Access-‐Based Consump0on: A Choice-‐Based Conjoint
Analysis for Determining Consumer Mo0ves for (not)
Engaging in Car Sharing
Introduc1on (1)
› In the past consumers à desire to own products
(Richins 1994; Kleine, Kleine & Allen 1995; Durgee &
O’Connor 1995).
› ShiN from ownership to sharing
(Bardhi & Eckhardt 2012)
:
•
Sharing prominent role in consumer lives
(Belk 2007; Belk 2010)
.
•
Consumers use access-‐based services
(Chen 2009)
.
› Theore0cal Relevance:
•
LiWle research conducted to preferences access-‐based consump1on
(Belk 2010; Bardhi & Eckhardt 2012).
•
(Tradi1onal) theories should be tested in this context
(Lovelock & Gummesson 2004; Chen 2009)
.
•
Consumer preferences car sharing under-‐inves1gated
(Hildebrandt et al. 2015)
.
› Prac0cal Relevance:
•
Europe à car sharing usage low
(Shaheen & Cohen 2013; Ornetzeder & Rohracher 2013)
.
•
The Netherlands à barely use of car sharing
(Moeskops 2015)
.
Introduction (2)
› Research Ques0ons:
“To what extent do car sharing a2ributes have an impact on consumers their (un-‐)willingness to
engage in car sharing?”
“To what extent could differences with regard to consumers their (un-‐)willingness to engage in car
sharing be explained by contagion, environmental concern, consumer materialism and need for
status?”
Methodology
› Choice-‐Based Conjoint Analysis:
•
Aggregate Logit Analysis
•
Hierarchical Bayes Analysis
› AWributes and Levels:
Results Main Effects
31-‐01-‐2017 | 7 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 Mer cedes Ford K ia € 4 € 8 € 12 E le ct ric c ar H yb rid c ar C on ve n tio n al fu el c ar N o-r es er va tio n Sho rt -t er m R es er va tio n L on g-t er m R es er va tio n F ix ed St at io n M u lt ip le St at io n A n yw he re in c it yCar brand (8,25%) Price per hour (35,61%) Drive train (10,95%) Reservation (20,46%) Vehicle Station System (24,73%)
Uti
li
ty
Preference Estimates Main Effects
Aggregate Logit Model
Managerial Implications
› Ideal product:
• Prestige car brand
• Price of €4 per hour
• Electric car
• No reservation
• Take and leave anywhere in city
› Absolute willingness to pay: €8 per hour
› Consumers differ with regard to preferences
› Environmental concern, males, car sharing knowledge, car involvement
• More likely engage in car sharing
• Might focus on these consumers
Limitations and Further Research
› Conjoint analysis à drawbacks
• Results different real market experience.
› Only car sharing as application access-based consumption
• Reduced generalizability
› Data sample (n=208) small
› Only uses one car brand per car brand category
› Ignores some components cost structure
› Not use existing consumer-to-product contagion scale
› Not use a scale of possessiveness
31-‐01-‐2017 | 11
