Survey "I SHARE! DO YOU?" La Fing and OuiShare
3 likes3,125 views
The "i share! do you?" survey was conducted to understand the motivations and characteristics of users engaged in collaborative consumption, collecting 2150 responses primarily from urban dwellers. Findings indicate that while many participants use collaborative practices for marginal savings and fulfillment, only a small fraction report significant financial benefits, highlighting a disconnect between expectations and outcomes. Additionally, younger, tech-savvy individuals are more likely to engage in diverse practices, yet the overall trend is that many respondents do not rely on collaborative consumption as a primary income source.
Survey "I SHARE! DO YOU?" La Fing and OuiShare
- 1. 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
- 2. Design by Collectif Bam Survey participants Main 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
- 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES Design by Collectif Bam Digital practices of participants Carpooling Homestay P2P car 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)
- 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES Design by Collectif Bam 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.
- 5. CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES Design by Collectif Bam What percentage of respondents has adopted multiple consumption practices? 2 3 4 5 Practices Practices PracticesPractices 46 % 25 % 22 % 11 % 11 % 3 % 45 % 26 % 19 % At least At least At least At least
- 6. CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES Design by Collectif Bam 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
- 7. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER 10 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 Citydwellers(citieswithover100,000inhabitants)practicecollaborative 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. Usageisusuallybelowthenationalaveragebutisstillhighforcarpooling (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
- 8. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER 10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption 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
- 9. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER 10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption 6“Collaborative consumption allows you to save money on your budget” True Most 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
- 10. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER 10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption 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
- 11. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER 10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption 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” Ifwelookatthediversityofpracticeslinkedtocollaborativeconsumption, 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
- 12. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER Standard practices Some collaborative practices are more common than others. Zooming in on the most standard practices Carpooling passenger 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 between18-24 25-34 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 practice However, 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
- 13. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER Private car rental Collaborative short supply chains (via digital platforms) Renters Parisians Young people between 25 and 34 Parisians Connected people who are on social media and publish content regularly "Disconnected" people Middle 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 practices Some collaborative practices are more common than others. Zooming in on the most standard practices vs Practising Non-practising vs Practising Non-practising
- 14. Design by Collectif Bam P2P exchange of services As a supplier P2P exchange of services As the recipient or customer vs vs Practising Practising Non-practising Non-practising GOING FURTHER Young people (18-24), and students, probably as a student job People with no children Tech-savvy profiles Low incomes People living in small towns (2000 to 20,000 inhabitants) Families with one or two children Profiles 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 practices Some collaborative practices are more common than others . Zooming in on the most standard practices
- 15. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER Collaborative 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
- 16. Design by Collectif Bam GOING FURTHER Reasons 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. Theiractivityisnotfarfromtherespondent 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).
- 17. Credits Pictograms Noun 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 tool Nathan 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.