The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this study is to identify and assess the importance of proposed determinants of the growing consumer preference for renting consumer goods, as opposed to the actual transfer of ownership. Design/methodology/approach -Following a qualitative preliminary study and a literature review, six factors are identified as possible determinants of a preference for non-ownership modes of consumption. These are examined in a quantitative study using a sample of 461 members of a German online peer-to-peer sharing network. Hypotheses regarding the proposed determinants are tested using factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Findings -The results show that the demand for non-ownership services is negatively influenced by "possession importance" (the importance that a consumer attaches to full ownership) and positively influenced by "trend orientation" and "convenience orientation". The other proposed determinants -"experience orientation", "price consciousness", and "environmentalism" do not appear to influence a preference for non-ownership modes of consumption. Practical implications -Although the renting of goods is an increasingly popular form of consumption, consumers still value ownership. Suppliers should therefore consider offering a mixture of "ownership" and "non-ownership" modes of consumption to their customers. Originality/value -This study complements existing research in this area, which has largely been conceptual in nature, by undertaking an empirical evaluation of the importance of several proposed determinants for non-ownership preference.

Why Is Ownership an Issue? Exploring Factors That Determine Public Acceptance of Product-Service Systems

“…Whilst some participants did highlight an innate desire for ownership, we found that on the surface at least, many participants were both interested in and positively predisposed towards the concept of non-ownership based consumption. Partially supporting claims that PSS would reduce the 'burdens of ownership' on consumers, by reducing the risks of inappropriate product choice and repair and maintenance costs [30], participants from a range of different backgrounds highlighted the potential for such services to increase convenience and reduce worries over product breakdown and repair. However, by digging deeper into the implications of pay-per-use service provision for everyday life, four narratives of concern emerged that led even those who were positively predisposed to access-based consumption to prefer existing models of ownership-based consumption.…”

“…Four types of property rights have been identified [30,31], including the right to: (a) use property; (b) retain any benefits from using property; (c) modify or alter property; and d) transfer the ownership of property. By regulating both the incentives and behaviours associated with products, these rights provide the owner with freedom and control to use and enjoy the product as they see fit, as well as a strong sense of identification with the product [30,32]. Seen through this lens, access-based consumption requires acceptance of a reduced set of property rights.…”

“…Conversely however, such property rights also come with responsibilities attached. These 'burdens of ownership' take the form of a range of risks and responsibilities [30,33], including the risks of incorrect product selection and product obsolescence and the responsibility for product management, maintenance and repair. By relieving these risks and responsibilities, access-based consumption and PSS may become increasingly attractive, despite the sacrifice of full property rights.…”

“…Recently, claims have been made that consumers are increasingly valuing experience over utility [39] and that desires for experiential, current and eco-friendly products are leading to an upsurge in demand for access-based consumption [30]. However, despite growing interest in access-based consumption, the importance and value of ownership throughout the wider public is repeatedly highlighted, with such schemes currently remaining relatively niche [27,30,32].…”

“…However, despite growing interest in access-based consumption, the importance and value of ownership throughout the wider public is repeatedly highlighted, with such schemes currently remaining relatively niche [27,30,32]. As such the idea that wider public preferences may be shifting towards access over ownership cannot be assumed [40].…”