A New Theoretical Prototype of Sharing in an Online Community☆

JBR-08453; No of Pages 10 Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Positive marketing: A new theoretical prototype of sharing in an online community☆

Michael T. Krush a,⁎, Julia R. Pennington b,1, Aubrey R. Fowler III c,2, John D. Mittelstaedt d,3 a North Dakota State University, Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business, 316 Richard H. Barry Hall, 811 2nd Avenue North Fargo, ND 58108-6050, United States b University of Tampa, Department of Marketing, College of Business, 401 W Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33606, United States c Langdale College of Business, Valdosta State University, 1500 North Patterson Street, Thaxton 318, Valdosta, GA 31698, United States d College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, United States article info abstract

Article history: Positive marketing champions exchange that beneﬁts individuals, ﬁrms, and society at large. One method in- Received 1 January 2012 creasingly used to exchange goods is sharing. Sharing describes the non-monetary transfer of goods between ac- Received in revised form 1 April 2014 tors. Scholars have called for greater understanding regarding an online community's ability to perpetuate Accepted 1 April 2014 sharing. This study uses empirical research to explain the structural elements that facilitate sharing within the Available online xxxx Freecycle community. Fifty-seven in-depth interviews are conducted with participants and analyzed using grounded theory. The authors introduce a new theoretical prototype of sharing, provide insight on how modern Keywords: Positive marketing consumers engage in a sharing activity, and describe the structural characteristics that facilitate sharing within an Sharing on-line community. Grounded theory © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Freecycle On-line community

1. Introduction individuals involved, but also society as a whole (Shultz, Burkink, Grbac, & Renko, 2005). Positive marketing is the study of marketing in Positive marketing is marketing “in which parties – individual con- this vein. sumers, marketers and society as a whole – exchange value such that in- The majority of our attention within the general marketing literature dividually and collectively they are better off than they were prior to is devoted toward understanding how individuals and households exchange” (Center for Positive Marketing, 2012). This conceptualization manage their personal assortment of goods through acquisition. Com- of marketing represents a 21st century restatement of Wroe Alderson's plex and efficient marketing systems exist to move goods in order for (1957) definition of exchange, namely that parties engage in exchange households to acquire their preferred assortments. However, the man- to improve the utility they receive from their personal assortment of agement of a household's personal assortment of goods through dispos- goods. Households continually evaluate and manage their respective as- session is just as important. For instance, sometimes we make our lives sortment of goods through market exchanges. Exchange-through- better by ridding ourselves of things that we no longer use or want, just acquisition (i.e., purchasing) is one mechanism through which we as we improve our lives through additional acquisition of goods. improve our personal assortment of goods and, by extension, our qual- Surprisingly, we can improve the lives of others through reorganizing ity of life. Marketing and the marketing systems that develop around our personal assortment of goods, because assortment is as much a so- these exchanges serve to improve quality of life by improving the effi- cietal issue as a household issue. For example, Bardhi and Arnould ciency and effectiveness of acquisition. The genius of marketing systems (2005) note the value of exchange between and among households is that the assortment of goods that they generate benefit not only the through the recycling of clothing and other items. As Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt (2012) point out, consumption patterns in coming decades will require that we consume less and consume smarter. Reusing and repurposing are mechanisms through which we can breathe new life ☆ The authors acknowledge the assistance of students Kelsey Irvine and Justina Forsythe into goods and plausibly improve the assortment of goods among at the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire and the UWEC Market Research class. Research assistance was obtained through the Office of Sponsored Research Programs at UWEC. households and throughout our collective society. In short, assortment ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 231 7844. management through dispossession can be a form of positive market- E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.T. Krush), [email protected] ing — exchange that benefits consumers, society, and firms. (J.R. Pennington), [email protected] (A.R. Fowler), [email protected] Remarkably, most of our efforts in marketing scholarship have set (J.D. Mittelstaedt). aside this second, but equally important, aspect of household assort- 1 Tel.: +1 813 257 3257. 2 fi Tel.: +1 229 245 6458. ment management. The purpose of this paper is to examine a speci c 3 Tel.: +1 307 766 3655. example of a marketing system that has developed to address this

Please cite this article as: Krush, M.T., et al., Positive marketing: A new theoretical prototype of sharing in an online community, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.037 2 M.T. Krush et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx second component of assortment management, namely the Freecycle 2.1. Freecycle resembles some forms of gifting Community. The Freecycle Community is a voluntary group. Givers give away Freecycle is often referred to as a gifting economy both internally goods that their household deems no longer necessary, while receivers (i.e., changing the world one gift at a time) and by researchers investi- request and accept the goods which still have useful life and value for gating the phenomenon (i.e., Nelson, Rademacher, & Paek, 2007). The them. The Freecycle Community cannot be described as selling, since Freecycle Network's mission states its goal is “to build a worldwide nothing is received as consideration. Nor is it gift giving (Belk, 1996), gifting movement that reduces waste, saves precious resources, and since it is not wrapped up in emotional or relational needs. Nor does it eases the burden on our landfills while enabling our neighbors to benefit into the existing sharing prototypes within the literature (Belk, fit from the strength of a larger community” (The Freecycle Network, 2010). The Freecycle Community represents an additional and unex- 2012). However, we will argue that gifting does not correctly character- plored form of “critical consumption phenomena” (Belk, 2010, p. 730) ize the form of exchange inherent within Freecycle. The goods that are and one worthy of study. typically exchanged within the Freecycle network do not appear to The Freecycle Community is comprised of more than 8.5 million meet all of the characteristics of gift-giving as outlined by Belk (1996). households, organized into more than 5,000 networks (The Freecycle First, the giver is not necessarily making an extraordinary sacrifice, as Network, 2012). While money does not change hands, it is an exchange he or she is attempting to dispose of unwanted or no longer necessary involving cost and consideration and through which both parties to an items. Second, the recipient is not necessarily surprised by the receipt exchange better themselves through improvement of their household of the product, as he or she seeks the item in the first place. Third, the assortments. As such, we believe this form of exchange reflects the gift is not necessarily a luxury and may actually consist of a mundane ideals of positive marketing – the facilitation of individual and collective item the recipient requires to complete a task. Fourth, the giver may well-being through exchange – which has been noted in other forms not know the recipient nor be concerned with pleasing that individual. in the literature (Sirgy, 2011). We will demonstrate that Freecycle Similarly, the Freecycle network does not necessarily fitintothe can aid scholars in understanding the value of positive marketing; model of gift-giving proposed by Sherry (1983). In particular, Sherry it serves as a context within which unique exchange phenomena can notes that during the gestation stage or the “period during which the be highlighted. ‘gift’ is transformed from the conceptual to the material realm” (164), In doing such, we address calls to document the structure of “online the donor considers the recipient as he or she determines the nature cooperative arenas” (Belk, 2010, p. 729). By detailing the praxis of of the gift. During this process, the donor engages in both internal and Freecycle, we provide a number of contributions to the positive market- external searches in order to determine the most appropriate gift for ing literature in this area. First, by examining the existing literature on the recipient at hand. However, in the Freecycle Community, the giver gifting and sharing, we introduce a new theoretical prototype of does not know the recipient and does not need to consider the nature sharing. Second, we provide insight on how the structure of online com- of the relationship with the unknown individual. Furthermore, there is munities facilitates mutually beneficial exchange between virtual no direct reciprocal requirement that any members of the Freecycle net- strangers who are not part of one another's intimate economy. Third, work give, receive, and reciprocate the gift (Gouldner, 1960; Mauss, we contribute to the positive marketing literature by describing an ex- 1924; Sherry, 1983). Given this, the Freecycle organization does not change system that ultimately creates mutually beneficial exchange possess the theoretical characteristics consistent with gifting. Instead, and possesses positive higher-order implications to society. That is, as Freecycle may better align with the theoretical understanding sur- products continue to be used rather than terminally disposed, resources rounding the notion of sharing (Belk, 2010). are used more efficiently. In the terms of George Fisk (1974), the reorga- nization of assortments among and between households represents a 2.2. Freecycle resembles some forms of sharing previously unexplored provisioning mechanism. To meet our research goal, our paper is presented in the following Sharing is a fundamental behavior enacted by consumers (Belk, manner. First, we describe the Freecycle Community. Next, we contrast 2010) and an intimate economic activity that exists between consumers the exchange within the Freecycle Community with similar forms of (Price, 1975). As such, sharing—either directly (e.g., Belk, 2007, 2010)or exchange, namely gift giving and sharing, and expand upon the litera- indirectly (i.e., Giesler, 2006; Kozinets, 2002)—has come under in- ture by presenting a new prototype of sharing. Then, we describe the creased interest within marketing academia in recent years. But what method we used to analyze the community of Freecycle. We present a is sharing? According to Belk (2007), sharing is a means of acquiring conceptual model that aids us in describing our discoveries of the struc- and consuming goods as an alternative to purchasing them or receiving tural elements of an on-line exchange community. Our paper concludes them as a gift where “two or more people may enjoy the benefits (or with a description of our contributions to the academic literature and costs) that flow from possessing a thing” (127). Such a definition em- managerial thought. phasizes the joint ownership associated with thinking of a possession as ours rather than mine and yours. Price (1975) defines sharing as the “allocation of economic goods and services without calculating 2. Literature review returns, within an intimate social group, and patterned by the general role structure of that group” (4). Like Belk, Price's definition focuses Freecycle.org is a nonprofit organization developed initially by on joint as opposed to individual ownership, but it does so under the Deron Beal in Tucson, Arizona, as a recycling organization (The rubric of resource allocation. In both definitions, the sharing activity at- Freecycle Network, 2012). The initial idea was to create an efficient tempts to distribute resources in such a way that all individuals within and easy method to allow people to dispose of their unwanted goods the dyad or small group benefit, and the individual or the joint entity by matching them with people who were looking for those goods. In retain ownership. This premise suggests that sharing is a form of a doing so, the useful life of the unwanted goods could be extended. higher-order resource allocation system. But what of a group like the This would provide a potential reduction in the amount of resources de- Freecycle organization where ownership of goods is relinquished by in- voted to construction of new goods and the amount of resources devot- dividuals and effectively transferred to other individuals within the ed to retaining the disposed products in a landfill. Since that time, community? Current conceptualizations of sharing may need to be ex- Freecycle expanded into a network of almost 5000 groups comprised panded in order to more accurately describe the exchange within the of 8.5 million individual global members and volunteer directors. In Freecycle Community. order to understand the Freecycle phenomenon, we outline two sepa- To understand the sharing phenomenon, Belk (2010) presents two rate but distinct theoretical concepts, gifting and sharing. basic metaphors, or prototypes of sharing, rather than a comprehensive,

Please cite this article as: Krush, M.T., et al., Positive marketing: A new theoretical prototype of sharing in an online community, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.037 M.T. Krush et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3 generalized categorization. In the first, the mothering prototype, care is to the community. Hence, this prototype also aligns within Sahlins's given freely to the child by the mother with “no strings attached and no (1972) assumption of generalized reciprocity. expectation of reciprocity or exchange” (717). This prototype also aligns Additionally, just as gift-giving binds the giver to the recipient, generally within Sahlins's (1972) assumption of generalized reciprocity. sharing-out can also bind the parties involved. Where Belk's (2010) pro- For the second prototype, Belk (2010) identifies the familial allocation totypes argue that the bonding occurs between individuals within the of resources prototype where the possessions managed by the family group, the sharing-out prototype may involve such bonding but the are, in effect, jointly owned and maintained by the family. Even though bond may occur between individuals and the community as a whole. a possession like a house or car may be specifically and legally owned by In this sense, sharing with one means sharing with everyone. one individual within the family, the expectation of shared usage and Furthermore, the emotions involved in this type of sharing-out ac- shared maintenance exists within that family. As in the first prototype, tivity differ from the sharing-in activities as described in Widlock there is a degree of generalized reciprocity that shapes this level of shar- (2004) and Belk's (2010) research. At the heart of the mothering and ing. Furthermore, both prototypes are associated with familial relation- household prototypes lies both love and caring. The family that shares ships and the “sharing in” (Widlock, 2004)thatinvolvessharing together tends to love and care for one another. Again, this may not nec- resources with a group of individuals. essarily be the case with the sharing-out metaphor in that individuals At the heart of both sharing prototypes there is the concept of own- may only meet for the exchange, if they meet at all. ership which can be thought of in two distinct ways. First of all, there is Ultimately, the sharing-out prototype complements the individual the legal ownership where the individual retains all legal rights to the focus of the mothering and household pooling prototypes as outlined object and can do with that object what he or she will (Christman, by Belk (2010). The sharing-out prototype is an instance where, though 1991). In this light, the parents own the home that they then share the individual may be sharing with another individual, the community with their children or potentially other members of the family. But is actually the focus of the sharing. The sharing-out metaphor, as applied there is also a level of psychological ownership (Furby, 1978) that to Freecycle, suggests that participants do not necessarily need to know comes into play as well, particularly in the second prototype where one another or be part of an intimate group. Having outlined the theo- the family feels a sense of joint ownership. According to Wilpert retical foundation for sharing, we now move forward with our analysis (1991), this psychological ownership takes place even when legal own- to understand what structures perpetuate sharing in the Freecycle ership of the object may be absent. Hence, a child may feel ownership of Community. the house he or she lives in even though the legal ownership of the house lies with either or both parents (Fowler & Lipscomb, 2010). 3. The study These sharing-in activities are served well by such prototypes and with the conceptualizations of ownership that they contain; however, This study employed a grounded theory approach to understanding sharing can also occur outside such intimate communities, where the Freecycle network, which enabled us to more fully explore the com- sharing is a sharing-out activity. As described previously, online plexity of the network, clarify participants' perspectives, and focus on communities comprise such sharing-out communities. processes and meanings inherent within the culture of that network (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Hatch, 2002; Patton, 2002). Grounded 2.3. Freecycle illustrates a third prototype of sharing theory is a systematic, flexible process that involves inductively developing a theoretical model by analyzing data (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Freecycle may be best described by the sharing-out activities identi- Glaser, 2007; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Kearney, 2007). As a method, fied by Ingold (1987). Sharing-out involves the distribution of posses- grounded theory is intimately tied to the discovery of process within sions, “whereby the stuff held at the outset by a single person is some phenomenon (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2008) and, ultimately, divided up, so as to be available for use by an aggregate of beneficiaries” the development of a substantive theory that is drawn from the data it- (233, emphasis in original). It moves beyond the intimate economy of self (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In other words, researchers inductively the family or other small social system (Price, 1975) and allocates re- develop a theory to fit an unknown situation with unmapped constructs sources to the larger community. Put another way, the assortment and variables (Creswell, 2008). that is situated within the community, but is also spread among the To that end, we began the process of data collection and literature members of that community, gets doled or shared out to those in analysis free in order to prevent a priori themes, hypotheses, or propo- need without the necessity of returning a shared item to the original sitions that could contaminate the researcher's theoretical sensitivity to owner of that item. what the data would reveal (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006; Strauss & Following Ingold (1987), we propose a third potential sharing proto- Corbin, 1998). Unlike more deductive processes, grounded theory typi- type, a prototype we call the sharing-out prototype. For this metaphor of cally begins with the context of study and allows the phenomenon of sharing, the individual who owns the fruits of his or her labor relin- theoretical interest to emerge from that context rather than focusing quishes ownership of those fruits to a larger community of individuals. on the theoretical phenomenon and applying it to contextual situation. For instance, in the open source software community, individuals work Once the sharing phenomenon began to emerge from the data, we either individually or jointly on various software products, like Linux or returned to the literature on sharing and gifting in order to flesh out the original Napster, that are then given away for free (i.e., the original our understanding of that phenomenon. Not only did it lead to recent Napster program). In historical terms, the open range of the American research in those arenas, but it also lead us to the assortment phenom- West involved publically shared resources of land and water to enon that Wroe Alderson (1957) spoke of nearly sixty years ago. support collective herds of individually owned cattle (Mittelstaedt & Mittelstaedt, 2007). Such a metaphor shares many characteristics with 3.1. Data collection the prototypes discussed by Belk (2010) in that the sharing-out prototype is also not necessarily ceremonial, involves singular objects, and To identify and interview individuals who have experienced is money irrelevant; however, many of the characteristics are slightly sharing in the Freecycle community, purposeful (Creswell & Plano different. For instance, where Belk (2010) argues that the mothering Clark, 2007) sampling was used. In this technique, potential re- and household pooling metaphors are nonreciprocal, the sharing-out spondents are chosen in a conscious, intentional way based on in- metaphor appears to be somewhat or semi-reciprocal. There is not formation the individual(s) possesses (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). necessarily an expectation of reciprocation between the two parties in- Hence, the sampling methodology for the study involved the iden- volved but, instead, an opportunity or choice, rather than an expectation tification of individuals who have participated in Freecycle and that if one takes from the community then one can choose to give back could provide in-depth information on the community. Freecycle

Please cite this article as: Krush, M.T., et al., Positive marketing: A new theoretical prototype of sharing in an online community, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.037 4 M.T. Krush et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx users were located through several recruitment strategies includ- “situation where two apparently contradictory tensions appear to be si- ing posting requests for participation on Freecycle boards (after multaneously credible” (O'Driscoll, 2008, p. 96). Further, the structure receiving Freecycle monitor approval), signs at garage sales, and of the Freecycle Community requires the opposing tensions in order other signs posted throughout one community. No incentive was for the system to operate more effectively (Lewis, 2000). Our results de- offered for participation in the survey. The sample was homoge- scribe the incongruous complexity of tensions inherent within the nous (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) in that each individual was in- Freecycle Community (Lewis, 2000) that effectively enable the sharing volved in the Freecycle Community and had experienced sharing within the Freecycle Community. roles within the community. However, age, education, and work After our data analysis, we continued an additional review of the experience ranged widely. Recruitment, interviewing, and coding literature regarding paradox. We found that the paradox lens is a occurred in an iterative manner until theoretical saturation was suitable perspective from which to understand Internet communi- obtained. ties. In fact, numerous studies have looked at paradoxes within the The study dataset included narratives from 57 Freecycle participants Internet community (Kraut et al., 2002; Kraut et al., 1998; LaRose, in five states. A long interview questionnaire was developed and Eastin, & Gregg, 2001; Wilson, Boyer O'Leary, Metiu, & Jett, 2008). pretested (see appendix for questionnaire). The interviews were con- Earlier studies focused on the paradox of how a social technology ducted face-to-face or by telephone by one author and market research used primarily for interpersonal interaction could affect social isola- student assistants supervised by the same author. The research assis- tion while later studies focused on a range of paradoxes including tants were extensively trained on and utilized a standardized set of how people can feel closer to online colleagues than geographically practices for the interview and probing (e.g., Arnold, Reynolds, close colleagues. In our data, Fig. 1 provides a graphic description Ponder, & Lueg, 2005). The interviews ranged from 20 min to 90 min of the tensions. and were conducted from January 2010 to May 2011. The interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed for analysis. The 57 participants included 70% women and 30% men, ranging in age from 20 to 4.1. Paradox one: structure of membership base: dispersed and 65 years old, with an average age of 31 at the time of the interview. Ed- concentrated ucational attainment among the participants in our dataset ranged from high school graduates (30%) to advanced university degrees (3%), with Technology plays a critical function in terms of the Freecycle the majority of participants having college undergraduate degrees Community's membership base. Participants noted the ease of gaining (67%). A slight majority of participants were single (57%). An approxi- membership within the community. Access to the community requires mately equal number of participants were employed in the gainful one major step—that of signing up for a specific Freecycle group hosted workforce (51%) vs. unemployed (49%). The number of participants on Yahoo. For instance, one participant noted the relative ease of joining with children (51%) was about the same as those without children the Freecycle Community. (49%). The majority of the participants were from Wisconsin (79%) “I think it is fairly easy as far as the website and everything, just step by along with participants from Minnesota, Illinois, California, and New step. You get registered and the moderator has the rules up there. I think Hampshire. it's pretty easy. I think the instructions are pretty basic.” (Female 50) 3.2. Data analysis The ease of access and the utilization of Yahoo enable a widely- distributed membership across a number of socio-economic strata, in- Using the systematic steps of data analysis procedures of grounded cluding those who possess education levels ranging from high school theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), two of the to college, and those who were employed and unemployed, to join in authors and a research assistant read the narratives and took notes, seg- both giving and/or receiving roles. Our informants noted: mented the data into phrases and labeled the phrases with code names, collapsed the codes into broad categories, and specified from these “… the Freecycle community has a huge diversity of different types of categories the major components of the grounded theory model. The people from all walks of life. We've seen all different walks of life and process of first open coding the individual lines, followed by inter- economic status ….” (Male 37)“[Freecycle] is for everybody, and it connecting the categories (axial coding), and then building a story doesn't matter if you have a family, or if you're a single person, or a stu- that connects the categories (selective coding) allowed the theoretical dent, or whatever.” (Female 33) propositions to emerge from the data (Creswell, 2013; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis software program, While technology seemingly broadens the diversity of respondents, was used to organize the files and codes during analysis by the re- the resources exchanged require concentration, namely geographic co- searchers. Once all narratives were coded independently by each mem- location. Participants noted their Freecycle Community tended to be ber of the data analysis team, inter-coder agreement reliability checks concentrated in the community in which they reside. We found that were made (Creswell & Miller, 2000). This process consisted of the se- each Freecycle Community is based around a metropolitan area, town, lection of narratives, the independent coding of each narrative by city, or geographic collective. In fact, only two of our 57 participants three researchers, and then a comparison of text segments to see if the researchers coded the segments using the same codes. Using Miles Paradox Freecycle Structure Paradox and Huberman (1994) as a guide with a standard of 90% agreement, I - III IV - VI the researchers found agreement 100% of the time for the general fi Concentration Active code categories, and 94% for the speci ccodes. Membership Base Participation Dispersion Passive 4. Results Autonomy Free Decision Making Resources Exchanged As we analyzed our data to better understand the structural ele- Control Investment ments of an online sharing community, we found a number of opposing Weak Ties Small, Discrete structural elements. Rather than focusing on the differences, we found Relationships Market Structure that it was the combination and simultaneity of these tensions which Strong Ties Large Aggregate aid in perpetuating this sharing. Hence, the structural elements of the Freecycle Community are paradoxical in nature. A paradox describes a Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

Please cite this article as: Krush, M.T., et al., Positive marketing: A new theoretical prototype of sharing in an online community, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.037 M.T. Krush et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5 discussed accessing Freecycle groups located in neighboring areas or Because if they ever notice that, there's something you're not supposed communities. to sell, and if somebody does, there's immediately a response from the moderator saying “this is not appropriate, this is not permitted,” and “Of course with free stuff you don't want to go far to get it, because most “if you ever do this again you're blacklisted.”” (Female 29) “If you don't of it is lower value items.” (Male 54)“For me it's … being able to get abide by [the rules] you can be tossed off or your posting will be pulled other things easily … I can pick this up when the boys wake up and so you know …. There are consequences.” (Female 65) I'm out running errands at 1 pm and I can swing by their house close by and come home with more free stuff.” (Female 44) In effect, the tensions between autonomy and control within the Freecycle Community facilitate the community's decisions. By allowing Our informants described a paradox regarding the membership independence, members are able to select the sharing partner and base. While technology aids the community in creating a wide socio- quickly enact the exchange on an immediate basis. At the same time, economic distribution of members, the products shared required the control and constraints imposed on decisions allows the future geographic concentration. The community is not limited by socio- perpetuation of the greater community. economic boundaries, but instead bound by the ability to physically exchange their assortments. Hence, technology establishes a public space for online groups (Butler, Sproull, Kiesler, & Kraut, 2007) but the 4.3. Paradox 3: relational structure. Maintaining weak ties and perpetuat- actual sharing of the physical product in Freecycle transpires offline. ingstrongties 4.2. Paradox two: decision-making structure: autonomy and control The third set of tensions described the relational structure of the Freecycle Community. Our informants consistently described a structur- Our second paradox reflects the tensions within decision making. In- al paradox of tie strength (Granovetter, 1973). We consistently found formants described the structure of Freecycle as incorporating both evidence of weak tie relationships and strong tie relationships. Whereas values of individual autonomy and choice as well as values of control the former denotes acquaintances with minor interactions and limited and restraint in the exchange. Hence, Freecycle's structure is both expectations surrounding ongoing interactions, the latter describes the decentralized, thereby enabling autonomous action of its members, greater affect between the two actors, liking and ongoing expectations yet at the same time, the structure maintains a degree of restriction, about interactions (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998). control, and restraint imposed by the moderator. When initially describing the relationship structure, our informants Members related that they possess a strong degree of autonomy re- often described the Freecycle Community as comprised of anonymous, garding their sharing behaviors; they choose whether to share or to ask unfamiliar individuals. The relatively loose structure of relationships for a product to be shared. Additionally, the actual sharing and com- appeals to participants. The anonymity signaled a lack of reciprocal mensurate arrangements are made by individual members. Members commitment and minimal expectations in terms of community partici- choose the method of physical exchange some preferring public places pation. Hence, those contributing products to the community under- and others opening their respective homes/locations for the exchange. stand they may contribute without receiving, and those receiving Hence, inherent with the community is a sense of decentralized control acknowledge the potential to receive without any commensurate among members. need of contributing. Therefore, individual-level reciprocity is not “There's nothing monitored … You don't have to participate. Nobody necessarily inherent within sharing. says that you have to give so much or make contacts.” (Female, Yet, the inherent contradiction of the Freecycle Community's rela- 30)“You get to choose who it goes to. You know, some people go straight tionship structure lies in its ability to mitigate the anonymity and pro- down the list to whoever responds first. I tend to pick people who maybe mote relationship-building. While participants appreciate the minimal give me a little bit of something, who maybe give me a phone number, expectations related to the loose, anonymous ties extending among because then I can call them.” (Female, 34) members, they also related the value of strong ties. We found a consistent theme that suggested that the interaction of sharing often perpetu- However, the community's moderator also plays a strong role, as a ated stronger interpersonal connections. In terms of positive marketing, centralized administrator, who imposes constraints and limitations to a similar notion has been found. de Waal Malefyt (2015) noted that the community. Our research suggests the Freecycle Community's mod- interpersonal boundaries are dissipated through sharing. As our respon- erator serves a number of roles. In the gate-keeping role, the moderator dents note: makes the decision of whether or not an individual enters the commu- “You kind of begin to become friends with these people and you can kind nity. In the enforcement role, the moderator ensures adherence to the of share back and forth”. (Female 30)“I've met some other single moms rules on the bulletin board, monitors bulletin board communication, that I've referred them to my mom's group. You start to get to know reminds the community about its rules and potential infractions, and some of the people in your community that way, which is cool”. even reinforces the notion of decentralization. (Female 44)“And it turns out she has a daughter the same age as mine, and a son the same age as mine. So we talked via email for a little bit, “There is no rule about who you give your stuff to. You can give it to and we've been hanging out ever since”. (Female 33) whoever you want to give it to. The moderator is really good about saying ‘this is a reminder…you can give your fish tank to whoever In effect, the tensions between weak and loose ties within the you want.’ It doesn't have to be the first person who responded to me. Freecycle Community facilitate a complex relational structure. By It can be the person who lives the closest. It can be … it doesn't matter allowing the membership at large to participate relatively anony- … whoever you want.” (Female 33) mously, the responsibilities regarding individual-level commitment and expectation of individual-level reciprocity are attenuated. Our Interestingly, we found the participants welcomed the constraints informants suggest this void is an attractive element of the commu- and limitations constructed and communicated by the moderator. nity. At the same time, this anonymity appears to be readily shed by a “I've appreciated the fact that when there's anything that doesn't jive number of participants. The ability to develop longer-term, stronger with the rules that have been clearly stated that they jump right in ties among members is also attractive to informants and serves as a and, and say that's not appropriate, and I think that's good.” (Female basis for continuing their membership in the community. In sum, 29)“The moderators do a really good job of keeping control of it. the weak ties appear to provide acquisition of members into the

4.5. Paradox 5: exchange within the market. The market is constituted by elements of free exchange and transactions costs 4.6. Paradox 6: market structure. Small, discrete sharing enables a large, aggregate exchange Our fifth paradox describes the perceived structure of exchange within the community. Our informants related that the resources Our sixth paradox focuses on the nature of the market. A market has shared were void of charges (e.g., free); yet at the same time, our infor- been described as a provisioning system (Fisk, 1974) in which the hetero- mants described a number of investments devoted to the transaction. geneous, diverse nature of needs creates a number of product solutions The word “free” was consistently communicated in regard to the (Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne, & Mittelstaedt, 2006). In order to describe the transaction, regardless of whether the informant was giving or receiv- Freecycle provisioning system, we found a broad assortment of needs ing. Our analysis found a consistent perception of “free” exchange across and a broad assortment of products exchanged. Participants discussed participants within the Freecycle Community. an array of products and needs that were communicated within the community. Exemplars include baby clothes, plants, appliances such as “So, it's, it's nice to go on there and actually get something and for free, refrigerators and microwave ovens, furniture, computer parts, clothes, and not have to worry about my bank account depleting.” (Male household parts such as doors, riding lawn mowers, ping pong tables, 21).“Instead of thrift saleing, it's kind of like a free saleing.” (Female 31) gardening supplies, books, toys, food, laundry soap, cleaning supplies, and scrap metal. One informant related the divergence of products with However, while participants described the perception of “free” the sharing market. exchange within the community, they also described a number of transaction costs inherent within the process. Interestingly, our informants “You can find anything. I've gotten everything from stacks of papers for did not necessarily consider them costs; however, a number of costs kids to color on, to a bike for a foster child, to a potty trainer. But you can tied to the transaction abounded in our research. find anything and everything, and it's for everyone.” (Female 33) The Freecycle Community is, in effect, a market system, serving as a means of provision of resources. As noted by Coase (1937), transac- While our participants consistently described the breadth of as- tion costs are the expenses in the operation of such a system. sortment, they also related the relatively small number of sharing Not surprisingly, we found consistent forms of transactions costs, transactions in which they have participated. The following two often emanating from behavioral uncertainty within the transaction. comments illustrate the relatively minimal number of sharing ex- Behavioral uncertainty describes, “the degree of difficulty associated changes in which our participants were involved.

“As far as picking things up [receiving], maybe, once a month. [In terms and the system becomes more efﬁcient by increasing outputs with of] putting things on to give to other people, about once a month or fewer inputs. maybe a little bit less.” (Male 54)“Over the last few years, I've only put two things on Freecycle.” (Male 23) 5.2. Freecycle and sharing-out

The Freecycle Community's market structure can be characterized as Freecycle also exemplifies a form of sharing. Our qualitative findings both broad and narrow. While the inventory of needs is, in aggregate, describe the structural characteristics that facilitate the sharing-out extremely broad, the actual exchanges between members are relatively metaphor. First, the sharing-out metaphor proffers that participants narrow. In this sense, the Freecycle community is similar to the tradi- neither need to know one another nor be part of an intimate group. tional agora, a marketplace where diverse people come together to This is a critical distinction from previous sharing prototypes offered meet, socialize, and trade (Mittelstaedt et al., 2006). In order for any in the literature (Belk, 2010). agora to be effective it needs individuals to be involved and interested A number of structures discovered in our data enable this aspect of in participating. The more diverse the wants and needs of the people, sharing-out. The technology used by Freecycle enables the community the larger the number of people needed to participate to make the to serve as the hub of weak and strong ties. The weak-tie structure agora effective. The value of heterogeneous assortment of products aids in creating an opportunity to share, but does not require one be fa- also aligns with the literature on marketing systems, which suggests miliar with the other parties. Similarly, our respondents suggest that the the “assortment or heterogeneous set of goods … offered …is a direct strong ties developed within the network are often developed after the indicator or the success or failure of the system to perform.” (Layton, initial exchange. This suggests the opportunity for more intimate rela- 2011, p. 264). Freecycle has participants with very diverse needs and tionships actually may occur as a result of sharing. The second structure, is effective as participants are able to access the larger aggregate market the participation structure, enables both active and passive monitoring through an online version of a traditional agora. and participation. This allows each participant to effectively choose their level of sharing and reduces the opportunity for more familial or intimate relationships. 5. Discussion The second element of the sharing-out metaphor focuses on the lack of individual-level reciprocity. This is a critical distinction between the 5.1. Freecycle and positive marketing sharing-out metaphor and the gift giving literature (Belk, 1996). In- stead, participants have a choice to decide whether they perceive a gen- From a positive marketing perspective, Freecycle's structure allows eralized sense of reciprocity to the Freecycle Community (Sahlins, marketing “in which parties – individual consumers, marketers and so- 1972). The decision-making structure, autonomy and control, appears ciety as a whole – exchange value such that individually and collectively to attenuate the ability to build norms of reciprocity. For instance, indi- they are better off than they were prior to exchange” (Center for viduals are able to choose their sharing-out partner, the location, and Positive Marketing, 2012). Freecycle indeed meets the qualifications of the time to transfer the good. This decision-making structure allows positive marketing. Freecycle embodies a marketing system that serves participants to share with anonymous partners, if they so choose. In as a provisioning system for society (Fisk, 1974), by providing a broad some instances, our respondents also acknowledged they simply left assortment of heterogeneous goods that meet a broad range of needs the product on the porch of their house. This autonomy can enable an (Layton, 2011), and by improving human welfare through the utiliza- arms-length transaction and thereby reduce the potential for norms of tion of existing resources. In effect, Freecycle serves as a context within reciprocity to develop. Similarly, the moderator does provide controls which to explore positive marketing's evolving role in organizing both by providing reminders and enforcement of the policies to the commu- product assortments and markets (Achrol & Kotler, 1999). nity. In a sense, the moderator provides the general guides needed for Specifically, Freecycle exemplifies a form of a positive marketing sys- the market system and its participants, but the policies enforced by tem that enables greater efficiency and greater human welfare on an in- the moderator do not necessarily facilitate norms of reciprocity. Similar- dividual and collective level. In positive marketing systems, goods and ly, the structure of the resources exchanged (i.e., perceived as free yet services are the inputs, while the desired output is improved quality requiring investment) appears to also reduce the norms of individual- of life. System efficiency can be achieved in two ways: by improving level reciprocity. The givers and receivers both perceive the transaction the ability of the system to organize itself to use inputs more effectively to be free of monetary obligation. As such, the community can effective- and by minimizing the inputs necessary to achieve a desired level of ly perpetuate the sharing-out of goods without reciprocal expectations output. Freecycle networks facilitate the first form of efficiency by im- Finally, the sharing-out metaphor does not necessarily involve the proving the ability of existing objects to be re-assorted among house- underlying theme of love and caring that has been asserted within the holds. Through Freecycle, individuals are able to reduce or increase mothering and household sharing prototypes in the literature (Belk, the assortment of their personal goods through both dispossession 2010). The lack of emotional relationships is enabled by Freecycle's so- and acquisition, to solve their household needs, and to enable their re- cially diverse but geographically concentrated membership structure. spective lifestyles. At the system level, as more households participate While each Freecycle Community is located in a local area, the value of in Freecycle, this re-assortment of goods enables the betterment of proximity does not appear to increase love and caring between partici- this household collective, and thereby, society. pants. The value of geographic concentration appears to ease transfer- Freecycle networks also facilitate the second form of system efficien- ring products rather than perpetuating emotional relationships. cy because re-use of existing goods allows households in the aggregate Additionally, the diversity of socio-economic strata may plausibly re- to achieve a level of quality of life with fewer inputs. Objects sit in hous- duce personal similarity and thereby attenuate the opportunity for es, apartments, and storage units as dead inventory because the transac- emotional relationships between community members. tions costs associated with finding them new homes exceed their value to someone else. Because inventory is broadly held, the costs of transac- 5.3. Contribution to theory tion involve searching and sorting, rather than price. The Freecycle network meets the classic functions of channel intermediaries (i.e., the The purpose of this paper is to understand positive marketing vis-a- marketer) by matching providers and receivers, sorting and assorting, vis exchange in re-assortment. To do so, our qualitative research delved maintaining the flow of goods and information, and thereby, reducing into the structural characteristics of the online community, Freeycle, the costs of the transaction (Alderson, 1957). By reducing the transac- that enabled the means of re-assortment through sharing. In doing so, tion costs, the goods are further used, rather than terminally disposed, the contribution of our research takes many forms.

First, we present an analysis of a positive marketing system. recent publications (Botsman & Rogers, 2011) indicate that sharing will Freecycle provides one lens of positive marketing, that of a practice in- become part of the popular business press's zeitgeist. We believe that novation (Gopaldas, 2015). In effect, Freecycle has evolved into a sharing-out possesses a number of specific managerial implications for consumer-led network that has created an “assemblage of existing businesses. and new materials, meanings, and competences,” (Gopaldas, 2015 p. Freecycle demonstrates a segment of consumers are actively em- 9). The Freecycle community's practices enable greater efficiency of bracing a form of sharing goods without the expectation of monetary household assortments through sharing-out. Further, this unique exchange. Our analysis and research context demonstrates that a num- consumer-led practice innovation (Gopaldas, 2015) may serve as a cat- ber of consumers are integrating sharing-out into their script of con- alyst “that slowly changes the moral landscape that matters for positive sumption behaviors. As such, sharing-out may provide managerial marketing practice,” (Stoeckl & Luedicke, 2015 p. 20). challenges and opportunities. For instance, sharing-out may plausibly Second, we contribute to our collective understanding of exchange provide a new competitive force to firms. As economies tighten, restric- and positive marketing. Scholars have noted the Spartan attention tions on monetary spending within the family or individual unit impact paid to sharing as a means of economic exchange (Belk, 2010). Belk the ability to consume through traditional acquisition. Sharing-out en- notes that “sharing outside of the immediate family is where the phe- ables households to acquire goods without a monetary transaction or nomenon of sharing becomes the most interesting and has the greatest a retail intermediary. Similarly, technological forces may also enable social and theoretical implications” (p. 725). Similarly, Mittelstaedt, greater levels of sharing-out and provide unique business challenges. Kilbourne, and Schultz (2015) challenge scholars to understand the As product quality has increased, the ability to share-out products has means through which sharing deliver value to consumers and society. expanded. In effect, sharing-out communities, such as Freecycle, expand Our study meets this call by scholars, as we develop further the notion the lifespan of products. However, the unintended consequence lies in of sharing-out that was described by Ingold (1987) and Woodburn its economic impact for businesses. For every product shared, a (1998). We offer a new prototype that may be incorporated into the purchase may be missed by retail and discount outlets, as consumers literature's existing prototypes of sharing (Belk, 2010). The sharing- substitute sharing-out products instead of acquiring new products. out prototype offers a distinct contribution as it represents sharing Yet sharing-out also offers opportunities for firms. As noted by within a community, rather than within a family. Further, we submit Stoeckl and Luedicke (2015) certain marketing practices may enable that the sharing-out prototype provides a new theoretical understand- “positive company community relations that serve both, company and ing of the Freecycle Community, that is distinct from the gifting litera- community goals,” (p. 16). To capitalize on sharing-out, firms may ture (Nelson et al., 2007). need to reconsider the horizon of their relationship with their products. Our third contribution emanates from our analysis on the basic struc- If goods have multiple lives, producers should find ways to play a role in tural elements of an online sharing community, known as Freecycle. Our more than the initial sales cycle. For example, strollers and high chairs ability to detail six structural elements used by the Freecycle online are common objects that are often shared in Freecycle. These examples community enhances the literature's understanding of online sharing. point to the opportunity to play in sharing-out and positive marketing. Our structural assessment is distinct from previous forms of sharing re- By embracing sharing-out, manufacturers of these goods could plausi- search that have examined the open-source software projects that offer bly interject themselves into a similar positive marketing system. For in- evidence of individuals sharing their time and effort (Hemetsberger, stance, manufacturers could rent, lease, or re-manufacture the stroller 2002, 2006; Lakhani & von Hippel, 2002; Stewart, 2005), the use of the (Mont, Dalhammar, & Jacobsson, 2006) and effectively re-assert them- Internet in sharing music and movies (Doane, 2006; Giesler, 2006), shar- selves in the channel by aiding with households with the assortment ing themselves (Schau & Gilly, 2003), and even sharing experiences of their goods. Such a business practice would enable firms to aid house- ranging from online gaming (Waskul & Lust, 2004)tosexualbehavior holds with the re-assortment of their goods and effectively enable a (Merkle & Richardson, 2000), as well as research on virtual communities more efficient system. The emergence of sharing-out and its application (Chan & Li, 2010; Wu, Chen, & Chung, 2010). Our assessment adds to the to the Freecycle Community offers firms the opportunity to rethink their critical perspective of positive marketing (Mittelstaedt et al., 2015), in business models, for their own betterment and the betterment of that it examines the structural aspects required to distribute repurposed society. goods within an online community. Additionally, our research reflects that sharing-out communities Finally, our investigation of the Freecycle movement provides a may possess unique structural requirements. Our results suggest a unique contribution to the notion of community in the marketing litera- number of tensions may be simultaneously managed. Managers could ture. Much like the alternative economies described by Giesler (2006), examine the nature of contradictions and leverage best practices from Kozinets (2002), and Sherry (1990), the Freecycle organization offers our research. As such, we meet scholars' calls for additional analysis of an alternative to the traditional marketplace that individuals take as a various structures and forms of virtual communities that aids compa- given. The study of Freecycle differs, however, from these and other stud- nies and firms (Laroche, 2010). iesinanimportantaspect.WhereGiesler (2006) focuses on filesharing as a gifting economy, Sherry (1990) focuses on the flea market as an 6. Future research possibilities and limitations alternative exchange phenomenon, and Kozinets (2002) examines Burn- ing Man as an apparent hybrid of the two, the examination of Freecycle Our research enables many lines for future research. First, consider- offers an example of a sharing community. The unique distinction is ing a number of communities utilize sharing in some form, including that there is no expectation of direct reciprocity. An individual can join that of online communities, an opportunity exists to explore the unique the community to share a set of tools or other goods that are no longer structural characteristics of these communities and determine whether needed and never take anything in return. Conversely, individuals can the same or additional structural characteristics perpetuate sharing. join the community and acquire goods without leaving any in return. Second, sharing-out may be applied to other forms of sharing. Sharing-out could be tested, applied, and improved in its application 5.4. Managerial contribution of sharing within other on- and offline communities. Third, the Freecycle Community provides an excellent example of a For managers, the sharing within the Freecycle Community represents sharing-out community while the sharing prototypes provided by an important form of exchange and the value of positive marketing. The Belk (2010) appear to show how familial units are excellent examples community demonstrates an emerging form of exchange—sharing-out. of the sharing-in effort. Is there a hybrid of the two, or is there some This form of exchange is becoming a force, as some suggest the potential other version of the sharing phenomenon not accounted for in this economic value of the “sharing economy” (Sacks, 2011). Similarly, other and other research? For instance, Amazon.com has opened an eBook

Please cite this article as: Krush, M.T., et al., Positive marketing: A new theoretical prototype of sharing in an online community, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.037 M.T. Krush et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 9 lending library for users of its Kindle reading device who are also Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: Sage Publications. Amazon.com Prime members. For such members, Amazon.com is es- de Waal Malefyt, T. (2015). Relationship advertising: How advertising can enhance social sentially sharing books with the reader at no extra charge. This appears bonds. Journal of Business Research. to be a commercially generated sharing phenomenon that may not ex- Doane, R. (2006, June). Digital desire in the daydream machine. Sociological Theory, 24, fi 150–169. actly t within the prototypes provided here. Future research can focus Fisk, G. (1974). Marketing and the ecological crisis. New York: Harper & Row. on this and other sharing activities, particularly as it pertains to com- Fowler, A.R., III, & Lipscomb, C.A. (2010, April). Building a sense of home in rented spaces. mercial efforts. Finally, the Freecycle Community contains over 8 million International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 3,100–118. participants. The community has accomplished this level of participa- Furby, L. (1978). Sharing: Decisions and moral judgments about letting others use one's possessions. Psychological Reports, 43,595–609. tion primarily through word-of-mouth communication. Future research Giesler, M. (2006, September). Consumer gift systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, could evaluate the means through which participation is sparked in a 283–290. positive marketing system. Glaser, B.G. (2007). Doing formal grounded theory: A proposal. CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for We also acknowledge a number of limitations within our study. In qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. terms of methods, we used a qualitative study. While qualitative studies Gopaldas, A. (2015). Creating firm, customer, and societal value: Toward a theory of allow a deeper understanding of the context, the results cannot be gen- positive marketing. Journal of Business Research. Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociolog- eralized to the general population. In terms of context, the Freecycle ical Review, 25,176–177. Community is an online community. A number of distinct online com- Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), munities exist and the sharing that occurs may be very different. For in- 1360–1380. Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. NY: State Univ of New stance, Freecycle participants tend to share various physical products. York Press. However, non-physical goods and services, (e.g., the traditional form Hemetsberger, A. (2002). Fostering cooperation on the internet: Social exchange process- of services) may also be shared within online communities. Hence, the es in innovative virtual consumer communities. In S.M. Broniarczyk, & K. Nakamot (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 354–355). Provo UT: Association for nature of the community may constrain the generalizability of our Consumer Research. results. Hemetsberger, A. (2006). When David becomes Goliath: Ideological discourse in new online consumer movements. Advances in Consumer Research, 33,494–500. 7. Conclusion Ingold, T. (1987). The appropriation of nature: Essays on human ecology and social relations. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kearney, M.H. (2007). From the sublime to the meticulous: The continuing evolution of Positive marketing champions the value of mutually beneficial grounded formal theory. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, Vol. 1, London: exchange (Center for Positive Marketing, 2012). We suggest that SAGE. Kilbourne, W.E., & Mittelstaedt, J.D. (2012). From profligacy to sustainability: Can we get sharing-out provides an intriguing lens through which to view such there from here? Transforming the ideology of consumption. In D.G. Mick, S. exchange. Our research focused on developing an understanding of Pettigrew, C. Pechmann, & J.L. Ozanne (Eds.), Transformative consumer research for – sharing within an online community. The Freecycle Community pro- personal and collective well-being (pp. 283 300). New York: Routledge. Kozinets, R.V. (2002, June). Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illumina- vides insight as to how modern consumers engage in a sharing activity tions from burning man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29,20–38. with virtual strangers and provides insight on the structural character- Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet istics that facilitate sharing. paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58,49–74. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psycho- References logical well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. Lakhani, K.R., & von Hippel, E. (2002). How open source software works: ‘Free’ user-to- Achrol, R.S., & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the network economy. Journal of Marketing, user assistance. Research Policy, 23,923–943. 63,146–163. Laroche, M. (2010). Advances in consumer behavior and marketing strategy: Introduction Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action. Homewood, Illinois: to the special issue. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 1015–1017. Richard D. Irwin, Inc. LaRose, R., Eastin, M.S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the internet paradox: Social cog- Arnold, J.A., Reynolds, K.E., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J.E. (2005). Customer delight in a retail con- nitive explanations of Internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(2) text: Investigating delightful and terrible shopping experiences. Journal of Business (online http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/paradox.html). Research, 58,1132–1145. Layton,R.(2011).Towards a theory of marketing systems. European Journal of Marketing, Bardhi, F., & Arnould, E.J. (2005). Thrift shopping: Combining utilitarian thrift and 45,259–276. hedonic treat benefits. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(4), 223–233. Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy Belk, R. (1996). The perfect gift. In C. Otnes, & R.F. Beltramini (Eds.), Gift giving: A research of Management Review, 25,760–776. anthology. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press. Mauss, M. (1924). Essai sur la don, forme archaique de l'echange. Année Sociologique, 1, Belk, R. (2007, May). Why not share rather than own? Annals of the American Academy of 30–186. Political and Social Science, 611,126–140. Merkle, E.R., & Richardson, R.A. (2000, April). Digital dating and virtual relating: Concep- Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. tualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49,187–192. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What's mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook changing the way we live. London: Collins. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Brass, D.J., Butterfield, K.D., & Skaggs, B.C. (1998, January). Relationships and unethical be- Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded havior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23,14–31. theory: Implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (1st ed.). 12(1), 8–13. London: SAGE. Mittelstaedt, J.D., Kilbourne, W.E., & Mittelstaedt, R.A. (2006). Macromarketing as Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2007). Community effort in online groups: Who agorology: Macromarketing theory and the study of the agora. Journal of does the work and why? Human–Computer Interaction Institute, Paper 90. Macromarketing, 26(2), 131–142. Center for Positive Marketing (2012). Retrieved January 1, 2012 http://www. Mittelstaedt, J.D., Kilbourne, W.E., & Schultz, C.J. (2015). Macromarketing approaches to centerforpositivemarketing.org/ thought development in positive marketing: Two perspectives on a research agenda Chan, K., & Li, S.Y. (2010). Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in virtual for positive marketing scholars. Journal of Business Research. communities: The salience of reciprocity. Journal of Business Research, 63,1033–1040. Mittelstaedt, R.A., & Mittelstaedt, J.D. (2007). Open source and open range: Establishing Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative and maintaining property rights in the public domain. Proceedings of the 2007 analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Macromarketing Conference: Macromarketing and Development: Building Bridges and Christman, J. (1991, Feb). Self-ownership, equality, and the structure of property rights. Forging Alliances, Washington, DC. Political Theory, 19,28–46. Mont, O., Dalhammar, C., & Jacobsson, N. (2006). A new business model for baby prams Coase, R.H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica NS, 4,386–405. based on leasing and product remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, Corbin, J.M., & Strauss, A.L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, 14(17), 1509–1518. CA: Sage. Nelson, M.R., Rademacher, M.A., & Paek, H.J. (2007, May). Downshifting consumer = Creswell, J.W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods upshifting citizen? An examination of a local freecycle community. Annals of the approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611,141–156. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and reseach design: Choosing among the five O'Driscoll, A. (2008). Exploring paradox in marketing: Managing ambiguity towards approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. synthesis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(2), 95–104. Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: – Into Practice, 39,124 131. Sage Publications, Inc.

Price, J.A. (1975). Sharing: The integration of intimate economics. Anthroplogica, 17(1), Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal 3–27. of Mixed Methods Research, 1,77. Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J.B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future The Freecycle Network™ (2012). Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://www.freecycle. applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 30–54. org Sacks, D. (2011). The sharing economy. Retrieved Dec. 19, 2011 from FastCompany.com/ Waskul, D., & Lust, M. (2004, Summer). Role-playing and playing roles: The person, magazine/155/the-sharing-economy.html player, and persona in fantasy role-playing. Symbolic Interaction, 27,333–356. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Widlock, T. (2004). Sharing by default: Outline of an anthropology of virtue. Anthropological Schau, H.J., & Gilly, M.C. (2003). We are what we post? Self‐presentation in personal web Theory, 4(1), 53–70. space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404. Wilpert, B. (1991). Property, ownership, and participation: On the growing contradictions Sherry, J.F., Jr. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer between legal and psychological concepts. In R. Russell, & V. Rus (Eds.), International Research, 10(2), 157–168. handbook of participation in organizations: For the study of organizational democracy, Sherry, J.F., Jr. (1990). A sociocultural analysis of a midwestern American flea market. co-operation, and self-management (pp. 149–164). New York: Oxford University Press. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 13–30. Wilson, J.M., Boyer O'Leary, M., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q.R. (2008). Perceived proximity in Shultz, C.J., II, Burkink, T.J., Grbac, B., & Renko, N. (2005). When policies and marketing virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29,979. systems explode: An assessment of food marketing in the war-ravaged Balkans and Woodburn, J. (1998). Sharing is not a form of exchange: An analysis of property-sharing implications for recovery, sustainable peace and prosperity. Journal of Public Policy in immediate-return hunter–gatherer societies. In C.M. Hann (Ed.), Property relations: &Marketing, 24(1), 24–37. Renewing the anthropological tradition (pp. 48–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Sirgy, M. (2011). Theoretical perspectives guiding QOL indicator projects. Social Indicators Press. Research, 103(1), 1–22. Wu,J.,Chen,Y.,&Chung,Y.(2010).Trust factors influencing virtual community Stewart, D. (2005, October). Social status in an open-source community. American members: A study of transaction communities. Journal of Business Research, 63, Sociological Review, 70,823–842. 1025–1032. Stoeckl, V.E., & Luedicke, M.K. (2015). Doing well while doing good? An integrative review of marketing criticism and response. Journal of Business Research. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.