone is also explained by the tenant/owner profiles. The former are mainly young singles with low income whereas the owners tend to be parents with children who generally earn quite a big income. It is also important to note that housemates, in addition to being involved in a number of collaborative practices, take on a supplier and buyer approach.

will also tend to be involved as both the supplier and user in these col-laborative forms: host and traveller, driver and passenger etc.

True

True

volunteering and collaborative consumption


gOIng FuRTHERStandard practices

Some collaborative practices are more common than others.Zooming in on the most standard practices

carpoolingpassenger

Homestay

vs

vs

practising

practising

non-practising

non-practising

Families with children

High income+ €5000

Executive or intellectual professionals

(Do it more out of conviction than to save money)

young people

between18-2425-34 35-64

people living in big cities or parisians

To a lesser extent, + 65 year-olds can be found to be both the driver and passenger

connected people who regularly use social media

people who are not very connected, who are not on

social media

low incomes less (than €1200)

Homeowners

nB: Drivers don’t necessarily have these profiles and the practice is a lot less commonplace

collaborative accommodation is a fairly uncommon practiceHowever, as a double practice(host/ traveller), it is more common among:• Young people between 25 and 34• People with no children• Freelancers / managers• Connected people (use social media on a daily basis)• Tenants

As a host, this is practised by :• Parisians• Tenants

It is a lot more uncommon for:• Homeowners• 35-49 year-olds• People living in small towns


gOIng FuRTHER

private car rental

collaborative short supply chains (via digital platforms)

Rentersparisians

young people between 25 and 34parisiansconnected people who are on social media and publish content regularly

"Disconnected" peopleMiddle age groups(35-49 and 50-64)Owners

generally young people(25-34)people with no children

Middle age groups(34-64)people living in small towns (2000 to 20 000 inhabitants) and country dwellers car owners

live, via community-supported agriculture and/or food co-ops, buying locally sourced food is less stereotypical. It is however, more common among people living in urban areas (outside of paris) who are

involved in volunteering and feel quite strongly about the environment.

Standard practicesSome collaborative practices are more common than others.

Zooming in on the most standard practices

vs

practising non-practising

vs

practising non-practising


p2p exchange of services as a supplier

p2p exchange of servicesas the recipient or customer

vs

vs

practising

practising

non-practising

non-practising

gOIng FuRTHER

young people (18-24), and students, probably as a student jobpeople with no childrenTech-savvy profileslow incomes

people living in small towns (2000 to 20,000 inhabitants)Families with one or two childrenprofiles with quite comfortable incomes (over €5000)

Middle age groups (35-49)Managerial and professional occupations

young people (25-34)people living in big cities (except parisians)

Those who exchange services (sometimes as suppliers, sometimes as clients) have a more similar socio-professional pro-file. It is however, a lot more practised by people who are already involved in volunteering and who feel strongly about the

environment (as seen, notably, with the choice of everyday transport, etc.).

Standard practicesSome collaborative practices are more common than others .

Zooming in on the most standard practices


gOIng FuRTHERcollaborative consumer profiles

ZOOMIng In On "MulTI-pRacTITIOnER" pROFIlES

There are fewer 35-49 year-olds and 50-64 year-olds in the multi-practitioner category, apart from if we look at collaborative practices which retain some form of ownership: carpooling driver + p2p homestay host, for example.

The main divide between single-activity collaborative consumers and multiple-activity ones seems to be age.

25-34 year-olds are much more represented than the average respondent in the multi-practitioner category:particularly if we look at the logic behind use rather than possession: carpooling passenger + traveller hosted by an individual, or double practices (sometimes passenger, sometimes driver). They represent almost half of the respondents who practise at least 3 (42-43%) or 4 collaborative activities (46-47% ).

People living in big cities (+ 100,000 inhabitants) in provence or paris form a disproportionately large percentage of multi-practitioners (particularly those who practise both carpooling, p2p lodging, p2p exchanging of goods and collaborative short supply chains)

The “multi-practitioner” is aged between 25 and 34, tends to live in the city, has an intermediate or managerial occupation (executive, liberal professions...), but not a very big income (people earning less than €2500 a month are over-represented here). He/she is quite confident in the role collaborative consumption is set to have.

The place of residence also plays a part


gOIng FuRTHERReasons and opinions : individual profiles

above all else, they look for the practical aspect of

collaborative consumption

They want to find meaning behind these

practices

They mainly turn to it for financial reasons

They tried it out of curiosity

They carpool a little less, but use it as a solution to get around frequently (18% do it more than once a week) to save money, but also because it is the most practical way to get around in their case (which is a lot more than other respondents). Their other activity is average among the res-pondents.Their participation hasn’t exploded in the last few years, they were already involved in collaborative practices before plat-forms burst onto the scene.While most of them believe that collabo-rative consumption ’’is going to overtake traditional consumption’’, many (39%) think that it will remain marginal. 35-49 year-olds and parisians are also slightly over-represented.

They are multi faceted practitioners: dri-vers and passengers,...While the majority of them turn to cer-tain collaborative consumption practices, like carpooling to save money, a higher percentage of them compared to other respondents (+ 30%) do it to be environ-mentally friendly.They also use collaborative short food supply chains a lot more than other res-pondents, especially via community-sup-ported agriculture or food co-ops, but also to a lesser extent, through digital platforms.They are also involved in other types of group-related behaviour (volunteering etc.) and are willing to consider collabo-rative consumption as a form of solidarity, accepting to offer services for free.

Their activity is not far from the respondent average, but they practice collaborative consumption a lot less if it doesn’t allow them to save money or make an income from it, like buying locally.They are also less involved in forms of so-lidarity (volunteering) and are a lot less willing to offer their services for free; they make more money from it than other res-pondents. unsurprisingly, they say they are on tight budgets.There are slightly more 18-24 year-olds in this category.

More of them than in any other profile (39%) have had a bad experience with col-laborative consumption...and have given up on it.Based on their collaborative experience, they are less trusting than other profiles.They say they’re curious... but are howe-ver more reluctant than others to get in-volved with collaborative practices.They find it hard to position themselves in regards to collaborative consumption and don’t really believe it will develop. Mainly young people (18-24) and older age groups (50-64 ans), without children in this category.This profile is still a weak category (5 % of respondents).

cREDITS

Pictogramsnoun project

Thomas le Bas - Iain Hector - Jon trillana - John caserta Jane pellicciotto - Dan Hetteix - george agpoon - Edward Boatman - chris Kerr

Kaio Fialho - natalia Bourges - Edward Boatman - Michael Stüker - aneeque ahmed

Graphic design

Scientific Coordination nathan Stern

BI toolnathan Stern / Shoppermind / Datapublica

Survey carried out by

la Fing is supported by its major partners

The ShaREvolution team would like to thank its partners (la poste, aDEME, nord pas De calais, Orange, Bouygues Immo-bilier, Bouygues construction, Renault and EDF) and the colla-borative consumption platforms (BlaBlacar, Drivy, airBnb and Zenweshare) who passed on the survey to their networks al-lowing us to reach a significant number of respondents.

Through the open knowledge approach, the survey information was firstly explored openly and collectively at nuMa in paris. The data linked to the survey will be freely accessible on la FIng website.

survey "i share! do you?" la fing and ouishare

Internet

collaborative consumers

multiple consumption

collectif bamreasons

collectif bamfing

itdo itdo itdo itdont

respondents dont

individualdo itdo itamong

didnt knowhave