THE ROLE OF ANALOGIES IN CREATING LEGITIMACY:
THE CASE OF THE SHARING ECONOMY
Diederik ter Kuile
MSc. in Business Administration Strategy Track
Dr. D.A. Waeger
University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Business School Student:
Supervisor:
Master’s thesis final version 29 - 06 - 2015
ABSTRACT
The sharing economy describes a range of businesses that enable consumers to grant each other
access to their under-utilized assets. In an attempt to explain why these ‘sharing businesses’ have so
much trouble obtaining legitimacy, the present study examined the role of analogies in creating
legitimacy in the case of the sharing economy. Using qualitative methods, two companies of the
sharing economy were examined: Airbnb and Uber. Findings suggest that sharing businesses
employ analogies with established institutions. The analogy stresses similarities between the
unfamiliar sharing business and the familiar institution, thereby creating legitimacy. However,
stressing these similarities also anchors these sharing businesses to these very institutions, that
come with standards of practice and rules of membership. When a sharing business cannot obey
these rules, a strong analogy with these established institutions works as a constraint. Therefore, or
maybe therefore, sharing businesses also employ analogies with the emergent institution of the
sharing economy. This presents a sharing business as something new that should not be judged
based the rules of established institutions.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Diederik ter Kuile who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract 2
Introduction 4
Literature review 6
Data and method 13
First stage findings: Communications by Airbnb and Uber 20
Second stage findings: Communications about Airbnb and Uber 30
Discussion 39
Conclusion 48
Literature references 49
INTRODUCTION
In today’s society, we see a rapid explosion of new ventures, part of the so called sharing
economy, that are disrupting industries with a new organizational form (Belk, 2014). In this new
organizational form, individuals transact directly with other individuals on a two-sided marketplace
maintained by a third party. This results in the lending, trading, swapping, and sharing of almost
every conceivable asset. Despite the great support for the sharing economy as a phenomenon
(Botsman & Rogers, 2010), most sharing businesses encounter extreme difficulties when it comes
to legitimacy. Around the world, regulators are fining Uber drivers, Airbnb users are kicked out by
their landlords, and industry incumbents are taking these sharing businesses to court. For these
sharing businesses, obtaining legitimacy has become a crucial issue for survival.
Organizational legitimacy is a key concept in institutional theory. Scholars in institutional theory
have defined legitimacy as the acceptance of the organization by its environment (Dowling &
Pfeffer, 1975). As stated by Parsons (1960: 175): “organizations are legitimate to the extent that
their activities are congruent with the goals of the super-ordinate system”. Legitimacy affects how
people act toward organizations and how they understand them. For instance, people are more likely
to supply resources to organizations whose actions are perceived as desirable and proper within the
socially constructed system (Suchman, 1995). Therefore, legitimacy is important for organizations
to provide access to resources (Stern et al., 1979), greater stability and predictability (DiMaggio,
1988), and enhanced status and reputation (Oliver, 1990). To analyze why the new ventures of the
sharing economy have so much trouble obtaining legitimacy, institutional theory provides some
valuable insights.
Institutional theorists have argued that entrepreneurs obtain meaning and legitimacy for their
venture by locating it within already legitimated and distinct membership groups (Lounsbury &
Glynn, 2001). To do so, many have stressed the crucial role of language (Suddaby & Greenwood,
2010). An analogy highlights a common set of relations between the unfamiliar new venture and a
familiar institution or membership group. This links the new venture to the existing institutional
environment which justifies the new venture to others and results in support and legitimacy
(Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010). Analogies are therefore important to obtain legitimacy. There are
some empirical studies that address the role of analogies in obtaining legitimacy. Etzion and Ferraro
(2010) for example, studied the role of analogies in the institutionalization of sustainability
reporting. They found that in the early stages of establishing a framework for sustainability
reporting, analogies were used to stress similarities with an established institution, in this case
financial reporting. In the later stages, however, analogies were used to stress incongruences
between the emergent institution and its analogical source. Emphasizing the similarities created
legitimacy for this new institution while emphasizing incongruences accompanied the process of
establishing sustainability reporting as something new and different from financial reporting.
However, because of the focus on creating legitimacy for a new institution, rather than creating
legitimacy for a new venture, these insights are only partially applicable in the case of the sharing
economy and therefore of limited help in answering the question why sharing businesses have so
much trouble obtaining legitimacy.
In this empirical study, I address the role of analogies in obtaining legitimacy in the case of the
sharing economy. The objective is twofold: to extend our knowledge about the role of analogies in
creating legitimacy, and to provide insights regarding what complicates the process for sharing
businesses to become legitimate. Using a cross-sectional case study, two companies of the sharing
economy will be examined: Airbnb and Uber. Because their entrance to the Dutch market has given
rise to a great deal of debate, these companies provide an excellent opportunity to study the role of
analogies in obtaining legitimacy. The analysis involves two aspects. First, a content-analytical
aspect, similar to the study of Etzion and Ferraro (2010), where I establish categories for analogies
descriptive, narrative aspect where I describe the two cases of Uber and Airbnb and their struggle
for legitimacy in the Netherlands since the beginning of 2014.
The analysis shows that both Airbnb and Uber employed analogies with established institutions.
This established institution was the taxi industry in the case of Uber and the apartment rental
industry in the case of Airbnb. This analogy was especially emphasized on the communication
outlets targeted at consumers. On these communication outlets, the analogy was mostly used to
facilitate comprehension. Besides facilitating comprehension, however, the analogy to the
established institutions also anchored Airbnb and Uber to these very institutions, that come with
standards of practice and rules of membership. These rules were often in conflict with the practices
Airbnb and Uber which caused legitimacy problems. Airbnb and Uber also employed an analogy
with the emerging institution of the sharing economy. The analogy presented the company as
something new that does not have to obey to the rules of established institutions. This analogy was
especially evident at the communication outlets targeted at the press and policy makers. When
comparing Airbnb and Uber, this study found that Airbnb and Uber had a different balance in
emphasizing these two analogies. Based on the language used, Uber has more strongly emphasized
the analogy with the established institution. Thereby it presented itself as being more similar to a
taxi than Airbnb is to apartment rental. This might help to explain why Uber had more trouble
obtaining legitimacy.
LITERATURE REVIEW
To address the role of analogies in obtaining legitimacy in the case of the sharing economy, this
study builds on institutional theory on legitimacy, institutional entrepreneurship, and analogies.
After reviewing the literature, this article touches upon the sharing economy in general, the
idiosyncrasies of the sharing businesses, and the possible complications they cause regarding the
Organizational legitimacy
Scholars on institutional theory have defined legitimacy as the acceptance of the organization by
its environment (Parsons, 1960). Similar, legitimation is defined as: “the process whereby an
organization justified to a peer or super-ordinate system its right to exist (Maurer, 1971: 361). What
becomes clear from both definitions is that legitimacy is more than what is legal and what is illegal.
Laws are only imperfectly correlated with societal norms and values (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975).
Therefore some activities might be legitimate and illegal while others are the other way around. In
general, institutional theorists have approached legitimacy in two different ways (Suchman, 1995).
First there is the strategic approach that depicts legitimacy as a manipulable resource. From a
strategic approach, institutional theorists have analyzed the influence of outside directors on
legitimacy (Pfeffer, 1972), response strategies to create legitimacy (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975), and
the influence of linkages between the organization and institutions on the organization’s legitimacy
(Baum & Oliver, 1991). A second approach is the institutional one, that depicts legitimacy as a
taken-for-granted belief. Institutional theorists have described how legitimacy benefits
organizations and how this result in a startling homogeneity of organizational forms and practices
(Dimaggio & Powel, 1983). Institutional theorists have defined different forms of legitimacy.
Suchman (1995) identified three forms of legitimacy: pragmatic, based on audience self-interest;
moral, based on normative approval, and cognitive, based on comprehensibility and
taken-for-grantedness. This categorization is closely related to the work of Scott who argued that there are
three pillars in the external environment from which legitimacy can be derived: regulative,
normative, and cognitive (Scott, 1987). Organizational legitimacy has been studied in many
different contexts including multinational enterprises (Kostova & Zaheer, 1999), new ventures
To examine legitimacy in the case of the sharing economy, particularly insightful is the stream of
research on organizational legitimacy in the case of new ventures. Zimmerman and Zeitz (2002)
argue that, legitimacy is especially important for new ventures, since legitimacy is necessary to
acquire new resources, and access to resources is especially important when going for growth.
Obtaining legitimacy is however complicated by the fact that these new ventures have to operate
within an existing social structure. This structure of ready-made scripts, rules, norms, values, and
models can constrain the actions of a new venture (Zucker, 1991). Therefore, Zimmerman and Zeitz
(2002) formulate four “legitimation strategies” by which new ventures can either, conform, select,
manipulate, or create a new social structure. The latter one, which is especially evident in the
introductory stage of a new industry, shows many similarities with a process defined by scholars as
institutional entrepreneurship. Because of the relevance for the sharing economy, this study now
reviews the literature on institutional entrepreneurship that points to the central role of analogies in
creating legitimacy.
Institutional entrepreneurship and the role of analogies
Institutional entrepreneurship is the difficult task of“balancing the “need for legitimacy by
abiding by societal norms about what is appropriate with efforts to create unique identities that may
differentiate and lend competitive advantage” (Lounsbury & Glynn 2001: 559). Institutional
entrepreneurs are challenged with this difficult task. On the one hand, they must disguise the radical
nature of their new activity; to engage supporters (Etzion & Ferraro, 2010), and to disguise the
challenges the new activity may pose to established organization (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). On the
other hand, they cannot adhere too closely to existing practices. When they do adhere closely to
existing practices, the entrepreneur loses its competitive advantage (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994).
Institutional entrepreneurship is not limited to institutionalizing the practices of a novel venture. It
social object (Haveman et al., 2007). To do so, many authors stress the crucial roles of symbolic
action (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Zott & Huy, 2007) and in particular analogies (Etzion & Ferraro,
2010; Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010).
An analogy is a comparison made between two object thereby transferring information or
meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target).
Analogies can link a new venture to existing institutional environments which justifies the new
venture to others and result in support and legitimacy (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010). For example,
when online shopping was firstly introduced, the concept was badly understood. By showing
analogical references to offline shopping, by using the words and icons of a shopping cart and
check out, the concept of online shopping became better understood (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009). The target, online shopping, derived its understanding and legitimacy from the analogical source,
the institutional context of offline shopping. Therefore, entrepreneurs use inductive analogical or
metaphorical reasoning to facilitate the comprehension, justification, and as a result, legitimacy for
a new venture (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010).
The role of analogies in shaping institutional design has been empirically studied by Etzion and
Ferraro (2010). They studied how analogies were used to promote and institutionalize sustainability
reporting practices. They found that analogies were used in the early stages to emphasize
similarities between sustainable reporting and financial reporting, a taken-for-granted practice in the
business world. The analogy to financial reporting stressed conformity and therefore promoted
legitimacy for this new institution of sustainability reporting. In the later stages of this initiative
however, the same analogy to the financial reporting was used to emphasize differences with this
very institution. By highlighting incongruences of the analogical source, the analogy was helpful in
shaping the design of this new institution. However, because this study focused on creating
legitimacy for a new institution, rather than creating legitimacy for a new venture, these insights are
answering the question why sharing businesses have so much trouble obtaining legitimacy.
Therefore this study now touches upon the sharing economy in general, the idiosyncrasies of
sharing businesses, and the complications they cause regarding the use of analogies and creating
legitimacy.
The sharing economy
The sharing economy encompasses a range of businesses that are disrupting industries with a
new organizational form. In this new organizational form, individuals transact directly with other
individuals on a two-sided marketplace maintained by a third party. This results in the lending,
trading, swapping, and sharing of almost every conceivable asset (Table 1).
Sharing businesses allow individuals to rent out or share their assets to peers. Because of this,
assets like cars, houses, and electric drills are used more effectively. An electric drill, on average
used six minutes over its entire lifetime, can easily be shared with neighbors. This sharing or renting
of underutilized assets makes practical, economic, and environmental sense. When cars are used
Table 1: Sharing businesses
Company What is shared
Uber Rides Airbnb Apartments Lyft Rides RelayRides Cars LendingClub Loans BlaBlaCar Rides JustPark Parking spots Peerby Tools - Skills TaskRabbit Small jobs DogVacay Dog sitters
Liquid Bikes
more effectively, because cars are shared using RelayRides or rides are shared using BlaBlaCar, it
allows for less cars on the road, and ultimately less cars that need to be produced. Scholars have
also argued that it benefits neighborhoods by fostering a strong sense of community (Belk, 2014).
Because of these reasons, the sharing economy has many supporters that are convinced that sharing
will ultimately disrupt many industries (Botsman & Rogers, 2010).
However, there is also rising criticism on the sharing economy. Some arguments that are often
made by opponents are; sharing platforms ignore local laws, in former times sharing happened as
well but without exchange of money, sharing platforms are monopolistic and appropriate a too large
piece of the pie, and members of platforms like Uber or Handy earn less than minimum wage
(Volbeda, 2015). Besides rising critics in newspapers, there is also active resistance by industry
incumbents. In New York, the hotel lobby actively lobbied against Airbnb. In Amsterdam, Uber
drivers were threatened on the road by taxi drivers. On top of that, there is an ongoing debate
among and between governments, whether these sharing businesses should be tolerated. One
complication here is that there is no clear definition of what is sharing and what is not. Because of
the positive associations with sharing, more and more companies claim that they are part of the
sharing economy (Shapiro, 2012).
Some scholars tried to come up with a definition for the sharing economy. Meelen and Frenkel
(2015) for example, defined the sharing economy as: “consumers (or firms) granting each other
temporary access to their under-utilized physical assets ("idle capacity"), possibly for
money” (Meelen & Frenkel, 2015: 1). This excludes a company like Uber from the sharing
economy. According to this definition, only a ride that would have been made anyway and is used
to transport other people on the same route is considered as sharing. An Uber driver, that
specifically makes the ride to transport someone from A to B, is not considered as being part of the
sharing economy (Meelen & Frenkel, 2015). This distinction, however, becomes rather blurry in
using it anyway in that period. Sometimes they use part of their home for permanent hosting. Where
the first situation is sharing according to Meelen and Frenkel, the second situation is not. Therefore
it is complicated to argue whether a company as a whole belongs to the sharing economy or not.
However, I do recognize that the use of the phrase sharing business in this article to indicate Airbnb
and Uber is questionable, and in some extend also frames the discussion. For lack of a better
alternative, however, I will stick to this phrase to describe the ventures shown in Table 1.
Based on previous research on the roles of analogies, the starting point of this study was the idea
that sharing business will either link themselves to the familiar institutions of the industry they are
disrupting, or link themselves to the emergent institution of the sharing economy. The established
institutions come with rules of membership and standards of practice (Lawrence, 1999). The
sharing economy on the other hand, is an emergent institution with field boundaries, membership,
and structure still in flux (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). This allows a sharing business more freedom
regarding its practice. The tension between linking a business to the established institution or the
emergent institution is the first focal point of this study. Another complication that arises in case of
the sharing economy is the influence of other stakeholders. Unlike the case of Etzion and Ferraro
(2010), there is a tension between the industry incumbents represented by the old institutions and
these new sharing businesses. This is because sharing businesses can be a direct replacement of
these industry incumbents. In contrast, in the case of Etzion and Ferraro (2010), sustainability
reporting was not a replacement for the established institution from which legitimacy was derived:
financial reporting. Therefore, the second focal point of this study is the use of analogies by other
DATA AND METHOD
This study examined the communications by and about two companies: Airbnb and Uber. The
purpose of this was to provide insights regarding the use of analogies. The analysis consists of two
stages. In the first stage, the communications by the companies were analyzed. For both Airbnb and
Uber, this includes all communications via their website, blogs, and social media. This involved a
content-analytic aspect, similar to the study of Etzion and Ferraro (2010), where I established
themes, indicating an analogy, and counted how often both companies referred to these themes. In
the second stage, the communications by other stakeholders were analyzed, using 258 news articles
by three Dutch newspapers published between January 1, 2014, and May 1, 2015. This involved a
more descriptive, narrative aspect where I described the two cases of Uber and Airbnb and their
struggle for legitimacy in the Netherlands since the beginning of 2014.
Case selection
Airbnb and Uber were selected for this case study for several reasons. These companies were at
the time of writing the best known companies of the sharing economy. Both companies raised a
great deal of debate and had extreme problems in obtaining legitimacy. The companies were similar
in size, and were launched in the Netherlands around the same time. The study was limited to the
Netherlands because of two reasons. First, it is a practical choice. By limiting the study to the
Netherlands, this study was able to analyze a large part of the debate in the limited amount of time
that was available for this study. Second, it allowed for an interesting cross-case comparison.
Airbnb obtained some level of legitimacy in the Netherlands when Amsterdam changed the laws for
short term rental on February 8, 2014. Uber on the other handed was fined multiple times and
ultimately declared illegal by the Dutch court on December 8, 2014. Although the methodology of
this study does not directly address causality, these differences in outcome regarding obtaining
Uber is a United States based company that connects drivers with people who need a ride. At the
time of writing, Uber was valued at around 50 billion dollars. In the Netherlands, Uber first
launched the service UberBlack on December 3, 2012. UberBlack is the most exclusive service of
Uber. It couples official taxi drivers that drive a high-end sedan with people looking for a luxurious
taxi ride. The price is slightly higher than a regular taxi. From every ride, twenty percent of the ride
fare goes to Uber. UberBlack cars are not recognizable as a taxi because they are missing the top
light box. The innovative part of the UberBlack service is mostly the app that allows customers to
order the taxi, cashless payment, and online anonymous reviewing. Although some UberBlack
drivers where not amused when Uber suddenly reduced the ride fares, criticism in the Netherlands
on Uber did not really start until Uber launched the service UberPOP on July 30, 2014. What makes
UberPOP essentially different from UberBlack is that everybody who owns a car can drive for
UberPOP. Therefore, UberPOP attracts drivers without the required licenses or any prior history in
the personal transportation industry. UberPOP offers rides for almost 50% less than a regular taxi
and can be ordered using the same Uber app. Drivers earn a significant amount of money driving
for Uber while maximizing the utilization of their car. On December 8, 2014, UberPOP was
declared illegal by the Dutch court because it did not adhere to the Dutch taxi regulations.
Nevertheless, Uber continued with the service UberPOP and publicly stated that it would pay all
fines for its drivers. On March 15, 2015, the Dutch minister of infrastructure and environmental
affairs proposed new taxi regulations. According to this law, UberPOP remained illegal. However,
some adjustments related to handing out receipts, the taximeter, and the exam for professionalism,
could be seen as relaxations specifically created in favor of digital innovation.
What Uber is in the case of rides, is Airbnb in the case of apartments. Airbnb is a US based
company that allows people to list and book accommodations around the world. Thereby it connects
people that want to rent out their home to holiday travelers and business travelers. Airbnb hosts and
the world. After every Airbnb stay, the host and guest write a review about each other. Airbnb
charges nine to fifteen percent of the booking fare. Airbnb entered the Dutch market early 2012.
Airbnb was conditionally legalized in Amsterdam on February 8, 2014. These conditions included
that renting should be only occasionally, with a maximum combined period of two months. With
these regulations, Amsterdam was the first city that officially launched rules for online platforms
like Airbnb. Renting out a house using Airbnb remained illegal for people living in a rental house.
Problems related to insurance also remained. In 2014, the municipal of Amsterdam spend almost
€500,000 to fight illegal Airbnb apartments. The municipal was thereby mostly targeting Airbnb
users that offered multiple accommodations, or a single accommodation on a permanent basis.
Data
This study takes on a holistic approach. Both companies are considered as single entities rather
than taking into account differences in communication by different people within the company. This
is a similar approach as taken by for example Deephouse (2000), when analyzing media reputation.
For the first stage of the analysis, data was analyzed that included all means by which the
company communicated. In case of Airbnb, this included all information published on the website
www.airbnb.com, and all updates on Airbnb's Twitter and Facebook page posted in the period
between January 1, 2014, and May 1, 2015. In total these were 692 Twitter and 123 Facebook
updates. On top of that, Airbnb owned blogs were analyzed. The content of these blogs was also
considered important because the press is directed to those blogs when visiting www.airbnb.com.
Airbnb has a public policy blog, a travel blog, and an engineering blog. All blog updates from the
public policy blog published between January 1, 2014, and May 1, 2015 were analyzed. In total
these were 50 blog updates. From the travel blog, 32 blog updates spread over the year were picked
at random. This was due to time constrains and the fact that the blog updates were very similar
the information was very specifically targeted at programmers and therefore not relevant for this
study as it focusses on companies’ communication towards the general public.
In the case of Uber, all information on www.uber.com, Facebook, and Twitter was analyzed in
the same way as in the case of Airbnb. This included all web pages, 146 Facebook updates, and 384
Twitter updates. Like Airbnb, Uber owns blogs to which the press is directed when visiting
www.uber.com. Uber has an international blog as well as blogs specialized for individual countries.
For this study, the international blog and Dutch blog were used. From the international blog, 37
blog updates were picked at random. This was due to time constrains but also because most blog
updates were very similar regarding content and language used. For example; every time when
Uber is launched in a new city, Uber posts almost exactly the same blog update. From the Dutch
blog, all posts in the period between January 1, 2014, and May 1, 2015, were analyzed. In total
these included 29 blog updates. From the Uber website, all pages were analyzed. To analyze
whether the content of www.uber.com and www.aribnb.com had significantly changed over time,
www.archive.org was used. It turned out that this was not the case. Therefore, all content was
extracted from the sites as they were on May 1, 2015.
Airbnb’s public policy blog and Uber’s international blog showed many similarities. It seemed
that both blogs were mostly targeting the press and policy makers. The press is directed to these
blogs when visiting www.airbnb.com or www.uber.com. Both blogs mainly publish updates about
contributions from the specific company to society. Relatively few of these blog updates are
relevant for consumers. The websites of these two companies on the other hand are mostly targeting
consumers with persuasive language about why to host or travel using Airbnb, or why to take rides
or drive for Uber. The Twitter and Facebook updates from both companies contained information
relevant for consumers but also issues related to public policy. The travel blog of Airbnb was
directed toward travelers. Uber’s Dutch blog was mostly a translation of some of the blog updates
For the second part of this analysis, the debates, caused by Uber and Airbnb when the companies
were launched in the Netherlands, were analyzed. In case of Airbnb, important stakeholders who
took part in the debate were representatives of; the municipal of Amsterdam, insurance companies, the hotel union, social housing cooperation’s, and the ministry of economic affairs. In case of Uber, important stakeholders who took part in the debate were; representatives of the taxi unions, the
municipal of Amsterdam, the Dutch human environment and transport inspectorate (ILT), the
ministry of infrastructure and environmental affairs, and the ministry of economic affairs. To study
this debate, all news articles from three different Dutch newspapers; NRC Handelsblad, de
Volkskrant, and het Financiële Dagblad, published between January 1, 2014, and May 1, 2015, were analyzed. These newspapers were chosen in an attempt to cover the left-right political spectrum with de Volkskrant being more left-wing orientated, het Financiële Dagblad more right-wing oriented, and NRC Handelsblad somewhere in the middle (Krouwel, 2008). The articles in
these newspapers provided insight in how the media used analogies. However, because most of
these articles also cited other stakeholders, it also provided insight in how other important
stakeholders used analogies. An overview of all data sources used for the first and second stage of
the analysis is shown in appendix 1.
Data analysis
In the first stage, the communications by Airbnb and Uber were analyzed. This was done using a
modified version of content analysis. This was an inductive process, with categories emerging from
the data. Using NVivo software, I read through all the data and identified recurring sentences and
phrases that said something about the nature of the specific company. These sentence and phrases
were bundled into first-order themes. In the case of Uber, these first-order themes were; taxi
platform. In the case of Airbnb, the first-order themes were; accommodation, book, check-in, earn money, create jobs, rent, homesharing, sharing, sharing economy, create belonging, community, meet people, connector, marketplace, and platform. In total this process produced 267 discrete data segments for Airbnb and 112 for Uber, ranging from a few words to a couple of sentences. After
that, the first-order themes were combined into four general themes.
From these four general themes, the first was apartment rental in case of Airbnb, and taxi service
in case of Uber. This first general theme, that is industry specific, included all first-order themes
that indicate an analogy with the established institution. In the case of Uber, this established
institution was the taxi industry and the first-order themes that were bundled in this general theme
were; taxi service, creates jobs, and earn money. In the case of Airbnb, the established institution
was the apartment rental industry and the first-order themes that were bundled in this theme were;
accommodation, book, check in, earn money, create jobs, and rent. The other three general themes were applicable to both Airbnb and Uber. These were; sharing, community and platform, referring
to key attributes of a sharing business (Meelen & Frenkel 2014; Botsman & Roger, 2011; Belk,
2014). Together, these three general themes bundled all first-order themes indicating an analogy
with the emergent institution of the sharing economy. By comparing the number of all coded
fragments within the first general theme, with all coded fragments within the last three themes, this
study was able to express in numbers how strong the analogy with the established institution was
employed compared to the analogy with the emergent institution. This was done separately for all
different communication channels.
In the second stage of the analysis, the communications about Uber and Airbnb were analyzed.
Using NVivo software, all news articles were coded in a similar way as in stage one. Again this
was an inductive process with categories emerging from the data. In total this process produced 124
discrete data segments for the communication about Airbnb and 162 for the communication about
neutral author. Similar first-order themes emerged as in the first stage of the analysis. Since the
emerged first-order themes of this stage were similar to the first-order themes of stage one, the same
four general themes were used to bundle these first-order themes. Again, this allowed for a
comparison between the analogy with the established institution and the analogy with the emergent
institution. This was done separately for opponents, proponents, and neutral articles.
One problem that had to be addressed was the issue related to local and international
communication. This study tried to focus on the Netherlands, however, because the blogs were only
available in English, this study examined a combination of both international and Dutch
communications channels. Both the English and the Dutch version of the Airbnb and Uber websites
were analyzed. It tuned out that the Dutch version was a literal translation of the English version in
the case of both companies. Uber’s international blog, Airbnb’s public policy blog and travel blog,
and the Twitter accounts of both companies were only available in English. When it comes to
Facebook, only the Dutch Airbnb and Uber Facebook page are accessible when located in the
Netherlands. These Facebook pages showed few differences with the Twitter page.
The main findings of the analysis emerged therefore from the textual analysis of the websites,
blogs, Twitter pages, and newspaper articles. These data sources allowed for a direct comparison
between Uber and Airbnb. While I also analyzed the Dutch Facebook pages, the Uber blog
specifically for the Netherlands, and the Airbnb travel blog, few insights emerged from these data
sources and they are therefore not often referred to in the results section.
Validity
To increase generalizability of the study, two cases were chosen that somewhat controls for
industry characteristics. Insights gathered regarding the use of analogies are therefore not limited to
a particular industry. However, many other factors, such as size, could not be controlled for. Also,
two companies. How they actually act is of course also a very important factor in how the company
is perceived by other stakeholders.
FIRST STAGE FINDINGS: COMMUNICATIONS BY AIRBNB AND UBER
Communication by Uber
As described in the method section, first-order themes emerged from the data. These first-order
themes represented a group of similar recurring sentences that said something about the nature of
Uber. These ten first-order themes were in turn categorized into four general themes (Table 2). First
there is Uber as a taxi that includes the first-order themes; taxi service, create jobs, and earn money.
Second, there is Uber as sharing that includes the first-order themes; ridesharing and sharing. Third
there is Uber as a community that is a combination of the first-order themes community and meet
people. At last there is Uber as a platform, combining the first-order themes platform and connector. From those four general themes, the taxi theme indicates an analogy with the taxi industry. The last
three, community, sharing, and platform, are all key attributes of a sharing business and indicate an
analogy with the sharing economy.
Uber as a taxi service
Uber’s relation with the taxi industry is regularly emphasized by statements that stress contrasts
and modifications between Uber and a taxi service. The official description of UberPOP states for
example, “Everyday cars for everyday use. Better, faster, and cheaper than a taxi.” Another example
from the site relates to the screening of drivers: “Unlike the taxi industry, our background checking
process and standards are consistent across the United States and often more rigorous than what is
required to become a taxi driver.” As shown in Table 2, especially the blogs stresses many
A more implicit reference to the taxi industry is the way UberPOP is presented as a source of
income. These references, bundled into the first-order theme earn money, especially occur on the
website where it is counted ten times (Table 2). Also the blog and Twitter page often state that Uber
is a way to earn money. One blog update, for example, proudly states that the median income of an
UberPOP driver in New York is around 92,000 dollars per year.
Also referring to the taxi industry are the blog updates and Twitter posts stating that Uber creates
20,000 jobs every month. Although the purpose of this statement is probably to emphasize how
Uber contributes to society, it also indicates a similarity with a regular taxi service that is focused on
profits and employment rather than utilizing under-utilized assets. The Dutch blog is an exception in
this. On this blog is stated that based on research by Accenture commissioned by Uber, most drivers
see UberPOP as a side-job alongside other work.
Uber as sharing
General theme First-order theme Twitter Blog Website
Analogy with established institution
Taxi Taxi service 2 16 5
Create jobs 8 5 1 Earn money 5 6 10 Total 15 27 16 Analogical with emergent institution Sharing Ridesharing 6 12 3 Sharing 1 1 0 Total 7 13 3 Community Community 3 5 2 Meet people 1 0 0 Total 4 5 2 Platform Connector 1 6 6 Platform 0 5 2 Total 1 11 8
UberPOP is often referred to as ridesharing. This happens mostly on the Uber owned blog (Table
2). UberPOP, described on the website as “Everyday cars for everyday use, better faster and cheaper than a taxi” is described on the blog as “Our low-cost, ridesharing option – providing you with on-demand transportation service that is 30% cheaper than a taxi.” Other blog posts have titles like “Uber setting the standard for safety in ridesharing” and “We are excited to provide the greater Tianjin community with a reliable and economical way to travel safely through our non-profit
ridesharing service.”
Where the term ridesharing is mentioned in twelve of the analyzed blogposts, it does not often
appears on Twitter or on Uber’s website. On the website it is only mentioned three times on pages
that are difficult to reach; one time in the terms and conditions, and two times in the security
section. The Twitter account sometimes posts some general tweets about ridesharing like “Colorado has become the model state for ridesharing regulation” and “Safety is our top priority and we now have a policy in place to expand insurance for our ridesharing driver partners.” The last statement is slightly different from the other references to ridesharing because in this case, it is not UberPOP
that is described as ridesharing but the partners.
Drivers and riders that mostly connect with Uber by means of the website will therefore not
often encounter an analogy to the sharing economy. However, journalists, that are directed to the
blog when visiting the website, will encounter it.
Uber as a community
Uber is sometimes referred to as a community, mostly on Twitter and on the Uber owned blog.
This community aspect is emphasized through statements like “The incredible generosity of the
Uber community” and “Thanks to the Uber community, thousands of vets received notes of gratitude this weekend.” More implicit references to Uber as a community are the personal stories
about riders and drivers. These are in the form of blog posts but also in the form of quotes on Facebook: “Every day, you have different people driving with you with different ideas.”
Community was mostly mentioned on the international blog and on Twitter, however, it also appears two times on Uber’s website where Uber mentions community managers and community
forums.
Uber as a platform
The last general theme, Uber as a platform, consist of the first-order themes platform and
connector. Especially the website and the blog often explain Uber as a platform or a company that connects riders and drivers. The official description of Uber, for example, states, “Uber is a
smartphone app that quickly connects drivers with people who need a ride.” Words like platform or
connecting dissociate Uber from a taxi service; Uber is not the taxi service but only the link between a taxi service and people that need a ride.
As shown, Uber has multiple ways of presenting itself. This study identified four general themes.
One referred to the established institutional field of the taxi industry and three to the emergent
institution of the sharing economy. These were; Uber as sharing, Uber as a community, and Uber as
a platform. These three themes are key attributes of a sharing business. Sharing, or sharing
economy, is the all-embracing term used to indicate these kind of businesses (Meelen & Frenkel, 2015). Platform refers to the business model used by sharing businesses (Botsman & Rogers, 2011).
The community aspect is a crucial element to make a sharing business work (Belk, 2014). In Figure
1, the strength of the analogy with the established institution (based on the summation of all counts
within the taxi theme) and emergent institution (based on the summation of all counts within the
sharing, community, and platform theme) is shown. This is done separately for each communication channel. Both analogies are present on all communication channels. However, the analogy to the
taxi industry was particular strong on the website and on Twitter (Figure 1). These communication
channels, especially the website, are very much targeted at consumers. Here, analogical
comparisons with the taxi industry are used to explain unfamiliar aspects of UberPOP. An example
of this is how Uber’s screening measures are explained as being better and more consistent than
those of the taxi industry. The familiar screening measures of the taxi industry create understanding
regarding the quality of Uber’s screening measures. It is interesting though, that the same screening
measures are presented on the blog as “Uber setting the safety standards for ridesharing.” This blog
is mostly targeted at the press and policy makers. The stronger analogy with the sharing economy
on the blog (Figure 1) might therefore be an indicator that Uber wants to dissociate itself from the
taxi industry when communicating to the press and policy makers. This might be helpful since the
taxi industry comes with rules and standards of practice, to which an unqualified UberPOP driver
cannot conform.
The two analogies employed by Uber sometimes create peculiar contradictions. Take for
example the blog update about the introduction of UberPOP in Tianjin where UberPOP is described
as non-profit ridesharing. This suggest that drivers share their unused seats in their cars for a fee
that covers just their fixed costs. This is much in conflict with a blog update two months later where
Uber proudly states that UberPOP drivers in New York earn 92,000 dollars annually. This
contradiction reflects well the differences between the established institution of the taxi industry,
Website Blog Twitter
0 25 50 75 100
Analogy with the established institution Analogy with the emergent institution
focused on profits and employment, and the emergent institution of the sharing economy, focussed
on better utilization of under-utilized assets.
Communications by Airbnb
As described in the method section, first-order themes emerged inductively from the data (Table
3). Like in the case of Uber, these first-order themes represent a group of similar recurring
sentences that said something about the nature of Airbnb. It turned out that these first-order themes
fitted similar general themes as described for Uber. First, there is Airbnb as apartment rental. This
theme includes the first-order themes; book, rent, pay, check-in, and earn money. Second, there is
Airbnb as sharing. This includes the first-order themes; sharing, sharing economy, and home
sharing. Third, there is Airbnb as a community, including the first-order themes; community, meeting people, and create belonging. At last, there is Airbnb as a platform. This theme combines the first-order themes; platform, connector, and marketplace. From these four general themes,
apartment rental includes all references to the apartment rental industry. The last three, community, sharing, and platform, include all references to the sharing economy.
Airbnb as apartment rental
Airbnb uses implicit references to the apartment rental industry. Implicit in this context means
that Airbnb never states that it is a company for apartment rental, rather the language used is derived
from this industry. The homepage of www.airbnb.com states for example, “Rent unique places to stay from local hosts in 190+ countries”, “Book unique accommodations”, and “Hosts receive payments through Airbnb 24 hours after guest-check-in.” Terms like rent, book, payments, and guest-check-in have little to do with sharing, rather they refer to booking a traditional hotel or rental apartment. What also refers to the apartment rental industry is the emphasis on earning significant
amounts of money. The website states for example that, “Airbnb is the easiest way for people to monetize their space.” The default calculation shown, which shows an earning of €1744 per month, also indicates that Airbnb earnings can be the equivalent of running a hotel or rental apartment.
Interesting though, references to the apartment industry are less often made on the Airbnb public
policy blog. On this blog, Airbnb heavily emphasizes that hosts do not run businesses or see hosting
as a full-time job. Many blog updates include statements like, “Airbnb has helped countless families
pay their bills and stay in their homes”, “Airbnb hosts share their home and the city they love and earn a little extra money to pay the bills”, and “Airbnb hosts spend 60% percent of their Airbnb
General theme First-order theme Twitter Blog Website
Analogy with established institution
Apartment rental Accommodation 4 4 1
Book 14 1 9
Chek in and out 1 0 5
Earn money 3 3 6 Job creation 0 1 0 Rent 5 6 2 Total 27 15 23 Analogical with emergent institution Sharing Homesharing 5 36 0 Sharing 9 30 1 Sharing economy 9 24 1 Total 23 90 2
Community Create belonging 4 0 6
Community 18 20 12 Meet people 10 1 7 Total 32 21 25 Platform Connector 0 0 2 Marketplace 1 0 1 Platform 0 2 3 Total 1 2 6
income on important household expenses.” Airbnb's emphasis on earning a little extra instead of a
full time salary is a major difference between the Airbnb’s website and public policy blog.
In Table 2, the counts are shown for references to the apartment industry. As shown, the analogy
to apartment rental is especially strong on the website and on the Twitter page.
Airbnb as sharing
Airbnb is often referred to as homesharing. However, like Uber, almost exclusively on the public
policy blog and not on the website (Table 3). The website only includes two statements about
sharing: “Airbnb stands at the forefront of the sharing economy”, and “Discover the tools that help
make sharing easy, reliable, and safe.” Both are on pages that require multiple mouse-clicks to
access.
On the blog, however, we see a very different picture. The analyzed blog posts show 90
references to sharing, home sharing or the sharing economy in general. This includes sentences like
“We are proud that the Airbnb platform helps New Yorkers share their space”, “550,000 homes are
shared by hosts in cities all over the world”, and “Some in the hotel industry are launching a
campaign to try and stop homesharing.” The same is the case for Twitter that also posts regular
updates about how sharing benefits the economy.
It is interesting that Airbnb sometimes emphasizes its links to homesharing through how it acts.
Hosts in New York, for example, that rented out multiple apartments, were banned by Airbnb
because they were not providing the Airbnb experience. As formulated by Airbnb: “We examined
our community in New York and found that some property managers were abusing our site with
multiple listings and were not providing a quality, local experience to guests.” Although it is not
known if this was done voluntarily or due to heavy pressures by regular institutions, this is an act
Airbnb as a community
Besides emphasizing its economic benefits, Airbnb also emphasizes its social benefits. Both
benefits are present in the statement about why to host: “Hosts in 190 countries welcome travelers into their homes to earn money and meet people from all over the world.” The community aspect is furthermore emphasized with statements like “billions of us can belong anywhere”, “Airbnb hosts create a world of belonging”, and “we are committed to helping build a community that takes safety, security, and privacy seriously.”
All communication outlets emphasize this community aspect. The word community is mentioned
12 times on the website, 20 times on the public policy blog, and 18 times on Twitter (Table 3). This
is much more frequently than in the case of Uber.
Airbnb as a platform
At last, Airbnb explains itself sometimes as a platform, connector or marketplace. Because of
their similar meanings, these first-order themes are grouped into one general theme; platform.
Although this theme is not counted very often on the website, it shows up on important pages. In
the section about us, for example, it is stated that, “Airbnb is a trusted community marketplace for
people to list, discover, and book unique accommodations around the world.” On another page states that, “Airbnb connects people”, and that “Airbnb is a trusted platform.” Where the phrase platform is used three times prominently on the Airbnb website, it is mentioned relatively little on
the other communication channels.
From these four general themes, the first represents all references to the established institutional
field of apartment rental. This is done by using the vocabulary of this industry. This vocabulary
of Uber, the analogy to the established industry is most often employed on the website (Figure 2). A
phrase like booking is counted nine times on the website, fourteen times on Twitter (remember that
712 Twitter updates were analyzed), and only one time on the public policy blog. Terms like
earnings or income, that indicate similarities with operating a hotel or apartment, are skillfully avoided on the public policy blog. Earnings are explained as “a little extra money to pay the bills”
thereby avoiding associations with the high earnings of the professional apartment rental industry.
The other three themes, community, sharing, and platform indicate an analogy with the emergent
institution of the sharing economy. This analogy is especially evident on the public policy blog
(Figure 2). Almost every blog update includes the term homesharing and community. The public
policy blog is especially targeting the press and public policy makers. Like in the case of Uber, the
strong analogy with the sharing economy on the blog might therefore be an indicator that Airbnb
wants to disassociate itself from the established industry when communicating to the press and
policy makers. The website only passingly refers to this new institution and when it does, it only
emphasizes the community and platform aspects of Airbnb. The word sharing is only mentioned
two times on pages that are difficult to reach. Because of the unfamiliarity of this emergent
institution, consumers in the form of hosts and guest are not helped with references to the sharing
economy.
Sometimes analogical references to the established and emergent institution are included is the
same sentence. For example in the definition of Airbnb on the Airbnb website: “Airbnb is a trusted
Website Blog Twitter
0 25 50 75 100
Analogy with the established institution Analogy with the emergent institution
community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book unique accommodations around the
world.” Where “trusted community marketplace” refers to a attribute of a sharing business, “book
unique accommodations” is a clear link to the apartment rental industry.
SECOND STAGE FINDINGS: COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT AIRBNB AND UBER
Communications about Airbnb
In total, 82 news articles from three different Dutch newspapers were analyzed. Like in the first
stage of the analysis, recurrent phrases and sentences that said something about the nature of Airbnb
were coded into first-order themes. In some articles multiple sentences were coded, in others none.
This process produced 124 coded fragments grouped in 12 order themes (Table 4). These
first-order themes showed many similarities with the first-first-order themes in stage one and were therefore
grouped in the same four general themes. It is important to keep in mind that the company
communications analyzed in the preceding section covered the global communications by Uber and
Airbnb. By contrast, the newspaper articles analyzed in this second stage only cover the debate in
the Dutch media. This was done because the global and local communication did not show many
differences. All news articles were coded in Dutch, the language in which the articles were written.
The quotes and first-order themes presented here were translated by the author into English.
The news articles also provided insights on how other stakeholders employed analogies. These
were, for example, members of parliament, local government representatives, and judges from the
court. These stakeholders intervened in the analyzed articles by means of interviews or were quoted
by the authors of these news articles.
Use of analogies by the newspapers
In the 82 news articles about Airbnb, the most often recurring phrase, used to describe Airbnb, is
sentence of an article, for example, “Rental-site Airbnb is responsible for one fifth of the
accommodations during the FIFA World Cup.” Most articles, however, restrained from using a particular phrase to describe Airbnb or simply called it a website. The word hotel was also frequently used, for example, “Because of Airbnb everyone’s house is now a potential hotel” or “Thousands of apartments in Amsterdam are structurally offered as a hotel by means of
rental-sites.” The first-order themes, apartment rental, book, earn money, rent, rental site, and run a hotel
combined showed 79 references to the established institution the apartment rental industry (Table
4).
However, sharing was often used as an analogy as well. In total there were sixteen references to the sharing economy in general and 13 references to sharing, for example, “Airbnb represents the
sharing economy”, or “Incumbents are disrupted by players like Airbnb that are active in the sharing
General theme First-order theme Pro Opp Neutral
Analogy with established institution
Apartment rental Apartment rental 2 0 2
Book 2 1 2 Earn money 3 3 6 Rent 11 9 12 Rental site 3 1 15 Run a hotel 2 3 2 Total 23 17 39 Analogical with emergent institution
Sharing Sharing economy 11 3 2
Sharing 10 1 2
Total 21 4 4
Community Meet people 3 0 2
Total 3 0 2
Platform Connector 0 2 2
Marketplace 0 0 2
Platform 1 2 2
Total 1 4 6
economy.” Also more implicit references were made like “Many tourists in Amsterdam stay the night at the homes of local citizens because of Airbnb.” Sometimes there were references to both
sharing and renting in the same article, even in the same sentence: “The sharing economy, from peer to peer apartment rental by means of Airbnb to Zipcar, is more threatening.”
The third general theme was Airbnb as a platform that included the first-order themes; connector,
marketplace, and platform. This general theme included sentences like “Since Friday, it is officially legal to rent out apartments through online marketplaces like Airbnb” or “Using online platforms like Airbnb, people are able to rent out their home.” Because Airbnb’s communication channels,
analyzed in stage one, often stressed the community aspects of Airbnb, community was included as
a general theme in this stage as well. However, never was Airbnb explained as a community, only
sometimes as a mean to meet other people.
Use of analogies by important stakeholders
Other important stakeholders that took part in the debate were; Freek Ossel (municipal of
Amsterdam), Minister Kamp (Minister Economic Affairs), insurance companies, and social housing cooperations. All of them, except for the housing cooperations, seem to be in favor of the sharing economy as a phenomenon and also Airbnb. Freek Ossel described Airbnb as occasional rental. He
set the rules in Amsterdam to allow Airbnb for a maximum rental period of two months per year.
Social housing cooperation like the Key and Ymere also used to speak about Airbnb as renting and
stated that this was absolutely prohibited for their renters. Henk Kamp, Minister of Economic Affairs, used to speak about Airbnb as a digital innovation and emphasized that we should adapt the outdated laws to allow this new technological possibility. Minister Kamp also referred to Airbnb as
a sharing business when he said that, “Digital innovation [referring to Airbnb] increases transparency and enables the sharing economy.” Insurance companies seem to see Airbnb both as
sharing and renting. Two of their statements included, “The sharing economy a need for new insurance products” and “Damage is covered also for policyholders that rent out their apartment.” It was interesting to see that the Dutch hotel lobby stated that Airbnb was a disruptive innovation that
cannot be banned by law. This was very different from how the taxi unions reacted on Uber.
Opponent, proponents, and neutral articles
From the 82 articles, 30 were opinion pieces in which the author advocated either for or against
Airbnb. The other 52 articles were pieces in which the author was neutral or at least tried to come
across as neutral. From the 30 opinion pieces, twenty were written by proponents and ten were
written by opponents of Airbnb. For most of these articles, multiple sentences referring to one of the
first-order themes were coded. The total number of coded sentences exceeds therefore the number
of articles. Table 4 shows separately, for opponent, proponents, and neutral articles, how the coded
sentences split up into the twelve first-order themes. In Figure 3, the number of coded sentences
referring to the established institution is compared to the number of coded references to the
emergent institution of the sharing economy. This is done separately for opponents, proponents, and
neutral articles.
From all articles, the neutral articles most heavily relied on the analogy with the established
institutional field of apartment rental (Figure 3). Especially phrases like apartment rental and rental
site were frequently used by neutral articles. This might be because it helps to explain the practices
Proponents Neutral Opponents
0 25 50 75 100
Analogy to established institution Analogy to emergent institution
of Airbnb with only a few words. Maybe not entirely correct, but at least it clarifies how people can
benefit from Airbnb. In contrast, describing Airbnb as homesharing or as a platform, facilitates
limited understanding for the reader of the article since many readers are not familiar with these
terms or how they relate to a sharing business. This might be one of the reasons why a phrase like
rental site has become most taken for granted to describe Airbnb, even though Airbnb itself only occasionally refers to renting, as shown in the first stage findings.
From the twenty opinion pieces that were written by proponents of Airbnb, nine were pleas for
the sharing economy in general, explicitly referring to Airbnb. Titles included; “Sharing the new status symbol”, “The possibilities and myths from the sharing economy” and “Bye bye brokering, hallo peer to peer.” Five of the opinion pieces were written by enthusiastic Airbnb users. They
referred to both sharing and renting. Some emphasized the monetary benefits: “Renting at the neighbors.” Other emphasized the social benefits “The most interesting is the diversity [of guests].” From the opinion pieces that were against Airbnb, most described Airbnb using phrases that referred
to the established institution of apartment rental. The titles of these articles included, “Cheap
apartment rental in Paris, watch out for Airbnb Police”, “In Amsterdam, everything and everybody engages in renting” and “Abuse social housing with help of Airbnb.”
In Figure 3, one can see that proponents are more likely to use analogies referring to the
emergent institution than opponents or neutral authors. Apparently it is indeed important for Airbnb
to associate itself with the emergent institution of the sharing economy. This can be explained by
the fact that the underlying question, central to the debate, is whether Airbnb is something new that
requires new rules, or something old, that should be similarly judged as apartment rental. When
arguing for a change in the law, proponents described the nature of Airbnb with words that referred
laws, opponents described the nature of Airbnb with words that refer to the established apartment
rental industry.
It is also interesting to see how the communications about Airbnb significantly deviate from the
communications by Airbnb itself. On average, the analogy to apartment rental was much stronger
than how Airbnb communicates about itself. This is mostly due to the fact that the community
aspect, or Airbnb as a way to meet people, is not addressed by most news articles. Also a word like
homesharing is not often used in newspapers. News articles associate Airbnb with the sharing economy in general, sharing of assets, but homesharing has not become an accepted word yet.
Communications about Uber
In the case of Uber, 176 news articles from the same three Dutch newspapers were analyzed.
Again, recurrent phrases and sentences that said something about the nature of Uber were coded
into first-order themes. For Uber, this process produced 162 coded fragments. Like in the case of
Airbnb, these first-order themes showed many similarities with the first-order themes found in the
first stage and were therefore grouped in the same four general themes (Table 5). The only
difference was that there were no references to the general theme community. Like in the case of
Airbnb, the articles also provided insight s on how other stakeholders employed analogies.
Use of analogies by the newspapers
From the 176 articles about Uber, 60 called Uber a taxi-service. The second most popular phrase to describe Uber was app which was used 44 times. Although the phrases service and taxi-app are maybe perceived as similar, the latter emphasizes that Uber only provides the app and is not the service. However, both are particularly strong analogies to the established institutional field of the taxi industry. Also, 21 of the articles included the word illegal. These articles called Uber an
