Car sharing in the Netherlands : the history and prospects of a turbulent market

(1)

CAR SHARING IN THE NETHERLANDS

‘THE HISTORY AND PROSPECTS OF A TURBULENT MARKET’

Name: Willem Jan van Amerongen Student number: 10627944

Date: 18/07/2014 Status: Final

Study: MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track

Institution: University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School Supervisor: dhr. prof. dr. J.H.J.P Tettero

(2)

Abstract

In the Netherlands, the phenomenon of car sharing is taking place since the 90’s. This paper explains how car sharing went from a ‘first momentum’, in which many car sharing initiatives were founded, via an interval period towards a ‘second momentum’ that is taking place at this moment (2014). Also in this ‘second momentum’ new initiatives were established and more people started to share a car. The actual status of car sharing, the societal trends of the last and upcoming decades are combined to give an overview about the future of car sharing. This shows that the market of car sharing is –despite the momentum– still uncertain and the question remains if car sharing will be able to leave the ‘introduction phase’ and enter the ‘growth phase’.

All different models of car sharing are discussed and evaluated to determine which model has the most chance of success in the future. One of the most important

conclusions of this study is that car sharing will never be a success in the Netherlands as a whole, but only seems possible in the Randstad region (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht). This is because the conditions needed for car sharing can only be found in that region, but more even more important; the consumer segments that might be interested in car sharing are also largely found in the Randstad region and less in the other parts of the Netherlands.

(8)

I. Introduction

In many countries of the world, the use of cars has grown rapidly during the past decades. The car has become a massification product. Car ownership is still expected to increase. In general, as GDP rises, car ownership rises and has a negative influence on public transport use. It is likely that this will lead to increases in motorization in cities in the coming decades (May & Marsden, 2010).

As shown in the figure below, the number of privately owned passenger cars has increased rapidly in the Netherlands since the 1950s (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Number of cars in the Netherlands, 1900 – 1988, (Staal, 2003)

This huge growth has several effects on society. The following effects and their impact on the Randstad region, will be discussed in this chapter:

- Excessive use of public space - Accessibility due to congestion

- Impact on quality of life (traffic noise)

- Impact on environmental quality (air pollution, climate change) - Impact on safety

(9)

First, the Randstad region will be discussed.

I. The Randstad Region

The Randstad region is a conurbation in the Netherlands and is the major economic core of the Netherlands. The region covers an area of 8.287 square kilometer. With approximately 7.1 million inhabitants, the Randstad region is one of the most densely populated areas of the Netherlands (1500/km2) and one of the largest conurbations in Europe. Four big cities form the core of the Randstad region: Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht, surrounding a number of medium-sized towns, such as

Almere, Leiden, Delft and Haarlem.

Figure 2: The Randstad region, the Netherlands

(10)

Excessive use of public space

In the four big cities of The Netherlands (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht), the total number of registered personal cars is 754.273. The total number of inhabitants of these cities is approximately 2.2 million. This means that approximately 34% of the population owns a car (CBS Statline, 2011). In Amsterdam, 57% of the households own at least one car (Factsheet DIVV, 2013).

In the Netherlands, cars are used for 1.5 hours daily on average. This means cars are parked for 94% of the time (Factsheet Ministry of Infrastructure, 2013).

In Amsterdam, there are 228.764 registered personal cars, of which 85% is parked on the street (Amsterdam in cijfers, 2013). These numbers have a huge impact on the use of space in the city. From all space used for traffic (public transport, pedestrians, bicycle lanes, car parking lots and car lanes) is 60% used for cars, of which 40% is used for parking cars (Amsterdam-Centrum district administration publication, 2009).

Congestion

Congestion has an extensive spatial impact and poses a very significant cost on the economies of countries. The majority of congestion costs occur in urban areas, however, also on inter-urban routes congestion can occur (May & Marsden, 2010). TNO calculated that the total costs of congestion are between 638 million and 888 million euro. This includes direct costs (cargo) and indirect costs (production delay).

(11)

Impact on quality of life

One of the most important negative effects of car use on the quality of life is traffic noise. Millions of people in Europe are affected by traffic noise. Noise can disturb sleep patterns, affect cognitive functioning and cause cardiovascular problems. As an effect, noise is very costly to society (den Boer and Schroten, 2007). The RIVM calculated that in the year 2000, approximately 600 people died from a heart attack caused by traffic noise. 110.000 – 270.000 people suffer from high blood pressure due to traffic noise and approximately 2.2 million people encounter serious nuisance (VROM, 2010).

Impact on environmental quality

Cars have a huge effect on the air quality of the region. The WHO suggests that poor air quality brings forward around 2 million deaths per year worldwide (WHO, 2009). Although most of these deaths fall in developing countries, the effects of air pollution in the Randstad region should not be underestimated.

The main pollutants of concern are particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and oxides of nitrogen. The WHO measured a PM10 concentration of 40 ug/m3 in Amsterdam (UNAIDS, 2006). This is similar to other European and American cities. The GGD in Amsterdam measured PM10 values from 1997 to 2007 and concluded that the level of PM10 ug/m3 has remained the same over the years (see figure 3).

(12)

Figure 3: PM10 concentration in Amsterdam, 1997 - 2007, (GGD, 2008)

Another very important effect that decreases the quality of environment is climate change. Although climate experts still haven’t found a consensus whether human CO2 emission is a cause of climate change, there is a consensus that the climate is changing (global warming). If human CO2 emission would contribute to climate change, car use is a big contributor to human CO2 emission. Transport accounts for 26% of global CO2 emissions and is one of the few industrial sectors where emissions are still growing (Chapman, 2007).

Impact on safety

The World Health Organization estimated that in 2004 almost 1.2 million people were killed in road traffic accidents, and approximately 50 million people were injured. In the Netherlands the number of road traffic fatalities is gradually declining since 1973. In 2003, 1088 people were killed, while in 2012, 650 people were killed by road traffic accidents (SWOV, 2013). The number of seriously injured people is much

(13)

higher. In 2011, 20.100 people were seriously injured due to road traffic accidents. This number is, in contrast to the number of road traffic fatalities, not declining, as shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Seriously injured people 1993 - 2011, (SWOV, 2013)

Al these negative effects combined give a good overview of the transport related problems that modern society has to deal with. Several cities and countries are trying to find solutions for these problems.

Could car sharing ease these problems?

(14)

II. Car sharing

Car sharing is a phenomenon that fits well in the “sharing economy”, which is based on using instead of owning. Cars are no longer for private possession, but cars are shared among other people or families. This happens both in commercial a

commercial context as in private context. Both versions will be explained.

Commercial car sharing

Several companies provide commercial car sharing in the Randstad region. Those companies can be divided in two groups:

I. Classic II. OneWay

I. Classic

The ‘Classic’ car sharing companies offer a subscription with a monthly fee. People with a subscription reserve a car mostly one day in advance. The cars are parked on dedicated parking spots and are collected and returned at the same spot. A reservation is mostly made for several hours or for the whole day.

At this moment, there are multiple old-fashioned providers of car sharing in the Netherlands, like Greenwheels, ConnectCar and StudentCar.

II. One-Way

The only ‘One-Way’ car sharing company in the Netherlands is Car2Go. Their workspace is only the city center of Amsterdam. Their way of car sharing is very short term: you can reserve a car 30 minutes prior to departure at most. You pay per

(15)

minute (no monthly fee) and you can pick up the car and leave the car at every parking spot inside the service area. This way of renting is especially suitable for small point-to-point rides in the city. Car2Go uses full electric Smart Fortwo cars in Amsterdam.

Private car sharing

I. Peer-to-Peer car sharing

With ‘Peer-to-Peer’ car sharing, people rent a car from an individual (peer) instead of a company. However, most times a company acts as a mediator between two

individuals. For example, Snappcar, MyWheels and WeGo are companies that offer these services. Snappcar is the market leader. Most services work with a surcharge principle. Peer-to-Peer car sharing is nationwide.

II. General Partnership

A group of people or families decides to share a car together. To deal with legal issues, they create a general partnership. The car is property of the partnership. Most important reasons to choose this option are: cheap, simple, no frills and being

environmentally conscious (‘being green’).

It’s clear that the phenomenon of “the sharing economy” found its way to the car business. How did car sharing develop over the past years? What will consumers do? Could car sharing be a success in the countryside of the Netherlands? Which car-sharing model has the best chance on success for the future? And can car car-sharing ease the car related problems in the Randstad region?

(16)

II. Literature Review

In this section, an overview will be given about the transport market for consumers. The goal of this part is to analyze the transportation market, and give an overview of how this market is structured right now.

The following topics will be addressed in this section:

1. What kind of transportation options do consumers have in the Randstad region?

2. How big is the market share of those transportation options in the Randstad region?

3. Which clusters can we distinguish among customers? 4. Which transportation options are used by which cluster?

5. What motives for car use and car possession can be found in the literature? 6. What future trends about transportation can be seen?

(17)

I. Facts about transportation in the Randstad Region

Transportation options in the Randstad region

For every trip, people have a choice between different modes of transport, each with it’s own specific characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. In a single trip, multiple modes can be combined. In general, the car is the most popular mode of transport. Speed, comfort, convenience and freedom are the most used arguments (Anable, 2005, Hagman, 2003).

The most important options for transportation in the Randstad region are: train, metro, tram, bus, bicycle/e-bike/scooter and personal car. Because metro, tram and bus are quite similar, those are combined under “regional public transport”.

The bicycle/e-bike/scooter is not suitable for inter city trips, but is very popular inside cities, as an alternative for regional public transport and car.

Transportation options’ market share

An average person in the Randstad region makes 2.64 movements a day and travels 29.93 km a day. The distribution among all the transportation options in the Randstad region are shown in table 1.

(18)

Table 1: Distribution transport options (source: CBS Statline)

Movements pp/pd Distance pp/pd Time pp/pd

Transportation option Number km minutes

Total transportation 2,64 29,93 65,09 Car (driver) 0,94 15,99 23,25 Car (passenger) 0,26 5,27 7,31 Train 0,08 3,02 6,1 Bus/tram/metro 0,1 1,09 4,07 Scooter 0,04 0,24 0,65 Bicycle 0,73 2,7 13,47 By foot 0,46 0,81 8,84 Other 0,04 0,81 1,4

The absolute numbers of table 1 are better comparable in relative numbers (see table 2).

Table 2: Distribution transport options (relative) (source: CBS Statline)

Movements pp/pd Distance pp/pd Time pp/pd

Transportation option Number km minutes

Total transportation 100% 100% 100% Car (driver) 36% 53% 36% Car (passenger) 10% 18% 11% Train 3% 10% 9% Bus/tram/metro 4% 4% 6% Scooter 2% 1% 1% Bicycle 28% 9% 21% By foot 17% 3% 14% Other 2% 3% 2%

Looking at distance pp/pd, it’s clear that the car is transport option number one, with 53% for drivers and 18% for passengers. In number of movements, the bicycle is popular, but in distance the bicycle is only 9%. This is easy to explain, because people travel way slower on a bicycle than with a car.

(19)

II. Clusters in the transportation market

Mentality Model by Motivaction

To identify the clusters in the transportation market, the Mentality-model will be used. This model is invented by Motivaction and gives an overview of the different types of people living in modern society. The Mentality model distinguishes groups of people based on underlying values and motivations (Motivaction, 2014). Every group has it’s own norms and values, which translate into behavior and therefore mobility habits. The travel profile of the groups have been researched by Motivaction on behalf of The Council for Transport (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat) in their publication: “Wie ik ben en waar ik ga” (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2010).

In the Mentality model, eight different groups are distinguished. Behind every group, there estimated representation in the Randstad region is shown:

• New conservatives (4%) • Cosmopolitans (18%) • Traditional bourgeois (9%) • Modern bourgeois (9%) • Convenience oriented (9%) • Social climbers (34%) • Post-materialists (4%) • Postmodern hedonists (13%)

These groups differ on two axes: values (traditional, modern, postmodern) and status (low, middle, high).

(20)

The differences between Mentality in the Netherlands and Mentality in the Randstad Region are shown in figure 5. Figure 5: The Mentality Model; Netherlands versus Randstad (Motivaction, 2014)

(21)

Social climbers

This group is a generally young, very ambitious group. They aim for a luxurious lifestyle and attach high value to their material achievements. They are technology-minded and find it important to take the lead. Their education level is varied and their income is average, except a large group top incomes. This group will grow most for the upcoming years in the Randstad region.

Mobility is their main goal in life. They like to travel quickly and efficiently, and are not bound to city limits. The Social Climber is young and urban-oriented and

therefore often makes use of tram, bus and / or subway. They don’t often own a car. However, the car is often seen as more than just a transportation option. Therefore, the car is a status symbol.

Cosmopolitans

Cosmopolitans are critical citizens of the world who integrate post-modern values such as growth and experience with modern values such as success, materialism and enjoyment. The city offers them art, culture, architecture, gastronomy and a wide social network. Their education is relatively high and their income is (except from the younger cosmopolitans) also higher on average. This group is very interested in traveling, mostly to other big cities in the world.

This group often works and lives in the same city. Their transportation option of choice is the bicycle. Besides the bicycle, they often travel by public transport.

(22)

Postmodern hedonists

Postmodern hedonists are pioneers of the experience culture, in which

experimentation and breaking with moral and social conventions has become a goal in and of itself. They are the ones that choose the new “place to be” and when the crowd discovers these places, they already left. They mostly live in big cities and are often single. Their education level is high, and incomes are wide spread.

Postmodern hedonists are flexible and carefree. They travel a lot, often without a plan. They don’t own a car, because it’s too much trouble and public transport is fine in the big cities. This group is a real traveler: they enjoy it.

Convenience oriented

The Convenience Oriented are impulsive and passive consumers whose first priority is to live a carefree, pleasant and comfortable life. This group often chooses to move to the more quite city suburban areas. Their education level is lower on average and their income is below average.

This group chooses the easiest way. They often travel by scooter and when they have a car available, they will probably use it, even for the small trips. The Convenience Oriented are locally oriented, and move mostly locally. They don’t often leave their town, and are therefore not frequent participants of the traffic in the Randstad region.

Traditional Bourgeois

The Traditional Bourgeois is moralistic, dutiful and status quo oriented middle class who hold onto traditions and material possessions. Their age is often higher than 45.

(23)

They are average educated and their income is around average. This group is not very often resident in the big cities.

This group has a small range and travel mostly in their direct environment. The car is their transportation option of choice, but it is seen as a functional means of transport.

Modern bourgeois

The Modern Bourgeois is a status-conscious middle class looking for a balance between tradition and modern values such as consumption and enjoyment. This group is very broad; equally men and women, age, income and education are widely spread. This group is often married and has children. They mostly live outside the city.

For the Modern Bourgeois, the car is an important status symbol. They choose the easy option and use the car a lot. This group travels mostly with the whole family.

Post-Materialists

The Post-Materialists are socially critical idealists who are interested in personal growth, and make a statement against social injustice and defend the environment. This group includes more women than men. The average age is high (between 45 and 60) and the level of education is above average. They live in small or middle-sized cities.

Post-Materialists are critical, also to themselves. Their choices are responsible and so is their mobility. They won’t use the car, unless it’s really necessary. They favor the train or the bicycle because of the environment. The bicycle is also a popular leisure.

(24)

New Conservatives

The New Conservatives are the liberal-conservative social top layer of society that embraces technological development and resists social and cultural innovation. This group includes more men than women. Their education level is above average and their income is mostly high. The average age is higher than in the other groups. The New Conservatives live often in the Randstad region, but outside the big cities.

This group is individualistic and likes to be in control. They often travel alone. The New Conservatives often own a car and it’s their favorite transportation option. They use it both private and work-related. Their choice of mobility is based on a pragmatic consideration. They choose the fastest way and try to avoid problems. Public transport is not very popular among this group.

Motives for car use and possession

Steg (2005) sees three types of car use motives: instrumental, symbolic and affective. The car is much more than a means of transport. Car use is not only popular because of its instrumental functions. Besides, other motives seem to play an important role, such as feelings of sensation, power, superiority and arousal. People speak about their cars in affective ways and car advertisements are sometimes more about symbolic functions than instrumental functions. In many car advertisements, appeals are made to people’s sensitivities to control, power, social status and self-esteem. For many people, the car seems to be a status symbol, people can express themselves by means of their car, driving is adventurous, thrilling and pleasurable. This implies that the

(25)

utility of car travel is not only dependent on its instrumental value, but also on symbolic and affective factors (Steg, 2005).

Gardner (2007) conducted a qualitative research among 19 private car commuters, living in a small English city and found five core motives for car use: journey time concerns and journey-based affect; minimizing effort; personal space concerns; minimizing monetary costs; and a desire for control (Gardner, 2007).

Ellaway et. al. found that both men and women get psychological benefits from car use, however, they both get different benefits. Protection is particularly important for women, and prestige more so for men. The study suggests that people with car access may experience more protection, autonomy, prestige, self-esteem and mastery than do users of public transport (Ellaway, Macintyre, Hiscock, Kearns, 2003).

Cars are more likely to be possessed by people who indicate that car driving

contributes to the quality of their life. Some people buy and drive cars because they like to and not only because they have a practical need to do so (Sandqvist and Kriström, 2001).

This means that not matter how favorable the alternatives for the car are, it remains popular, because car use and possession is more than a means of transport. There are affective and symbolic motives in play.

(26)

III. Future Trends

The Council for Transport and Water (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat) explains a number of future trends in transport behavior in their publication: “Wie ik ben en waar ik ga” (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2010). The following trends are expected for 2040:

1. The car will not lose as a status symbol

2. In 2040, more people will use a car and also in private context, car use will grow

3. The bicycle will be less popular

4. Motives for traveling will change; less cultural visits, more going out 5. People will try to travel more efficiently (time) instead of travelling for fun 6. Travelling together will be less popular

7. Convenience will be more important

(27)

III. Method

The research question in this paper is:

“How did car sharing develop over the past years and which car-sharing model has the best chances of success in the coming years?”

Given that car sharing is a fairly new phenomenon, it has not been studied in-depth. The nature of the research question, the very little control on behavioral events and the focus on a contemporary phenomenon make, according to Yin (2009), a case study the best research method.

The case in this research is car sharing in the Netherlands, with special attention to the Randstad region. This is an explorative single case-based study. This case will be studied on a retrospective basis and on a snapshot basis. This means that this research will focus on car sharing in the past, but also on the status of car sharing as it is at this moment. This double basis was chosen because it gives the best overview, needed for this research.

I. Data collection

To answer the research question and meet the objectives of this research, it’s

important to focus on gaining the perspectives of the most important stakeholders in the car sharing business. This will be done in two different ways. The first one is a documentary analysis. Reports of different organizations, research articles and

(28)

newspaper articles will be used to lay a theoretical ground. This is important for the external validity of this research. The documentary analysis will mostly be used for the descriptive part of this research.

The second way is qualitative data, which will be gathered through interviews. In-depth interviews will be held with the key persons and stakeholders in this market. The interviews will be mostly used for the explorative part of this research.

The interviewed stakeholders are:

- Municipality of Amsterdam, DIVV (Infrastructure and Traffic). o Key topic: This division is responsible for the parking policy of

Amsterdam. What is their vision on car sharing and what is the effect of legislation?

o Contact: Iris Kerremans (Trainee DIVV Amsterdam)

- Q-Park Nederland: Biggest owner of parking garages in the Netherlands. o Key topic: If car sharing is winning ground on private car possession,

what does this mean for parking garages?

o Contact: Sacha Oerlemans (Corporate Director Marketing at Q-park NL).

- Snappcar:

o Key topic: Snappcar is market leader in peer-to-peer car sharing. Do they think their model of car sharing has more future than commercial car sharing?

o Contact: Hendrik-Jan Glerum (Business at Snappcar)

- MyWheels:

(29)

o Key topic: MyWheels is a car sharing provider for ‘Classic’ and ‘Peer-to-Peer’ car sharing

o Contact: Henry Mentink (founder)

- Vereniging Gedeeld Autogebruik (foundation for shared car use)

o Key topic: This foundation organized insurances and parking spots for general partnerships.

o Contact: Henry Mentink (founder) - Private car sharers:

o Key topics: They joined a ‘General Partnership’ for over ten years. What are their experiences?

o Contacts: Jan Voskamp and Carole Sombroek

The companies and stakeholders were contacted by email. Some key persons

forwarded the email to a co-worker or subordinate, but in all cases the interview was very valuable. Some companies didn’t want an interview, but for those companies a backup company or contact was used.

Interview technic

The in-depth interviews with the key persons mentioned above, will be semi-structured. Because this research is trying to be descriptive and explorative, and because most key persons are experts in their area, a semi-structured interview allows them to talk about topics they find important. On the other side, it helps to give the interview a certain order and it assures that all topics will be covered. The topics mentioned below will function as an interview guide, but the interviewer has the

(30)

freedom to pick up on things said by interviewees (Bryman, 2008). The questions used during the interviews can be found in the appendix.

II. Data analysis

All interviews were recorded (with permission) and transcribed. The transcription was analyzed with NVivo. In every interview the same topics were covered (more or less) and these parts were coded in NVivo.

The document analysis was also done with NVivo. There are a lot of reports written about car sharing by for example DIVV, Bovag, KPVV and ‘Ministerie van

Infrastructuur’. All these reports were coded.

A combination of an inductive and a deductive approach was used, but more towards inductive. The codes were based on the questions, based on the ‘Tip’ by Yin (2009). For example: ‘solution’ or ‘problem’. The codes for a problem were divided in more codes, like ‘congestion’ or ‘air pollution’.

The analysis is most similar to what Yin (2009) describes as ‘Time-Series Analysis’. The results were ordered chronologically. This made clear that car sharing is divided in two big ‘momenta’, which gave a very important structure for this paper. This is most similar to ‘Chronologies’ (Yin, 2009), because it helps to see the relationships between events.

(31)

IV. Results

The results of the interviews and documentary analysis will be structured

chronologically. First, the period before 1993 will be described. In this period, the first car-sharing initiatives were founded. After that, the period between 1993 and 1996 will be explained. This period can be seen as ‘the first momentum’. The following period, 1996 – 2003, is known as the period in which car sharing should have grown to a more mature state. Why this did not happen will be explained. The period 2003 – 2010 is a period of very low interest in car sharing and can be seen as an interval between two momenta of car sharing. The last period, 2010 – present, shows a new momentum for car sharing. In this section, the new initiatives will be explained, and the differences between the two momenta of car sharing will be highlighted.

(32)

I. The Beginning (international)

One of the first countries that started with car sharing was Switzerland. Already in 1948 the first foundation for car sharing was found (Deelauto – stand van zaken, 1996). In 1993, Switzerland was the absolute forerunner in the car sharing business among all European countries. The biggest car sharing foundation was the ‘Auto Teilet Genossenschaft’ (ATG), which was founded in 1987 in Stans. The ATG had 1000 members with 80 cars.

The most important reason for members of the ATG to start with car sharing was to reduce environmental impact of car use. Therefore, the average member was highly educated and environmentally conscious.

The ATG was based on small, private initiatives, which were called a ‘Filial’. ATG buys the car, organizes the system and takes care of maintenance of the car, as long as every Filial has at least ten members. Income and expenses are both for ATG.

ATG discourages long distance traveling by car, by counting a high variable price. Therefore, traveling between 15 and 100 km per trip is most attractive in this system. Above 10.000 km a year, ATG car sharing is no longer profitable, due to the variable costs. ATG merged with ShareCom in 1997 and has 112.000 customers in 2014.

(33)

II. Before 1993

Witkar

In 1970, the first initiative related to car sharing started. It was called the ‘Witkar’ and it was based on an already existing idea in Amsterdam: “Het Witte Fietsenplan”. This idea described how the municipality would provide bicycles in the city center of Amsterdam, which were available for everyone at no charge. You could take a bicycle whenever you want, and leave it at your destination. Another person could take the same bicycle to his destination. The municipality owns and repairs the bicycles. However, due to the chance of theft, this idea never caught on.

The inventor of ‘Het Witte Fietsenplan’, Luud Schimmelpenninck, an Amsterdam city councilor, came up with a new version: ‘Witkar’ (literally: white car). The essence of the Witkar idea is the same, however, it uses cars instead of bicycles. Witkar started on 21 March 1974.

The Witkar (or: Elektriese Munt-Oto) was a three wheeled, electric vehicle. Its range was limited to 15 km. To use a Witkar, you needed to join an association. The variable costs were one guilder per five km. The most important disadvantage of the system was that every trip needed to start and end at a Witkar station. Witkar started with five stations and 25 vehicles. For total coverage of Amsterdam City Center, 25 stations and 125 vehicles were needed. The ultimate target was 150 stations and 1000 vehicles. Due to administrative difficulties and a lack of support from the City

Council, Witkar was discontinued on 27 October 1986.

Since 2007, Schimmelpenninck tries to relaunch his idea for Witkar. According to Schimmelpenninck, the idea of the free bicycle and car are even more relevant in today’s society:

(34)

“Believe me, five years from now, every European country is working on clean urban transport. The white bicycle (‘Het witte fietsenplan) has entered Paris, Berlin, Lyon, Vienna and many more. I predict that a modern version of Witkar will conquer Amsterdam and Utrecht. The government wants cleaner air. Nothing is more ideal than transferring drivers to electric Witkars on parking spots outside the city. This plan is in its infancy, but I believe in it” (Trouw, 14/11/2007).

A feasibility study in 1992 found that 71% of the potential car sharers (people with a car and low work-related mileage) thought about car sharing as an interesting option. 40% had the intention to use car sharing (Deelauto – stand van zaken, 1996). This caused a momentum in the car sharing business in the Netherlands.

(35)

III. ‘The First Momentum’ (1993 – 1996)

According to Henry Mentink, founder of the foundation for shared car use (Stichting Gedeeld Autogebruik), real car sharing started around 1993. The Dutch government knew that 50.000 people in the Netherlands were sharing their car in a private context. In a private context means that families were sharing a car without any intervention of a third party. This usually were initiatives in the neighborhood, based on trust and responsibility. Most members of such an initiative were collected in a ‘maatschap’ (a legal form of a business entity which is most related to the general partnership). The partnership administered one or more cars and is responsible for settling all costs among the members. All rules are defined in an agreement, which is signed by all members.

A general partnership car was used mostly twice or three times a week. Most drives were private related, like: shopping, visiting family and day trips. Most members of a partnership were family or neighbors (Deelauto – stand van zaken, 1996).

The General Partnership

Jan Voskamp was member of two car sharing partnerships for over twelve years. A colleague initiated his first partnership ‘Automaten’. The goal of Automaten was to share a car with colleagues from ‘Werkgroep 2000’. Voskamp lived in Amsterdam at the time, but worked in Amersfoort. The most important reason to start sharing a car was that it wasn’t financially attractive to own a car. Voskamp didn’t need the car for work or on a daily basis, but sometimes he needed it to visit family or to transfer heavy objects. His colleagues lived in Amersfoort, so most of the time the shared car was parked in Amersfoort. Therefore, Voskamp needed to book the car in advance

(36)

and was not able to take the car on short notice. However, since all partners worked together, it was not hard to coordinate the usage of the car.

After one year, Voskamp left ‘Automaten’ and founded a new partnership with his neighbors. With two other families, Voskamp founded ‘Automaten 2’. This

partnership has existed for ten years. The most important reason to share a car was the same as for ‘Automaten’: being able to use a car for special circumstances, like family visiting.

According to Carole Sombroek (Voskamp’s partner and member of ‘Automaten 2’, there were a few factors very important for the success of the partnership:

1. Nobody needed a car for commuting-related travel, because everybody lived in the same city as where they worked.

2. Four out of six members of the partnership were given a free subscription on public transport. That caused even more consideration, because traveling by train was for free and traveling by car was not.

3. The car was parked in the street, because every member lived in the

neighborhood. This means you were able to see from your kitchen window if the car was available. With the first partnership this was not possible.

4. The administrative system was very plain and simple. In the glove

compartment, you could find an agenda and a notebook. The agenda was the reservation system, and the notebook was the travel registration. You wrote down the mileage at the start and at the end, and after each month the costs could be calculated.

5. For the holiday season, the members made a very strict and clear agreement: Every year, two families could use the car for the holiday, for a maximum of

(37)

three weeks. The other family could rent a car or travel by plane. But those costs wouldn’t be settled among the other members, because it was a rotating system. This meant that every family could use the car in the holiday season in two out of three years.

This set of rules made car sharing for Voskamp and Sombroek a success. Especially having the car in the neighborhood was an important factor:

“Some colleagues of my nowadays use Greenwheels. They always need to pick up the car somewhere before they are able to use it. And I don’t like that I need to take the bicycle, carrying a five- and a four year old, to a car before I can use it. I think Greenwheels is more some kind of renting service, while we really shared possession of the car. It really felt like our common property” (Carole Sombroek).

Greenwheels

The Ministry of Traffic, Bovag and ANWB tried to unite themselves to make car sharing more professional, but this failed. Henry Mentink was, just as the Voskamp family, sharing a car with relatives. He founded the foundation for car sharing (Vereniging Gedeeld Autogebruik). The goal of this foundation was to unite car sharers and represent their interests. Greenwheels, a Dutch car sharing initiative, started the same year. Their growth rate was 30% to 40% every year. According to Mentink, Greenwheels offers around 2500 cars, for 38.000 members. They try to offer one car per fifteen members.

In 1996, there were sixteen different concepts in 250 municipalities, with more than 50.000 members (Deelauto – stand van zaken, 1996).

(38)

Comparison between concepts

Between these different concepts, a lot of relevant factors differ from each other. All concepts, including the partnerships, will be clustered in different groups, to point out the mutual differences. To structure the comparison, the 4 P’s of the marketing mix will be used, which are product, price, place and promotion.

General Partnership (Maatschap)

Product

A group of people or families decides to share a car together. To deal with legal issues, they create a general partnership. The car is property of the partnership. Most important reasons to choose this option are: cheap, simple, no frills and being

environmentally conscious (‘being green’).

Every partner deposits goods or money in the partnership. All partners sign a ‘partnership contract’, which contains the rules. This contract describes the cost structure, allocation of costs and all other aspects of car sharing.

Price

The partnership decides it own cost structure. For example: The partnership mentioned above (‘Automaten’) used the following cost structure:

• € 0,35 per kilometer (including all costs, like oil and gas)

• For long drives: after 500 km, car use is free, except costs like oil and gas. The second rule made it fairly cheap to use the car for vacation trips. Because the right to use the car for vacation trips was equal divided, this had no effect on cost distribution.

(39)

When a new car was bought, all members paid an equal share.

When a partner wished to leave the partnership, the remaining partners would buy him out.

Place

Most partnerships are car-sharing initiatives on a very small scale. Most cars in a partnership are shared with people in the neighborhood, because this offers the most ideal situation. The car is parked in front of the houses, which is close by for every partner.

Jan Voskamp shared his first car with colleagues from work, who lived in another city. His second car was shared with families in his neighborhood. His wife, Carole Sombroek, thinks that is the most important reason for success.

Promotion

The general partnership is not meant as a commercial business, and is therefore often not promoted like other initiatives like Greenwheels. There could be some kind of recruitment in the neighborhood to gather enough members, but this just slightly related to promotion.

Membership car sharing (Greenwheels)

Product

Membership car sharing concepts offer you a subscription. You can use all cars that the company manages. The market leader in the car sharing business, Greenwheels, uses this concept. They offer mainly Peugeot 107, but since Pon (partially) acquired

(40)

Greenwheels, it is expected that Greenwheels is going to use cars produced by the Volkswagen Group.

Greenwheels also offers station wagons (estates) which are bigger (but more expensive), and even minibuses.

Greenwheels held a pilot with electric Peugeot iOn cars. In the Randstad region, they placed 25 electric cars, with charging stations. Mid 2013, the pilot was canceled because the usage-rate was too low. Greenwheels doesn’t have electric cars anymore since September 2013.

Price

You pay a standard fee per month, and a small fee when you actually use the car, per hour or kilometer. Greenwheels offers the following cost structure (most popular subscription):

• 15 euro per month, regardless of use.

• € 3,50 per hour, € 0,14 per km for a standard car • € 5,20 per hour, € 0,18 per km for an estate or minibus

The cost of fuel (gasoline / diesel) is paid by Greenwheels and afterwards per kilometer charged to the members. In April 2014 the fuel rate for the city car was € 0.1025 and € 0.1623 for the estate or minivan per kilometer.

Place

Greenwheels cars are placed all over the Randstad region. According to the

Greenwheels website, they have over 1700 locations with one or more cars. On the map on their website, it is shown that their locations are very city-centered. This

(41)

causes that provinces like Groningen or Drenthe are very poor covered, but the Randstad region has good coverage.

Promotion

In 2008, Greenwheels stated it doesn’t advertise, so all promotion is done by viral marketing (AD, 17-01-2008).

Greenwheels did link itself with the NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen). In 1997, Greenwheels even marketed itself as a ‘NS-service’.

“That’s a matter of marketing. For a new initiative, it is important that you associate yourself with an established name”, said Jan Borghuis (Emerce, 27-12-2004).

Nowadays, Greenwheels and the NS are still connected. Customers of the NS can get a discount on their Greenwheels subscription. This is especially focused on business users, since the systems of the ‘NS-business card’ and Greenwheels are connected.

Call-a-car membership (‘Auto op Afroep, ANWB’)

Product

Call-a-car initiatives are in most cases initiated by professional renting companies. Call-a-car is closely related to normal renting, but the cost structure is different. The name seems to imply that the car is brought to you, but that is often not the case. The car has to be collected and returned at the renting company. Most providers of call-a-car concepts made deals with rental companies. The ANWB started ‘Auto op Afroep’ with PrevaRent as partner in 1994 and expected more than 100.000 clients. However, in 1997 ANWB reported that the actual usage of ‘Auto op Afroep’ was just a few

(42)

thousand members. This forced ANWB to change the concept and collaborate with a new partner, Budget Rent a Car.

Price

The idea of this kind of contracts is that people need a rental car quite often, but not very often; so owning a car is not financially attractive. The price consists of two elements: a monthly fee, and a variable component per kilometer or per day/hour.

The price of the subscription depends on the number of days, kilometers and car type a user wants. The prices do not include gas.

Place

These initiatives are most often locally oriented. A user has a contract with a local car rental company, and the subscriptions are not exchangeable (location bound). The user needs to pick up the car and return the car at the rental company.

The ANWB ‘Auto op Afroep’ was a nation wide initiative. The ANWB collaborated with car dealers and, in a later stage, with rental companies (Budget Rent a Car). However, even with ‘Auto op Afroep’ users need to return the car to the same place as where they collected the car.

Promotion

(43)

Since these initiatives are commercial, the companies are actively recruiting

members. The car-a-call initiatives are often locally, so advertising takes place on a local scale.

Since the ANWB ‘Auto op Afroep’ is nation wide, the ANWB used advertising on a broader scale. They used their own magazine, which was distributed among all members, newspapers and radio or television commercials.

Coupons

Product

Coupon car sharing is mostly offered by national rental companies. Customers buy a set of coupons in advance and with a coupon, a customer gets discount on the car rental. Rental companies offer this to make customers loyal. Some examples of companies that offer coupon car sharing are: Hertz (H2O), Budget (Snel Weg Plan) and Avis (Avis Club).

Price

Coupon car sharing is related to the call-a-car concepts. The biggest difference between both concepts is that coupon concepts don’t charge monthly fees. Instead, you buy your discount beforehand by buying vouchers. The more vouchers a customer buys, the more discount he gets.

(44)

Place

Couponing is a national system, because it is in most cases offered by the big, national rental companies. However, a customer needs to return the car at the pickup location, so this makes couponing a ‘non-distributable system’. Most rental

companies are located in big cities.

Promotion

Since couponing is offered by big companies, promotion and acquisition of customers is often national. Most important advertising media are national newspapers and targeted magazines, like car magazines.

Update

Since 1996, the world has changed a lot. New technologies offered lots of new possibilities. Also, not all concepts were successful. Some concepts, Greenwheels for example, gained momentum and managed to grow year after year for 30% - 40% a year, according to Henry Mentink. Others, like Hertz’ H2O were not a success and are discontinued. Also, ANWB’s Auto op Afroep wasn’t a big success, and Budget took over –and changed– the concept in a classic renting concept.

(45)

IV. Between 1996 and 2003

Evaluation

After the first momentum, car sharing had a stable, moderate growth in the following years. The media focused less on the developments in the car sharing business and companies like Greenwheels and Wheels4All (MyWheels) had a stable business with growth rates about 30%-40%.

In 1996, the government formulated a goal for 2010:

“To halve the current growth of car ownership, The Netherlands should have two million car sharers in 2010. This is expected to lead to a saving of 1.4 million cars compared to a growth trend. This lower growth in car ownership could reduce de growth of the number of travelled kilometers by car with approximately 4 billion kilometers.”

This goal was formulated on basis of a feasibility study by AGV (‘Adviesgroep Verkeer en Vervoer) in 1994 about the introduction of Call-a-Car concepts in the Netherlands.

In 2010, The Netherlands had 1919 shared cars. Hendrik-Jan Glerum (Snappcar) said that every shared car has between 8 and 13 users. This means that in the Netherlands, the total number of car sharers is between 15.352 and 24.947. This means that the growth of car sharers is far behind the goal formulated by the Dutch government. Car sharing turned out to be more like a hobby for a very small part of the population, instead of a worthy substitution for car ownership.

(46)

Worldwide: The Transportation Sustainability Research Center of the University of California Berkeley found that as of October 2012, car sharing was operating in 27 countries and five continents, accounting for an estimated 1,788,000 members sharing approximately 43,550 vehicles. This means that the number of car sharers the

government had in mind for 2010, wasn’t even reached worldwide in 2012. This brings up an important question: How is it possible that the Dutch government overestimated car sharing with such an enormous difference?

To answer that question, a report written by Ligtermoet+Louwerse bv for the ‘Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer’ is helpful. This report assesses ten years of stimulation policies in the Netherlands. According to Ligtermoet (2003), there are three important aspects that influenced the goal set by the government in 1996 for 2010:

Responses about future behavior were interpreted as truthful.

The feasibility study conducted by AGV was based on a questionnaire. In this questionnaire one of the most important themes was “selling the private owned car”. According to Ligtermoet (2003), this kind of questions is comparable to ‘will you quit smoking next year?’; a kind of question in which a big correction for political

correctness is needed.

Conclusions of the AGV study were torn out of context, even in the paper itself. The first statement in the AGV paper was: “16% of the car-driven kilometers could be made by Call-a-car”. In the conclusion AGV stated: “Call-a-car will reduce the

(47)

driven kilometers with a net effect of 3,5 to 4 billion kilometers per year”. According to Ligtermoet (2003) this conclusion is a forecast with no link to the results.

The AGV study found that respondents had certain demands that were most of the time not met by the providers of car sharing. Therefore, the results of the AVG study were not representative for the Dutch situation.

It is clear that the prospect of the Dutch government was based on very doubtful statements. Knowing that, it is no surprise the goals were never reached. In the Ligtermoet (2003) report, it is more than clear that the goal for 2010 will never be reached. This is why the Dutch government stopped their incentive policies after ten years of stimulation.

Car sharing is in 2003 not the substitute for car possession with national coverage and relevance as the government expected. Car sharing only exists in the older parts of the biggest cities, and about 50% of that is in Amsterdam. These districts are

characterized by scarcity of parking lots, and car possession is no requirement to be socially active. Car sharing is mostly used in these districts for private drives in the weekend, because commute traveling is done by pubic transport (Ligtermoet, 2003).

According to Ligtermoet (2003), three reasons justify the decision of the Dutch government to stop the incentive policy on car sharing:

1. There is not even one municipality in the Netherlands where car sharing has noticeable effects on traffic.

(48)

2. The market itself can regulate car sharing. The government has proven to be unable to stimulate demand.

3. The social value of car sharing is too location specific to be stimulated by the national government.

(49)

V. The Interval Period (2003 – 2010)

Without the help of the government, car sharing lost its momentum. In the

background, companies like Greenwheels grew in their normal pace (30% a year), but car sharing was more seen as a hobby than as a replacement or substitute for private car possession. The policy of local governments and the national government was more focused to electric driving, carpooling and bio fuel. The lack of stimulation policies and the low relevance for consumers reduced the pace of growth. Between 2003 and 2010, the number of shared cars grew slowly. This is shown in a study by KPVV in 2013. The number of shared cars in the Netherlands is shown in figure 6, figure 7 and figure 8.

However, in this time period, the society changed because of new trends and innovations. This shaped the market in a more favorable way for car sharing. The most important trends and innovations in the Netherlands are:

- The ‘sharing economy’ gained ground

- Internet became available for everybody and everywhere - An economical recession kicked in

- In high density regions, parking lots became even more scarce

- ‘Generation Y’ (1981-2001) values private car possession a lot less then other generations

(50)

Figure 6: Number of shared cars per municipality in 2002 (KPVV, 2013) Figure 7: Number of shared cars per municipality in 2006 (KPVV, 2013) Figure 8: Number of shared cars per municipality in 2010 (KPVV, 2013)

(51)

Trends

The sharing economy

The ‘sharing economy’, ‘collaborative consumption’ or ‘peer-to-peer economy’ are all names for a phenomenon that follows the principle of ‘using’ instead of ‘owning’. The trend of the last few years is to apply this principle on all kind of consumption. Companies try to exploit this principle by creating an environment in which goods and products can be shared.

The most successful companies in this area are:

- Spotify: listening to music without buying it. Paying by subscription (fixed fee) or by listening to commercials

- AirBnB: giving people the opportunity to rent a spare room in their house to tourists. AirBnB earns 5 euro per reservation.

- Netflix: Same as Spotify, but for movies and series. Only by subscription (fixed fee).

The European Economic and Social Committee, an advisory board of the European Union, is thinking about legislation for the sharing economy. They want to monitor all sharing economy related activity and determine possible boundaries. EESC-member Bernardo Hernández Bataller stated in an interview that the sharing economy has the following benefits (Kluwer.be):

- Less use of resources - Lower Co2 emission

- More demand for durable products - More social interaction

(52)

- People with low incomes have access to high-quality products

(53)

Availability of Internet

The first public provider of Internet in the Netherlands was XS4All. It was founded on May 1, 1993. After XS4All, many providers followed. The number of Internet connections in the Netherlands grew fast.

In the Netherlands the penetration of Internet connections is one of the highest in the world. According to CBS, The Netherlands the percentage of households with an Internet connection is 97% (CBS Statline, 2014).

The rise of smartphones and mobile Internet provides a tremendous opportunity for businesses. A worldwide Google research (‘Our Mobile Planet’) showed how important mobile Internet is in The Netherlands:

“Smartphones have become an indispensable part of our daily lives. Smartphone penetration has risen to 52% of the population and these smartphone owners are becoming increasingly reliant on their devices. 73% access the Internet every day on their smartphone and most never leave home without it.

Implication: Businesses that make mobile a central part of their strategy will benefit from the opportunity to engage the new constantly connected consumer.”

(Google: Our Mobile Planet: Netherlands, 2013)

As Google says, embedding mobile in your business strategy gives you a huge opportunity to reach consumers almost 24/7.

(54)

Economical recession

Since 2008 The Netherlands are suffering by an economical recession, which was known as ‘Kredietcrisis’ (Financial Crisis). The government acknowledged this situation in September 2008 by adapting their policy for 2009 to cope with the coming economical recession.

The Financial Crisis was followed by a new crisis, which was called the “Eurocrisis”. This crisis (which also caused a recession) started in the third quarter of 2011 and was based on the high debts of some countries in the European Union.

In May 2014, the Dutch minister of Finance, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, stated that the recession was over, because the last two quarters showed a positive economical growth. However, the Centre for Economic Policy Research (the CEPR), didn’t agree.

“The CEPR Business Cycle Dating Committee has concluded the euro area might be mired in a recession pause. Several quarters of positive but extremely weak economic developments since early 2013 do not constitute sufficient evidence that the euro area recession that started after 2011Q3 is over.” (CEPR, June 2014).

The lack of economic growth caused a drop in spending. According to Nibud, 70% of the Dutch households were economizing in April 2013. 19% said they were

economizing on their car. 9% even sold their car (Nibud, April 2013).

If a company could offer a decrease in the costs of car use, this could probably produce a huge business opportunity.

(55)

Scarcity of parking lots

Parking lots are scarce in cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht, but are widely available in, for example, Rotterdam. The layout of the city is very important.

In Rotterdam, only three neighborhoods have a waiting list. The bombing of

Rotterdam in the Second World War, made a completely new design of the city center possible. At that time, it was already clear that car possession would grow. Therefore, during the build up, Rotterdam anticipated on car possession and car use in their design and the city has almost no problems with car traffic.

On the other hand, Amsterdam was build long before the car made his entry. In the city center, streets are too small for two cars to pass and parking lots are very scarce. The outskirts of Amsterdam, like Nieuw-West, are more build like Rotterdam and do not have a parking problem. The more centered neighborhoods like Jordaan and Grachtengordel have waiting lists for parking spaces varying from two years till five years (Cition BV, 2014).

Amsterdam tries to shorten the waiting lists by introducing other alternatives. For example: ‘Ringparkeren’, which entitles parking the car in a Park & Ride at the city borders for free with free public transport to your home.

The new city council intends to double the fee of a parking permit

(Hervormingsagenda 2014-2018, Amsterdam, 2014). This could probably have a dampening effect on the waiting lists.

(56)

Millenials

With the term ‘Millenials’ the generation is meant that has been born between 1980 and 1995 (PwC, 2013). Another popular name for this generation is ‘Generation Y’.

Price Waterhouse Coopers noticed that a new generation of starters in their company valued the importance of certain aspects completely different. A significant majority of them lacked the interest in a traditional career path, which would change the company’s culture drastically. Therefore PwC undertook one of the largest studies in its kind to understand the goals and attitudes of this generation.

The study by PwC concluded with some key learnings about Generation Y.

1. Many Millenial employees are unconvinced that excessive work demands are worth the sacrifices to their personal life

2. Millennial employees want greater flexibility at work

3. A strong cohesive team-oriented culture at work and opportunities for interesting work are more important for Millenials.

4. Millenial attitudes are not totally universal, but there is a significant commonality between North Americans and Western Europeans. 5. Millenials place a greater emphasis on being supported and appreciated.

These key learnings are mostly related to a work environment, but they give an insight in the most important characteristics of this generation. For example: personal life is more important for Millenials than for other generations and Millenials are seeking for more flexibility in their life. The search for flexibility is closely linked with the principle of the ‘Sharing economy’. Rather than buying a car, a movie or a

(57)

CD, they prefer to pay for use only, because this is way more flexible and the money saved could be spent elsewhere.

Mentality versus Millenials

This grouping of people (by year of birth) is different than the Mentality Model by Motivaction. The Mentality model neglects year of birth and tries to group people by norms and values. This gives a totally different – and more detailed – overview, and therefore it is not possible to attach the Millenials to one of the groups of the

Mentality Model.

However, most of the stereotype Millenials will probably fall into the ‘Social

Climbers’, ‘Cosmopolitans’ or ‘Postmodern Hedonists’, because of their interests and their age.

Conclusion

The Millenials are now between 34 and 19 years. And their influence is growing every year. Retiring ‘Babyboomers’ (1945 – 1955) are being replaced for Millenials. The norms and values of society are changing and for companies it is important to acknowledge these trends and to adapt their business to it.

(58)

New initiatives

Because of the combination of the societal problems mentioned in the introduction and the trends explained earlier, car sharing became a hot topic again. New initiatives were born and older initiatives were updated to match the new desires of the

consumer. Two new initiatives, which both emanate from the mentioned trends, will be explained: Car2Go and Snappcar.

Snappcar

Snappcar was founded in 2011 by Victor van Tol and Pascal Ontijd. Snappcar provides a system that makes it possible for car owners to share their car with consumers.

Product

Snappcar doesn’t offer cars itself, but arranges car sharing among their members. They take care of the administrative work and assurances. Snappcar initially pays even traffic fines, just to make car sharing as accessible as possible.

Hendrik-Jan Glerum of Snappcar:

“We are trying to make Snappcar as easy as possible, by taking all possible problems that could occur out of the hands of the consumers. For example, traffic penalties, or damages. We will reimburse those costs directly, just to make Snappcar as accessible as possible. Also the assurance is always all-risk at this moment. We don’t want any arguments about who is responsible for what damages whatsoever. Maybe, in a later stage, we can shift responsibility and risk towards consumers who are willing to take it, but for now, we just want it to be as easy as possible”.

(59)

Because of their business model, Snappcar offers almost every car. Small city cars, Mpv’s, cabriolets and even limousines are available for rent. This gives Snappcar a huge advantage over other car-sharing providers.

Price

The rental period for a car is at least half a day. The owner of the car sets the price for the car, and Snappcar adds 10 euro per day for their services. The stated prices are per day, including Snappcar’s fee. Above that price, Snappcar counts 2,50 euro

transaction costs. The car renter pays for gas and in most cases also a price per kilometer.

Since the owner of the car sets the prices, it is hard to see some kind of price lining. A small city car is available from 17,50 euro’s a day (Suzuki Alto, 1998), but a very luxurious car costs 300 euro’s a day (Porsche Panamera or Fisker Karma).

Place

Snappcar is depending on car owners for their distribution of car sharing. With 8706 cars in 887 places, Snappcar operates every region in The Netherlands. Snappcar doesn’t have to be physically present at the renting location, so this gives Snappcar an advantage over other car-sharing providers. Because of the widespread availability of Internet, Snappcar can be present in the whole country, without leaving their office. This was not possible during the first momentum of car-sharing, and this gives the new initiatives more chance for success.

(60)

Promotion

The most important way for Snappcar to spread their message is through PR. They give a lot of interviews to newspapers and websites. Their story anticipates on the environmentally consciousness that arises in the Netherlands.

Hendrik-Jan Glerum:

“In the beginning it was very hard for us to tell our story. We were standing on a soapbox, but nobody was picking it up. But since a few years, the news articles are transferred from page 24 to the front page. Car sharing and Snappcar are hot topics right now.”

Snappcar doesn’t advertise in newspapers or on TV. They do have a social media campaign, which concentrates on Facebook and Twitter.

Car sharing in the Netherlands : the history and prospects of a turbulent market