The Implications of The Sharing Economy for Public Relations Theory and Practice: A Thematic Analysis of Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit

Andrew Knight

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Communication

Nneka Logan (chair) John Tedesco Megan Duncan

May 10, 2021 Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: public relations, sharing economy, communication, relationship management theory

The Implications of The Sharing Economy for Public Relations Theory and Practice: A Thematic Analysis of Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit

Andrew Knight

ABSTRACT (academic)

This thesis presents a public relations perspective of the sharing economy by exploring how three prominent sharing economy companies, Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit, communicate to form a relationship with key stakeholders, including customers and service providers. Employing a qualitative, thematic analysis, this study analyzed each company’s website communication and found the relationship qualities of social trust, safety and support to be prominent elements of relationships communicated by each company. Serving as one of the only public relations studies to address the sharing economy, this thesis extends relationship management theory’s application to a new socioeconomic movement and situates current sharing economy research in a new context of public relations. This study provides important communication insights for organizations in the sharing economy that rely on strong organization-public relationships in order to be successful, and it unites public relations and sharing economy research.

The Implications of The Sharing Economy for Public Relations Theory and Practice: A Thematic Analysis of Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit

Andrew Knight

ABSTRACT (non-academic)

This thesis provides the academic discipline of public relations with a new context for understanding the way organizations communicate relationships with the general public and their customers or independent workers (gig workers) in a new environment called the sharing economy. The sharing economy has dramatically altered the way people consume products and services, as it allows people to temporarily share goods and services with strangers through an online platform. The study analyzes three prominent sharing economy companies, Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit, to explore this new, peer-to-peer business model. Through analyzing each company’s website communication, the study revealed that companies in the sharing economy communicate the relationship qualities of social trust, safety and support with the public.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4

Overview of Sharing Economy Companies ...... 4

Overview of the Sharing Economy ...... 9

Defining the Sharing Economy ...... 11

Components of The Sharing Economy ...... 23

Public Relations in The Sharing Economy ...... 43

Relationship Management Theory ...... 45

METHOD ...... 63

FINDINGS ...... 72

DISCUSSION ...... 88

LIMITATIONS ...... 102

CONCLUSION ...... 104

REFERENCES ...... 107

Appendix A...... 119

List of Figures

FIGURE 1...... 13

FIGURE 2...... 56

FIGURE 3...... 73

iv IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Introduction

As the internet continues to become more accessible for communities around the world and in the U.S., the opportunity to gain knowledge, spread ideas and communicate instantaneously with one another has opened the door for people to share their underutilized assets and services with others through organized online platforms. By engaging online social networks, organizations have taken advantage of increased internet capabilities and created platforms where people are able to share their goods and services with others conveniently, an idea that has led the way to the economic movement called the sharing economy (Botsman &

Rogers, 2011). The movement has not received significant research attention in the field of public relations, and it requires further study because the sharing economy poses important new challenges to public relations theory and practice. As organizations utilizing the sharing economy platform attempt to form two key relationships: one with the customers (including potential customers) and one with the service providers (who are deemed independent contractors and not full-time employees but often communicated to in a way that blurs the line), and who constitute a new stakeholder group created by the sharing economy, it is imperative to explore how the sharing economy changes the ways organizations communicate to establish and maintain relationships.

To assess how organizations in the sharing economy attempt to form relationships with two dynamic publics, this study explores how three prominent sharing economy companies,

Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit, communicate to establish relationships with the selected publics—customer and service provider—through their websites. This study examines Airbnb and Uber because they are the two largest revenue-generating sharing economy companies and dominate two of the biggest industries in the sharing economy: travel and ride sharing (Rooney,

1 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

2019; Schor, 2016). TaskRabbit, which provides a platform where customers can access temporary skilled workers to do odd jobs, was chosen because it is a smaller company in a smaller industry. Including Task Rabbit allows this study to explore how a smaller, less dominant, sharing economy company uses communication to establish and maintain relationships with key publics as compared to larger, more dominant sharing economy companies.

Forming and maintaining mutually beneficial organization-public relationships is a fundamental goal of relationship management in public relations (Ferguson, 2018; Ledingham &

Bruning, 1998; Hon & Grunig, 1999) that also aligns with the business objectives of sharing economy companies (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Although the sharing economy is becoming increasingly prevalent and has important implications for public relations, only one public relations study has addressed the movement. Gregory and Halff (2017) explored the role of public relations in the sharing economy using the circuit of commerce model of communication.

However, more research on the sharing economy is needed in public relations theory. Because relationships are central to public relations and to the sharing economy, this study will broadly draw upon relationship management theory to explore the implications of the sharing economy for public relations theory and practice.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the implications of the sharing economy for relationship management theory by analyzing the website communications of several sharing economy organizations. To accomplish its purpose, the thesis addressed the following research questions:

1. How do sharing economy companies communicate to establish relationships with their

publics, including customers and service providers?

2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

2. What are the main differences and similarities in how Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit

communicate with their service provider and customer publics?

3. How should relationship management theory respond to the sharing economy?

To address the research questions, the thesis employed an inductive thematic analysis of public relations artifacts found on the websites of Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit. Each company’s website homepage, service provider-facing pages and customer-facing pages were analyzed, coded and organized into themes that explain how each sharing economy company attempts to communicate to establish and maintain relationships with the selected publics.

This thesis contributes to public relations theory by expanding the focus of relationship management theory to the theoretical terrain of the sharing economy. At the same time, it fills a gap in sharing economy literature by incorporating a public relations perspective to explore how sharing economy companies communicate to establish and maintain relationships with key stakeholders. The study begins with a literature review that commences with an overview of the three sharing economy companies that are the focus of the thesis. Next, an overview of the sharing economy is provided before several definitions are presented. Key components of the sharing economy – including reviews and stakeholders – are discussed next, followed by scholarly criticisms of the sharing economy. Then, scholarship addressing public relations in the sharing economy is reviewed, followed by a presentation of relationship management literature.

After the literature review, the methods section is presented and describes how the thesis employs a thematic analysis to address its research questions. The findings are presented and followed with a discussion that leads into this study’s conclusion. This thesis is a productive contribution to public relations and sharing economy research because it expands the application of a public relations theory to a socially-mediated technological phenomenon – the sharing

3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY economy – that deserves careful attention. This thesis also opens up new opportunities for relationship management theory scholars to consider when examining relationships of sharing economy companies, as it provides a necessary communication perspective for other disciplines exploring the sharing economy.

Literature Review

Overview of Sharing Economy Companies

Airbnb

Airbnb was founded in 2008 by two friends, Joe Gebbia and Brian Chesky, who had an idea of renting out an extra room in their San Francisco apartment building during a popular industrial design conference (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). After a successful night hosting some visiting industrial designers, the two friends decided to take the idea a bit further and officially created Airbnb. The online accommodation platform, Airbnb, has taken off and revolutionized the travel and hospitality industry by utilizing the sharing economy, where individual users can share their entire home or part of their home to other individuals through an online platform

(Guttentag, 2015; Gallagher, 2017; Botsman & Rogers, 2011). The name, Airbnb, was created from the idea that anyone with the internet (Air) and an empty room (bnb) could host an accommodation wherever they were living or had empty space. Currently, Airbnb has over 7 million listings worldwide and spans over 1,000 cities and 191 countries around the world

(Airbnb, n.d.-a). Airbnb has 13,346 employees, and its corporate headquarters is located in San

Francisco, California with 27 additional corporate offices located across 19 countries worldwide.

Despite a year of limited travel and corresponding loss of revenue in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Airbnb announced its IPO in December of 2020 pricing its initial shares at $146 per share (Lerman, 2020). This announcement came after Airbnb reported that its losses grew to

4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

$674 million in 2020, which is an important finding, as the company has yet to bring in profit since its creation in 2008. However, despite a lack of profit, Airbnb brings in approximately $3.6 billion in revenue each year (Craft, n.d.-a). Airbnb’s mission is to “create a world where anyone can belong anywhere” (Airbnb, n.d.-b, Careers at Airbnb, para. 1). By focusing on expanding access to travel for all people through sharing, the company encourages everyone to feel empowered to use their spaces to be entrepreneurs. Co-founder, Brian Chesky, explains the mission statement: “At the heart of our mission is the idea that people are fundamentally good and every community is a place where you can belong” (Airbnb, n.d.-c, Diversity, para. 2).

Airbnb has become successful in the hospitality industry because of a variety of new affordances created by the sharing economy. The company is described as a disruptive innovation in the hospitality and tourism industry, as ordinary people living in different places around the world can rent out their entire living space or an empty room to others at much cheaper prices and in more convenient locations compared to traditional hotels (Guttentag,

2015). Guests and hosts are also able to communicate instantaneously with one another on the company’s mobile app and website when interested in booking a stay. Traditional features of an accommodation are listed on each space’s page, and guests are encouraged to ask any questions they may have about an accommodation before booking (Guttentag, 2015). While previous travel and vacation accommodation websites such as VRBO and HomeAway existed before Airbnb, and allowed home owners to rent their entire house to guests, these platforms did not give everyday people the opportunity to rent out a single room or portion of their house to guests in an interactive way as found on Airbnb’s website (Gallagher, 2017; Guttentag, 2015). Airbnb’s platform also allows hosts to share individual bedrooms in their current home with the understanding that the common areas like the kitchen and bathroom will be communal. As the

5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY current industry leader, Airbnb became successful because the company focused on sharing urban homes and apartments that were not strictly people’s second home or vacation rental properties which are often located in exotic locations far from major cities (Gallagher, 2017).

Additionally, the average Airbnb host can expect to make around $924 a month, and a survey found that 82% of hosts believe that Airbnb serves as a good way to make money (Leonhardt,

2019). On Airbnb’s website, the company shows how their fees compare to other home sharing websites, and the page reveals that they only charge a 3-5% host service fee per booking compared to HomeAway which charges 5% and Booking.com which charges 15-20%. Airbnb also provides a $1 million protection insurance for property damage (Airbnb, n.d.-d).

Uber

Founded in March of 2009 by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp who were unable to find a ride while traveling to Paris, Uber was developed as a mobile app that lets people simply tap a button to locate a ride nearest them (Uber, n.d.-a). The first ever Uber trip took place in San

Francisco, and the site was launched internationally in December of 2011. Currently, Uber has over 22,000 employees and has 91 million monthly active platform customers with an additional

3.9 million drivers (Uber, n.d.-b). Uber is the industry leader in ride sharing, and to date, there have been over 10 billion trips completed on the platform across 63 different countries and more than 700 cities (Uber, n.d.-b). Over 14 million trips are completed each day, and the company has expanded its services to include food delivery and freight services. Uber’s corporate headquarters are located in San Francisco, California along with 74 additional corporate offices spanning across 34 countries (Craft, n.d.-b). Uber brings in $14.1 billion in revenue each year and is publicly held. The company’s mission statement reads, “We ignite opportunity by setting the world in motion,” and supporting information follows:

6 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Good things happen when people can move, whether across town or toward their dreams.

Opportunities appear, open up, become reality. What started as a way to tap a button to

get a ride has led to billions of moments of human connection as people go all kinds of

places in all kinds of ways with the help of our technology. (Uber, n.d.-b, Company info,

para. 1).

Uber drivers are able to work at the times most convenient for them, resulting in a low opportunity cost of time (Wallsten, 2015). While Uber boasts that drivers in New York City make a median income of $90,000 per year, an independent study found that Uber drivers on average make around $364 a month (Paul, 2017). Additionally, Uber’s success as the industry leader in the taxi and ride-sharing market can be attributed to breaking down barriers of entry for new drivers. For example, cities such as New York have limits on the total number of taxi drivers allowed in the city, and these limits had not applied to rideshare services like Uber.

Uber’s impact on traditional taxi services has not been met with support for these full-time conventional drivers, and a report by The Economist in 2014 showed that conventional, yellow cab taxi rides in New York have decreased 22% between 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. (Macmillan &

Demos, 2015). By circumventing the official taxi protocols and utilizing advanced technology,

Uber entered cities and previously controlled markets with relative ease, contributing to their ongoing success (Wallsten, 2015). Uber has expanded access to ride sharing services in geographic locations that were previously ignored, and is enabling more people to be able to travel to work from the outskirts of major cities such as New York (Kim, Baek & Lee, 2018).

TaskRabbit

With a mission of “working to make everyday life easier for everyday people”

(TaskRabbit, 2020b), TaskRabbit has capitalized on the improved availability of the internet and

7 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY helps “connect people with trusted, reliable Taskers from local communities who can help get work done in and around the home” (TaskRabbit, 2020b, Fact sheet, para. 1). TaskRabbit corporate headquarters are located in San Francisco, California, and the company has 875 active employees (LinkedIn, n.d.). The company was founded in 2008 and is privately held. Users can find Taskers, the people who can perform various types of temporary, skilled labor, to help them make home repairs, assemble furniture, provide moving services, perform house cleaning or even run errands. TaskRabbit has created a space where yesterday’s handy worker has become today’s Tasker. TaskRabbit is currently operating in six countries—the United States, the United

Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain—and the company has helped over 4 million tasks be completed using its online platform. Taskers working in the U.S. can expect to make around $36 per hour and can perform the jobs whenever is most convenient for their schedules

(TaskRabbit, 2020).

Additionally, the company takes pride in providing services that “strengthens communities by helping neighbors find work and a place to call home,” (TaskRabbit, n.d.-a,

TaskRabbit for good, para. 1). TaskRabbit helps support community initiatives by giving grants to local nonprofits and encouraging Taskers to volunteer with nonprofits in different areas. The company asserts that it has donated over 18,000 bags of goods to local charities and had Taskers volunteer over 740 hours collectively.

Having provided an overview of the three sharing economy companies that are the focus of this thesis, the following section will define the sharing economy and describe how the

“sharing economy” term has evolved over time through its application to many different industries. To explain its rapid development, the following section will show how the sharing economy has gone from being a convenient online space where people casually exchanged used

8 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY items, (i.e., eBay) and evolved into a disruptive innovation changing the way business is conducted.

Overview of the Sharing Economy

The origins of the sharing economy stem from the ideas of communal sharing and a return to a more collectivist culture. For example, in addition to providing a convenient way to make extra money, the global trend toward sustainability has resulted in a societal desire to reduce the consumption of goods and services, and communities around the world are finding innovative ways to cut back their consumption habits and lessen their impact on environmental degradation through increased sharing of products and services (Albinsson & Perera, 2012).

Communities have been sharing and lending products and services to one another for centuries; however, the face-to-face aspect of the exchanges are now being replaced with online platforms that enable more large-scale collaboration and communication between users (Botsman &

Rogers, 2011). Botsman and Rogers (2011) assert that “technology is reinventing old forms of trust,” (p. xiv) and state that new technology in the world of sharing is going to “become the default way people exchange things, whether it is space, stuff, skills or service,” (p. xiv). With increased access to the internet, individuals around the world are now able to connect to others more easily and participate in what is known as collaborative consumption — “traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting and swapping, redefined through technology and peer communities” (Botsman & Rogers, 2011, p. xv). The growing phenomenon of communal sharing, conceptualized as collaborative consumption, has led to the creation of the

‘sharing economy,’ which benefits users by giving them access to unused resources at a much cheaper price. The sharing economy also gives users an opportunity to make social connections with their community. Additionally, the sharing economy is perceived as being environmentally

9 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY friendly, as the reduction of consumption reduces waste and increases production efficiency by extending the life of products and services (Botsman & Rogers, 2011).

Many different types of businesses in various industries use the sharing economy business model. Examples include: sharing cars through Zipcar and Turo; giving away unwanted items on Freecycle and ReUseIt; selling used items on Craigslist and eBay; exchanging books and DVDs on Swap and OurSwaps; sharing bikes through Velib; sharing tractors in community- supported agriculture cooperatives on Hello Tractor; sharing open couches for housing accommodations on CouchSurf; performing short-term tasks for odd jobs on TaskRabbit; lending open land to gardeners through Shared Earth; sharing lakes, ponds and private forest for people to fish and hunt recreationally through Outdoor Access; renting open rooms, homes and apartments through Airbnb; transforming underutilized cars into taxis through Uber providing temporary skilled labor through TaskRabbit (Botsman & Rogers, 2011).

Botsman and Rogers (2011) break down collaborative consumption into three categories of sharing: product service systems—where customers rent various products for temporary use, items that they do not need to own for the long term, such as cars, expensive power tools and children’s toys on websites such as Turo, sparetoolz and ToyLibrary; redistribution markets— where people sell unneeded goods on websites like Flippid and eBay, or give away items on websites such as Freecyle or Kashless, or a combination of both, on sites like Gumtree, Nextdoor and Craigslist; and lastly, collaborative lifestyle-based sharing—where like-minded people exchange less-tangible assets such as unused garden space, on websites such as Shared Earth, extra guest rooms or entire homes on websites such as Airbnb, and underused parking lots and office spaces on websites such WeWork (Albinsson & Perera, 2012). Collaborative consumption can be thought of as more than just the latest trend, it is a “socioeconomic groundswell that will

10 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY transform the way companies think about their value propositions—and the way people fulfill their needs,” (Botsman & Rogers, 2011, p. 30). While the concept of sharing has been around for many generations, the widespread popularity and use of the internet has enabled the sharing economy to flourish and receive more recent support and attention.

However, with the expansion of the sharing economy into many different spaces, ranging from empty rooms to unused yard space and tools, the term has been defined very differently across disciplines. The socially acceptable notion of sustainable consumption in the sharing economy has led many organizations to position themselves strategically under the term’s umbrella. Schor (2016) asserts that companies want to associate with the “positive symbolic meaning of sharing, the magnetism of innovative digital technologies, and the rapidly growing volume of sharing activity,” (p.1). While scholars agree that coming up with a single, fully- encompassing definition of the sharing economy is nearly impossible, the following sections will provide a summary of the most relevant definitions in the literature (Schor, 2016; Murillo,

Buckland & Val, 2017).

Defining the Sharing Economy

Similar to Albinsson and Perera (2012) who defined the sharing economy as a sustainable platform to share underutilized goods and services with others socially, Schor (2016) discusses the unclear boundaries of the sharing economy’s definition and proposes four categories:

“recirculation of goods, increased utilization of durable assets, exchange of services, and sharing of productive assets,” (p. 2). The first category was kickstarted by companies like eBay and

Craigslist that took advantage of compiling unwanted items. These companies developed internet software that gave both customers and producers access to an online space where they could benefit from either selling unused items for profit or purchasing used items at a much cheaper

11 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY price. Serving as the initial sharing economy businesses, these companies were tasked with creating mechanisms to check the reputation of the sellers, which led to the development of buyer reviews that play a key role in improving customer trust in the new model of consumption.

Schor (2016) conceptualizes the second type of sharing economy platform as a place where people can share their underutilized products and spaces with others to make profit. Zipcar was the leading business to start this trend, and the company worked to place cars strategically in urban cities where people could temporarily use them for hourly rentals. Other car rental companies followed suit, leading to the creation of ride sharing (Zimride) and ride services (Uber and Lyft) in addition to accommodation platforms eventually adopting the platform for their empty spaces (Couchsurfing and Airbnb).

The third category of sharing economy companies defined by Schor (2016) includes service exchanges and is made of a database of services that can be exchanged for money

(TaskRabbit and Zaarly). This type of sharing allows people with specialized skills to find jobs that align with their talents, such as lawncare, building construction and any other trade skill.

Lastly, the fourth category of the sharing economy is based on collaboration that helps speed up production instead of just consumption. This last category consists of communal spaces where people like computer hackers or software developers are able to collaborate online and share the latest code or access datasets and format sheets that quickly increase users’ understanding of a new software development. Communal online work spaces and education sites such as

Skillshare.com fit under this category, and users on these platforms help educate others through workshops and lessons about industry-specific topics. To better articulate the differences in the organizations involved in the sharing economy, Schor (2016) created a table that shows all possible definitions and categories:

12 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Figure 1.

Peer to Peer Business to Peer

Non-Profit Food Swaps, Makerspaces Time Banks

For-Profit RelayRides, Zipcar Airbnb (Schor, 2016, p. 4)

To further understanding of the four types of sharing economy platforms listed in the above table, Schor (2016) asserts that companies utilizing the for-profit model are motivated by economic incentives whereas the non-profit companies are motivated by prosocial causes and the idea of providing a public good that benefits the community. The for-profit companies such as

Airbnb (an accommodation sharing website) and Zipcar (a car sharing site that rents out owned cars for people to borrow short-term) differ in how they make profit per transaction. Sharing economy companies utilizing peer-to-peer transactions make commission from each private exchange, whereas business-to-peer companies make profit in owning the assets and sharing them out as a company. To see this difference more clearly, it is helpful to compare car sharing companies RelayRides and Zipcar. RelayRides, which is now named Turo, involves individual car owners renting out their personal cars to customers who need it for a temporary trip. Turo serves as an alternative to going through a traditional car rental company and gives anyone the opportunity to share their unused or underutilized vehicle with a customer for profit. Turo encourages transactions to make profit, as the company takes a small percentage of commission from each transaction. Zipcar operates on a similar basis, but instead of making commission from a peer-to-peer transaction, the company purchases the cars themselves and rents them out to customers via an online platform similar to a brick-and-mortar car rental company like

13 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Enterprise. Schor (2016) asserts that the most successful sharing economy companies have utilized the for-profit, peer-to-peer model, which is further seen in the following section.

The sharing economy has also been defined in regards to its structure in the capitalist economic system. Researchers (Murillo et al., 2017) assert that the sharing economy is “no more than a specific type of platform capitalism that can be defined as a marketplace for the hire of assets and services that would otherwise be underutilized or not even recognized as such, normally at a discount to those charged by traditional incumbents,” (p. 67). Furthermore, the authors define a platform in the sharing economy as “as a set of online digital arrangements whose algorithms serve to organize and structure economic and social activity,” (p. 67). While these online platforms are essential for successful sharing of goods and services in free-market economy, the economic system is found to be problematic for primary producers in the economy.

Malhotra and Van Alstyne (2014) assert that the sharing economy “creates a subtle tug-of-war between the primary producer and secondary sharer,” (p. 26). Critics of the sharing economy warn that if people rely on sharing and do not continue to purchase new items and services, demand will decrease causing a sharp increase in price (Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014).

In order to understand the economic status of the largest revenue earning companies in the sharing economy, Airbnb and Uber, which bring in $3.6 billion and $14.1 billion in revenue each year (Craft, n.d.-a; Craft, n.d.-b), it is important to note that these companies have reached the top of the sharing economy hierarchy because of the added support from venture capitalists

(Rooney, 2019; Schor, 2016). Despite the overwhelming support from investors, both Airbnb and Uber have not yet reported an annual profit since their creation (Lerman, 2020).

Scholars have struggled to agree on a common set of criteria for organizations to meet in order to be characterized under the sharing economy’s definition which has led to a “multi-

14 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY faceted debate that discusses: the inclusion of peer-to-peer versus the business-to-peer dimension of the SE; its belonging to the gift or purchasing economies; the sharing versus the renting component of the SE; or its for-profit versus not-for- profit nature” (Murillo et al., 2017, p. 67).

While this research provides more of a critique of the sharing economy business model for society, the contextualization of the term as a form of capitalism is important to consider in the future sections that address criticisms of the new platform.

Keeping the nonprofit and for-profit labels in-mind, Richardson (2015) defines the sharing economy as an “exchange facilitated through online platforms, encompassing a diversity of for-profit and non-profit activities that all broadly aim to open access to under-utilized resources through what is termed ‘sharing’,” (p. 121). To further justify the application of Airbnb as an exemplar of the sharing economy in this study, Richardson (2015) asserts that the company is the most well-known sharing economy business because it has three essential criteria that emphasizes the model’s usefulness. First, it is made of a fully-developed, digital intermediary website that provides low-cost, high quality communication between users and hosts. Second, it is a peer-to-peer business, meaning that both travelers and hosts are interchangeable and not operated by the company directly, and lastly, it is access-based, which means people are simply gaining temporary access to a space or service instead of buying a product to own.

Another common theme that has emerged among the multitude of sharing economy definitions involves taking advantage of underutilized assets and resources that otherwise would not be used. Wallsten (2015) defines the sharing economy as “the phenomenon of turning unused or under-used assets owned by individuals into productive resources,” (p. 3). Researchers also provide (Hamari, Sjöklint & Ukkonen, 2016) an overview of the sharing economy and define the sharing economy as the “peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing access to

15 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services,” (p. 2049). While homes and cars represent some of the most significant investments for individuals, a large portion of their use is wasted, as cars sit in parking lots for eight-hour workdays and homes often remain empty during the day with families at school and work. However, the means to access and promote these available resources has recently become much easier with the development of online technology and social interaction. Wallsten (2015) asserts that “new technologies significantly reduce the transaction costs of matching under-used assets to those willing to pay to employ those assets,” (p.3). By providing an opportunity for anyone with a basic internet connection and an unused asset to profit from sharing their services and goods, the sharing economy has rapidly increased its presence and spread across the world, increasing marketplace competition and demand.

To further define the sharing economy and the features that overlap among all organizations using the model, Botsman and Rogers (2011) came up with four key principles of the sharing economy that are present in all types of collaborative consumption businesses— critical mass; idling capacity; belief in the commons; and trust between strangers. Critical mass is defined as the point at which customers feel they have enough options available to buy a product or service with confidence. Botsman and Rogers (2011) assert that “As the number of people (and items they bring) increases at these events, the likelihood of people walking away dissatisfied decreases,” (p. 77). For example, a clothing exchange is most effective when it is categorized based on sizes or styles, such as having a clothes swap dedicated for six-foot-tall teenagers or pregnant people. Additionally, the power of social proofing, the process in which the public gauges whether or not they will use a new product or service based on the reviews of early users, plays an important role in gaining customers’ support for the sharing economy, as

16 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY many people are forced to change their usual buying habits when first trying the model. By seeing a core group of individuals participating in a new model such as the sharing economy, other people become more inclined to try the behavior, resulting in successful social proofing and adoption of the product or service.

While over 50 million people in the U.S. own a power drill, the average owner uses the drill between six and 13 minutes throughout their lifetime (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). This unused potential is referred to as ‘idling capacity’ and is further described in the following real- world scenarios:

29 million personally owned vehicles that sit idle on average for twenty-three hours a

day; the spare bedroom that is rarely used; the evening dress that awaits the right

occasion; office space and equipment that are used for less than half the day; roads only

used during peak times; extra belongings packed into storage units. (Botsman & Rogers,

2011, p. 83)

The list of items and services that go unused each day is constantly growing, and the sharing economy has provided a technological platform for individuals to capitalize on sharing their underutilized assets with a pre-created mass market of customers. Botsman and Rogers (2011) assert that “The ubiquity of cheap connectivity that surrounds us can maximize the productivity and usage of a product and mop up the surplus created by hyper-consumption without creating costs or inconveniences,” (p. 84). Idling capacity also helps unused outdoor spaces become vibrant gardens, as sites such as YardShare, SharedEarth, We-Patch and Urban Gardenshare provide gardeners with access to empty plots of land and connections to people with gardening skills. The sharing economy opens up opportunities for people to learn gardening by providing users with access to specialized social networks that provide knowledge of gardening tips or

17 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY unused available gardening space for urban dwellers. By having a space for everyone to learn and benefit from unused knowledge or land relating to gardening, the sharing economy provides added benefits of community engagement and social connectedness for its users.

To understand the third principle of the sharing economy, ‘belief in the commons,’ it is important to acknowledge society’s increasing demand for available resources (Network, 2011).

Humans are found to demand over one and a half planets worth of resources, which include carbon, fishing grounds, cropland, forest land and grazing land (Network, 2011). Rivers, oceans and lakes continue to be overfished and harvested each year, homes continue to take up more land and raw materials, and personal vehicles, such as trucks, continue to release harmful emissions which all contribute to what is known as tragedy of the commons. Described as the process occurring when “several agents simultaneously exploit a productive common-property resource, the resulting externality will lead to overuse or overexploitation of the resource,”

(Dutta & Sundaram, 1993, p. 413). Subsequently, the tragedy of the commons results in an

“economics problem in which every individual has an incentive to consume a resource, but at the expense of every other individual—with no way to exclude anyone from consuming,”

(Chappelow, 2020, para. 1). However, by reinvesting in shared, communal products and services, the sharing economy has created an outlet for individuals to share again and not overconsume products they only use for brief amounts of time, such as a drill or age-specific toys for toddlers and infants. Botsman and Rogers (2011) write that the sharing economy is helping people rent out items they do not use every day, such as deep-fryers, sewing machines and even fancy artwork. The authors also add that the sharing economy is useful for people working independently on the side, such as film producers who can rent out their very expensive cameras to others looking to enter the field without having to pay a high entry price. Botsman

18 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY and Rogers (2011) assert that “For consumers to overcome the culturally entrenched cult of possessions, we have to get to a point where sharing is convenient, secure and more cost- effective than ownership,” (p.107). With centralized and easily accessible online platforms in- place, the sharing economy is allowing users to complete transactions at the touch of a mobile device or a computer and in last-minute situations such as arriving at a new travel destination.

People now have an alternative option when planning to power wash a driveway or decorate their living room for a fancy dinner party. The sharing economy is helping people rediscover the advantages of having relationships in the local community while also expanding and redefining the reach and capabilities of sharing products and services beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood.

Despite the social advantages found in the sharing economy outlined by Botsman and

Rogers (2011), the “dark side” of the sharing economy, as described by Malhotra and Van

Alstyne (2014) results from a lack of government regulation in the new model where peers can discriminate what types of people rent their spaces or who they choose to sell products to. The home-sharing industry is also furthering the housing crisis, as short-term rentals create

“shortages of affordable long-term housing when nightly rates exceed monthly rentals,”

(Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014, p. 24). Additional social problems generated from the sharing economy include a lack of compensation for service provider-induced accidents and a reliance on micro-sourcing jobs that provides no opportunity for service providers to earn extra income that can be used to learn new skills in an industry (Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014).

Lastly, establishing trust between strangers is a key ingredient needed to ensure the sharing economy is successful. Social trust has been found to encourage more online business transactions and gives companies an avenue to expand its customer base online (Mutz, 2005).

19 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

When people have higher levels of social trust, they are more likely to participate in e-commerce and engage in online business transactions (Mutz, 2005). Social trust is defined as the overall confidence in the reliability of a business transaction with another person or organization (Mutz,

2005). Social trust is important for reducing expensive transaction costs and is especially relevant in the new organizations in the sharing economy. Whereas traditional business-to- customer trust is focused on the relationship between the seller and the buyer, the sharing economy adds an element in the trust process and focuses on creating trust between peers, the product and the platform (Hawlitschek, 2016). The authors assert in this context:

Platforms not only need to appear trustworthy themselves in order to generate

business, they also need to take into account and manage their users’ mutual perceptions

of one another as well as of the resources exchanged on the platform. (Hawlitschek,

2016, p. 7)

Trust in the sharing economy can be defined as a “subjective feeling that the trustee will behave in a certain way according to an implicit or explicit promise she makes,” (Ert, Fleischer &

Magen, 2016, p. 64). Without trust and successful self-governance, tools, rides and open spaces may not reach their full potential, and users, who are often strangers, will not feel confident making the business transactions (Ert et al., 2016; Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Owners and internal, full-time employees of sharing economy businesses do not have the same level of control over the service providers that they have over traditional employees in a business, but instead function solely as curators and ambassadors of the sharing community. Positive ratings and helpful reviews have replaced traditional references as a barometer of trust in a product or service. The role of the sharing economy is to “create the right tools and environment for familiarity and trust to be built, a middle ground where commerce and community meet,”

20 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

(Botsman & Rogers, 2011, p. 92). It is also important to note that social referrals, information quality and transaction safety are found to be precursors for establishing trust (Kong, et al.,

2020). Transaction safety/security was found to be the most important predictor of trust, compared to the other measured variables including social referrals and information quality. To help sharing economy organizations create measures of transactional safety, the authors assert that organizations can create safe measures by: “1) designing and communicating necessary policy to protect consumers prevent fraud and provide recourse when service failures arise and,

2) collaborating with local consumer protection agencies or third-party organizations,” (Kong,

Wang, Hajli & Featherman, 2020, p. 9).

While critics of the sharing economy remain skeptical of trusting strangers and their services, the constant community of voices and efficient, two-way communication between all sharing economy users reduces the likelihood of abuse. Reviving the role of relationships in the economy is important, and Botsman and Rogers (2011) state, “When personal relationships and social capital return to the center of the exchanges, peer-to-peer trust is relatively easy to create and manage, and most of the time the trust is strengthened, not broken,” (p. 93).

Major sharing economy company, Airbnb, has succeeded in ensuring trust and credibility between users in an interaction by utilizing a review-based system and user profile pictures that contain personal information, including ID verification, (Guttentag, 2015). Airbnb also allows direct communication messages to be sent between guests and hosts before and after a purchase to reduce uncertainty and provide an outlet for users to ask questions about places they are interested in staying. Finally, Airbnb has created different badges that are given to hosts who have reached certain standards of reviews and response rates to further provide trustworthy measures for users (Han, Shin, Chung & Koo, 2019).

21 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Furthermore, subsequent research using Airbnb as an exemplar of trust-building in the sharing economy by Ert et al. (2016) found that profile pictures of Airbnb hosts have a significant positive affect on perceived trust for guests. Hosts that were perceived as trustworthy from the appearance of their profile picture were found to make more money per listing and increase their probability of being selected by guests. While the study did not offer insight into what types of characteristics participants qualified as a trustworthy appearance, the study highlights the importance of visual cues to build trust in the sharing economy. As customers quickly scroll through accommodation listings for a week vacation or search for a person to complete a short-term task, Ert et al. (2016) show how profile pictures and appearance are impacting purchase decisions.

While one exclusive, fully-encompassing definition of the sharing economy does not currently exist in the literature, due to the socioeconomic movement’s vast reach and intersections in and across disciplines from tourism and ride sharing, to temporary skilled labor and sharing homes, this study builds upon the previous research and defines the sharing economy through the lens of public relations. This study defines the sharing economy as a communicative, online platform where users obtain information and increase trust to permanently or temporarily share products, services or assets with other users for an agreed upon price.

The sharing economy has capitalized on new internet capabilities and increased social networks to change the way people do business and organizations communicate online. By giving ordinary people the opportunity to turn underutilized assets such as drills, children’s toys, cars, and accommodation spaces into profitable commodities through sleek online platforms that enable effective two-way communication, the sharing economy has emerged as an innovative alternative to traditional businesses in the 21st century. By fostering credible transactions through

22 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY trust-building mechanisms like reviews, sharing economy businesses aim to assure users that online offerings are genuine and honest. To enrich understanding of how reviews function as an important component of the sharing economy, the next section will break down the function of reviews and other key components of the sharing economy.

Components of The Sharing Economy

Reviews

Reviews are critical components of the sharing economy. They help enable successful transactions in the sharing economy by reducing uncertainty between all users. Botsman and

Rogers (2011) assert that by cutting out the middleman that traditional customers must go through to obtain a product or service, the sharing economy gives customers information about the service provider and the offering directly. While this straightforward transaction does require users to trust this unknown stranger that is offering a product or service, sharing economy companies have created “platforms that facilitate self-managed exchanges and contributions,”

(Botsman & Rogers, 2011, p.92). Whether a platform provides photo galleries, lists of past completed transactions, or just a summary of all past reviews, the sharing economy is putting trust back into the hands of the people and using collective ratings as an indication of credibility.

Botsman and Rogers (2011) assert that “freeriders, vandals and abusers are easily weeded out, just as openness, trust and reciprocity are encouraged and rewarded,” (p. 93). Uber, Airbnb and

TaskRabbit all encourage customers to rate their host, driver or tasker after each transaction to help build trust for future transactions. Additionally, all three of these companies show each service provider’s history of ratings and reviews to give customers knowledge to make a more informed decision.

23 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

An example of a of trust-building mechanism found in the sharing economy can be found by looking at eBay, a company that enables users to purchase used items from ordinary people selling on the platform (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). After an item is sold through the website, both the seller and the customer are given the opportunity to rate the transaction and provide any comments on a damaged or missing part of the product. To encourage trust and honesty, eBay has created a hierarchy-based point system that users work towards in order to be deemed the most credible. The authors found that sellers on the site receive negative ratings only 1 percent of the time and buyers less than 2 percent of the time, which supports the point that “Users know their behavior today will affect their ability to transact in the future,” (Botsman & Rogers, 2011, p. 140). Similar achievement-based incentives exist on Airbnb’s website, as hosts can reach the highest level of “Superhost” by meeting the following requirements:

• Hosted at least 10 trips OR completed 3 reservations that total at least 100 nights

• Maintained a 90% response rate or higher

• Maintained a 1% percent cancellation rate (1 cancellation per 100 reservations) or lower,

with exceptions made for those that fall under our Extenuating Circumstances policy

• Maintained a 4.8 overall rating (this rating looks at the past 365 days of reviews, based on

the date the guest left a review, not the date the guest checked out. (Airbnb, n.d.-d, How

do I become a Superhost, para. 2)

By establishing differing levels of trust mechanisms that users rely on when selecting quality products and services, the service providers are forced to provide high quality offerings in order to distinguish themselves from the competition as well as protect their reputations and gain consistent customer demand.

24 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

While research (Schor, 2016; Botsman & Rogers, 2011) has suggested that user- generated reviews and feedback mechanisms help ensure trust and credibility of organizations in the sharing economy, empirical studies have examined the specific components of reviews in the sharing economy that increase trust. For example, Airbnb host attributes and location descriptions are found to be significant predictors for increasing the likelihood that a user would make a purchase (Cheng, Fu, Sun, Bilgihan & Okumus, 2019). The authors investigated the reviews of the leading sharing economy accommodation platform, Airbnb, and set out to explore the relationship between online reviews and perceived trust. By compiling a list of 1,485 reviews from New York City, a leading tourist destination on Airbnb, the authors were able to perform a content analysis of the reviews and code for six themes: location, room aesthetics, host attributes, room description, overall evaluation and repurchase intention. Because Airbnb accommodations can be located in less touristy neighborhoods where more local residents live, Airbnb guests rely on accurate location descriptions to ensure they are in a safe place. Additionally, the study found that overall perceived trust is influenced by how the host interacts with the guests during a stay and their ability to communicate effectively to guests. Guest reviews also provide more detailed information about an offering by specifying the listed characteristics of an offering. These detailed descriptions and evaluations of offerings are found to increase “trust toward the accommodation and host, which is an important antecedent to generate purchase intention in the sharing economy context,” (Xu, 2020, p. 9).

To examine the potential impact negative reviews can have on the reputation of a service provider’s offerings, Abramova, Shavanova, Fuhrer, Krasnova and Buxmann (2015) found that reviews are more trust-damaging when the subject of the review centers around an aspect of the offering that the host can control, such as the cleanliness of a room on Airbnb. Additionally, the

25 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY authors found that hosts can rebuild their reputation of a negative review by providing a confession or apology that explains how the issue will be resolved or improved in the future.

Thus, reviews are an important component of the sharing economy because they serve as a successful trust-building mechanism. The following section will outline the types of stakeholders found in the sharing economy and explore how this new economic model has blurred the lines between stakeholder groups found in traditional businesses.

Stakeholders

Service providers

Traditional businesses and organizations have placed stakeholders into clear categories that relate to their involvement and impact on the organization and that fall into one of the following groups: owners, suppliers, employees, customers, the local community or management

(Freeman, 2001). However, the development of the sharing economy has blurred the line between how an organization views an employee or supplier, as ordinary people can be a service provider and also a customer quite easily. Service providers in the accommodation industry are often local community members who expect to receive certain employee benefits, and also want to see the company benefit the local community. The sharing economy has complicated the way organizations reach out to service providers and listen to their feedback, as new hosts, drivers and taskers are constantly joining and leaving the organization due to the temporary nature of the work. Schor (2016) asserts that customers are “those who are buying services, while providers, or suppliers, are offering them,” (p. 4). However, he goes on to assert that “participants can be found on either side of a transaction” (Schor, 2016, p.4) and finds that many people who profit as a service provider also utilize the model for their consumption as a customer.

26 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

The passing of Proposition 22 in California, which allows companies in the sharing economy to categorize their workers as independent contractors, has illustrated a constant battle between labor advocates and major sharing economy corporations trying to avoid providing their workers with health insurance and other important costly benefits (Conger, 2020). Although

California’s ruling is a major victory for sharing economy corporations, the rest of the country is still struggling to define these workers and actively working with the U.S. Department of Labor to make more positive social changes (Scheiber, 2020). Labor union activists and transit officials argue that major corporations in the sharing economy, including both Uber and Lyft, are able to bypass important background checks for their drivers, which poses a risk to public safety. As the courts continue to decide the requirements for full employee benefits in the sharing economy industry, the future of these workers’ rights remains an important concern.

To further the understanding of service providers in the sharing economy, Dreyer et al.

(2017) performed qualitative interviews to measure the attitudes and beliefs of sharing economy service providers living in South Africa and working in the transportation and cleaning industries. The authors found that Uber drivers’ “expressed positive sentiments about the business model and its impacts. They appreciated the access to work based on the flexibility to choose your own work hours and the convenience of the online platform that brings customers and drivers together,” (p. 93). Additionally, the authors interviewed service providers for

SweepSouth, a sharing economy company that helps users find cleaners for various jobs on an online platform. They found that the service providers felt positive about the opportunity to make additional money on the side, but had reservations about the platform and its ability to ensure all cleaners maintain a steady workload.

27 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

As the opportunities for individuals to share their underutilized or unused products and services continues to expand with new sharing economy-based platforms emerging, the conceptualization of stakeholders should be refined to include the multifaceted role and function of a service provider. To further understand the customers of the sharing economy and their motivations for participating, the following section will describe this stakeholder group and its impact on the success of the sharing economy.

Customers

Customers’ motivations for participating in sharing economy business outlets are credited to a multitude of economic, environmental and social or communal benefits (Schor, 2016;

Hamari et al., 2016; Prothero et al., 2011; Richardson, 2015, Botsman & Rogers, 2011).

Beginning with the economic advantages of using the sharing economy for customers, products and services are typically less expensive on sharing economy-based platforms compared to the traditional marketplace alternatives (Schor, 2016; Hamari et al., 2016). Companies using the sharing economy are able to position themselves without costly intermediaries that often increase total cost for customers (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Examples of this phenomenon can be found with Airbnb hosts who are able to offer unused rooms, empty studio apartments above garages and entire homes for a much cheaper price than an average hotel, as the host does not have to hire a third party to clean the room, wash the sheets and pay significant energy costs. Similarly,

Uber drivers are able to turn their cars into taxis with a simple security check and online application that can be approved anywhere from one to seven days, allowing Uber customers to find cheaper rides than those available via more government-regulated taxi organizations (Uber, n.d.-a). In is also important to note that by increasing the competition in the ride service industry,

Uber has been found to increase the overall quality of ride services, as the availability of

28 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY alternate ride sharing services in New York City and Chicago has provided users with the freedom to choose a different ride sharing option if they are dissatisfied with a ride experience

(Wallsten, 2015). While car maintenance and gas consumption do create monetary expenses for drivers, the profit from each completed ride is found to outweigh the costs (Wallsten, 2015).

Survey data by that focused on customers' motivation for using the sharing economy (Hamari et al., 2016), found that economic benefits (saving money and time) had a significant effect on users' behavioral intentions for the sharing economy. Similarly, Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2016) found that the use of the sharing economy has resulted in a change in travel patterns that stem from the economic advantages provided by the platform’s development. The economic advantages of using Airbnb, which served as the study’s travel-based sharing economy platform, were found to be a major motivating factor for participants, leading to longer stays, increased destination options and a stronger focus on participating in activities in the travel destination.

The lower cost of sharing economy accommodations allows travelers to expand their destination choices by saving money that can be used to fund more expensive flights and additional higher costs associated with exotic destinations. Secondly, the cost-savings from sharing economy accommodations enable travelers to fit in more trips to their budget.

The sharing economy is economical for users because it helps customers spend less money on products they only use for a temporary amount of time, such as a drill or toy, and also allows customers to save on insurance and repairs for cars and second homes that they would have traditionally had to own in order to use (Botsman and Rogers, 2011). To see an example of how the sharing economy has helped reduce community members’ expenses, the authors reference the development of a tool-sharing library that started in Santa Rosa, California. When a man named Dustin Zuckerman was working on creating a garden pathway for a client, he found

29 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY out he needed to purchase a $35 tool for a job that was only paying $50. With such a high initial startup cost for a simple tool that was only going to be used for a temporary amount of time,

Dustin realized that tool-lending could help other contractors and tradespeople complete their jobs with less money spent on supplies. In addition to the many economic advantages the sharing economy provides for its users, sustainability is also identified as a factor motivating customers to engage in the sharing economy.

Sustainability has also been found as an important motivation for customers using the sharing economy, as many participants believe the sharing of secondary resources reduces the demand of new goods and services, resulting in a decreased negative environmental impact in consumption (Schor, 2014; Hamari et al., 2016;). Botsman and Rogers (2011) write, “it is estimated that just shifting a fifth of household spending from purchasing to renting would cut emissions by about 2 percent – or 13 million tons — of CO2 a year,” (p. 107). While more quantitative, long-term data showing the impact of the sharing economy on the environment is still lacking. Heinrichs (2013) has analyzed the potential benefits the sharing economy has on global sustainability and asserts that it can “help mainstream economies and consumerism, improve social cohesion, and contribute to the minimization of resource use,” (p. 229). Despite the lack of data confirming the positive effects of the sharing economy on the environment, a significant number of studies have shown that individual users are motivated to participate in the sharing economy because of its perceived sustainability measures (Hamari et al., 2016; Piscicelli,

Cooper & Fisher, 2014).

Being “green” and placing value on the preservation of nature are found to be primary reasons for using the sharing economy, and a study by Piscicelli et al. (2015) found that one third of Ecomodo users, a “UK-based online marketplace through which people can lend and borrow

30 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY each other's objects, spaces and skills either free of charge or for a small fee,” (p. 25) joined the platform because of its eco-friendly measures. The sharing economy gives people an opportunity to move away from excessive consumption and toward a sharing-based ownership of goods and services that could reduce climate change, cut back on pollution and reduce excessive energy use

(Prothero et al., 2011). It is also important to note that environmental motivations were found to be most prevalent for car and ride-sharing industries, despite the research that shows how an increase in cheaper ride-services may be causing an increase in emissions and less public transportation (Schor, 2016). With the signs of a deteriorating environment becoming more obvious to the world, exemplified by Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which is currently the largest landfill in the world and contains 3.5 million tons of garbage) and the rising sea level each year, which is increasing by 3.3 millimeters per year (NASA, 2020), Botsman and Rogers (2011) assert that “If we can channel this energy away from consumer excess into community bonds and planetary survival, we may reverse the errors of our past,” (p.63). Interestingly, literature

(Botsman & Rogers, 2011) shows that the sustainability aspect of many sharing economy companies is often an unintended consequence and comes from the inherent nature of collaborative-based consumption.

Lastly, another major aspect of the sharing economy involves social dynamics, which fosters communication between users online and within local communities. Botsman and Rogers

(2011) assert that “consumers are yearning to go back to a time when markets meant community- based, traditional relationships with strong ties,” (p. 51). Sharing economy businesses like Etsy, a website where artisans can sell their handmade products to customers around the world, gives customers information about the artisans, including their story and background, and furthers the human engagement with the purchase. Sigala (2017) examined the implications for using the

31 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY sharing economy, specifically in the tourism industry, and found that the platform enabled travelers to gain access to market knowledge and travel experiences which helped them make more informed decisions when planning their trips. The sharing economy enables social networks to communicate experiences and reviews of a service online in a community-oriented way where inspiration is often found from others. Customers are motivated to use the sharing economy because it enables them to find more authentic, home-like stays in foreign places around the world that can give users a sense of home even somewhere different and previously unexplored (Sigala, 2017). While goods and services exchanged in a traditional economy do not have a centralized platform to be shared with others socially, aside from the close friends and relationships maintained on a daily basis, the sharing economy opens doors for collaboration among users and satisfies customer desire for hospitable interactions. By using the sharing economy in accommodations, people gain access to local information from hosts such as finding nearby restaurants and bars, which can add value to the travel experience (Stors & Kagermeier,

2015).

Some studies have looked at the purchase intentions of Airbnb users through the lens of different rhetorical appeals and price differentials (Han et al. 2019; Wang & Nicolau, 2017). Han et al. (2019) measured how guests using Airbnb were motivated by ethos, pathos and logos.

Ethos was measured in relation to the trust of the host, found in the positive reviews and use of badges for extraordinary hosts on Airbnb. Pathos was measured in relation to the use of

‘positive’ words in a listing, and logos was measured based on the price, pictures of the accommodation and the overall star rating of the accommodation (Han et al., 2019). People are attracted to Airbnb because the prices are often less expensive than major hotels and staying with a host can lead to gaining local information about the surrounding area of the stay (Guttentag,

32 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

2015). Han et al. (2019) found that Airbnb users were motivated by credibility measures of hosts, such as badges, and by the use of social words in place descriptions that give the perception of a more welcoming environment.

Specific research has been performed on the motivations for using Airbnb and its perceptions of authentic travel. Guttentag, Smith, Potwarka & Havitz (2018) performed a quantitative survey-based analysis on the various motivations for choosing an Airbnb which were listed as “Interaction, Home Benefits, Novelty, Sharing Economy Ethos, and Local

Authenticity” (p. 342). The study showed that people are motivated to use Airbnb due to its cheaper prices and benefits that come with home features such as space, household amenities, and homely feel. Other factors found important in choosing Airbnb included the desire for a novelty experience, consisting of a new experience that was unpredictable and different. The study found that people enjoy the opportunity to stay in ‘non-touristy neighborhoods,’ suggesting that the selection of an Airbnb accommodation may involve more than browsing the features of the place itself and also include the value of the surrounding area where the accommodation is located. Lastly, Airbnb users seek authentic experiences by getting the opportunity to live like a local and interact with hosts who have insights into local knowledge (Guttentag et al. 2018;

Guttentag, 2015).

Research also suggests that demographics and socioeconomic status may play a role in motivating customer engagement with the sharing economy. For example, Böcker and Meelen

(2017) found that “Younger and low-income groups are more economically motivated to use and provide shared assets; younger, higher-income and higher-educated groups are less socially motivated; and women are more environmentally motivated” (p. 36-37). While more empirical research outlining the exact demographics of sharing economy users is lacking in the current

33 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY state of the literature, Stors and Kagermeier (2015) found that younger people, ages 25-30, were more likely to participate in the sharing economy, while people ages 50 and older were the least interested in participating in the sharing economy. As more young people continue to access the internet at early ages in their development, the sharing economy will continue to gain more support from the youngest population. For example, Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2016) found that younger generations prefer using peer-to-peer transactions more than older age groups.

Botsman and Rogers (2011) report, however, that over 21% of eBay users are over 50 years of age. Additionally, the authors have found that a wide variety of demographic groups are beginning to adapt to the growing phenomenon and find ways to take advantage of its convenience, such as selling unused items when moving to retirement communities or finally putting a lawn mower that has been sitting in its original box for a few years. This growth may be attributed to the fact very few internet skills are needed to participate in the sharing economy.

Lastly, while a more updated snapshot of the sharing economy and its perception among

U.S. citizens is needed, research by the Pew Research Center found that 72% of Americans have used some type of shared or on-demand, online service, but 73% of respondents are not familiar with the term “sharing economy,” (Smith, 2020). Interestingly, the study also found that 36% of college graduates have used four or more sharing economy services compared to only 8% of people with a high school degree or less. The study found that people older than 45 use the sharing economy less than younger age groups. Lastly, it was found that families with a household income of over $100,000 have used the sharing economy three times more than those under earning less than $30,000.

As customers continue to search for alternative solutions for excessive consumption habits, the sharing economy is motivating individuals to use the platform to save money, reduce

34 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY their carbon footprints and form new meaningful connections with strangers that enable convenient product, service and information sharing as well as a return to a more communal society. Having reviewed the motivations and demographics sharing economy customers, the next section will briefly describe news coverage of the sharing economy. The news media remains an important stakeholder of many businesses and its depictions of the sharing economy provide insight into how this socioeconomic model is perceived as well as deepens our understanding of the sharing economy.

News Media

An exploration of the sharing economy is not complete without highlighting the news media’s impact on public perception of this new platform and movement. To begin, COVID-19 has dampened the success of many sharing economy platforms, as social interaction and sharing has come to an abrupt halt. Conger and Griffith (2020) report that earnings from ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft are down dramatically and as mentioned earlier, major home sharing company, Airbnb, was forced to pause its plans to go public until the end of 2020 after its new forecasted revenue dropped significantly. The report suggested there could be more negative long-term effects for the sharing economy overall and cited that over 30% of revenue could be lost due to a lack of travel caused by COVID-19. However, aside from the more recent discussion of the sharing economy and the pandemic, the topic has been perceived in the news with both praise and criticism.

In terms of praise for the sharing economy, Nature, released an article that positions the sharing economy as an environmentally-friendly option to cut back consumption (Mi &

Coffman, 2019). The authors assert that the sharing economy helps “reduce pollutants, emissions and carbon footprints,” and “stimulate long-lived changes in consumer behavior by shifting

35 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY personal transportation choices from ownership to demand-fulfillment,” (Mi & Coffman, 2019, para. 4). The authors also found that bicycle sharing in Shanghai, China cut back carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by 25,000 tons and 64 tons in 2016.

News stories that provide snapshots into the lives of full-time sharing economy workers also point out that the platform gives people the option of having a flexible work schedule and the opportunity to find convenient, part-time work that can help families and individuals survive economic downturns when full-time jobs are lost (Singer, 2014). It may be much easier for individuals to find gig-jobs in a struggling economy, and the variety of options can serve as important income-generating side jobs for full-time employees.

In terms of criticism for the sharing economy, Singer (2014) found that Uber, Lyft and

TaskRabbit do not categorize service providers as employees, which makes them ineligible for health insurance, payroll deductions, Social Security and unemployment benefits. Ride-sharing companies have received criticism for taking too much money for commission and have had to provide incentives for full-time drivers such as lowering commission from 20% to five percent.

Additional criticisms of the sharing economy stem from a lack of regulation in the shared spaces that are created to make life easier, such as the popular office-sharing company, WeWork

(Bellafante, 2018). The author reports that users of WeWork are enticed by the work-from- anywhere mentality but are unsure what to do when conflict like sexual assault happens at a

WeWork shared office space. Bellafante (2018) writes that the new economy where

“disaggregated from institutions and hierarchies and protocols that can offer various protections and clear channels of recourse, the policing of harassment will face new challenges,” (para. 2).

The news media has also conducted research on the effects of the sharing economy and the hotel industry and found that “For every one percent increase in the size of the Airbnb

36 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY market, the researchers found, hotel revenue slips 0.05 percent,” (Streitfeld, 2014). The impact of

Airbnb on the hospitality industry is perceived to impact lower-end hotels more dramatically, as the more luxury resorts are harder to replicate within Airbnb’s community.

The sharing economy has also been depicted as a social platform that threatens privacy.

For example, Doggy Logs – a smartphone app that provides dog owners with real-time insights of their professional dog walkers latest movements and logged walks, has been criticized for giving dog owners access to the exact location of paid dog walkers at all times (Scott, 2020). The author argues that technology’s tracking capacities can be problematic if companies like Uber track their drivers and riders at all times. As sharing economy platforms enhance trust and safety through access to personal information such as location, users worry that they are giving up important freedoms in order to be protected from harm on a trust-build system.

In addition to exploring news media perceptions to the sharing economy, it is also helpful to examine how scholars have assessed the sharing economy, particularly critical perspectives.

The following section will outline several scholarly criticisms of the sharing economy.

Scholarly Criticisms of the Sharing Economy

While the sharing economy has been found to provide many benefits to society, such as reducing consumption and providing more affordable products and services, the socioeconomic movement is also met with criticism. To understand the criticisms of the sharing economy, Schor

(2016) asserts that many companies focused on maximizing revenue from the sharing transactions, such as Uber, have been found to foster anti-competition behavior within the industry. By recruiting traditional taxi drivers and other transportation workers to start driving for Uber, the company is arguably trying to monopolize the ride service market. As sharing economy companies continue to gain support from major corporations like Google and Goldman

37 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Sachs, which are investing large capital in Uber, the ability of dominant sharing economy companies to limit competition in the marketplace remains problematic.

Murillo et al. (2017) analyzed problematic research on the sharing economy. The authors assert that while the sharing economy is often viewed as a platform for individuals and average users to become entrepreneurs, the recent trend toward major companies reinvesting into the business model is met with concern. Examples of major companies taking part in the sharing economy can be found in BMW’s new car sharing service and Avis’ recent partnership with the car sharing services, Lyft and Zipcar. Additionally, major hotel chain, Marriot, began sharing underused lobbies and office space at their locations in an attempt to capitalize in the sharing economy model. The authors argue that if traditional businesses are able to dominate the sharing economy market, the entire social purpose of the business model becomes damaged and puts the power back in the hands of already powerful major business organizations. Similarly, because the sharing economy focuses on allowing individuals to carry out transactions independently, the lack of surveillance and monitoring can be problematic, as the authors mention problems ensuring non-discriminatory business policies, fair competition and equal access for all people.

Additionally, with the sharing economy growing across the world, the ability to regulate taxes for the owners of these organizations remains very difficult, as companies like Airbnb and Uber manage their finances in foreign destinations where they are able to find loopholes in tax codes and are able to get away with paying fewer total taxes on earned revenue. Murillo et al. (2017) also express concern that employees of sharing economy companies, which are often viewed as independent contractors or “freelancers” face significant challenges in receiving health benefits, fair pay and other forms of compensation. For example, according to Murillo et al. (2017), “Uber

38 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY drivers can be held liable for accidents on the job, TaskRabbit workers do not receive a pension, and workers looking for health insurance or job stability are unlikely to find it in the SE,” (p.70).

Additional criticisms of the sharing economy were offered by Malhotra and Van Alstyne

(2014) who argue that micro-outsourcing, or paying individuals for a single task, harms workers’ future and well-being because they are not able to expand their skillsets with funding for additional training. Moreover, they do not receive healthcare from an organization and are instead forced to pay out-of-pocket for health insurance. The authors argue that sharing economy workers must maintain consistent demand for work or they will quickly get behind in their payments for nearly all essential needs.

While the sharing economy has been found to provide more affordable travel accommodations to travelers through sites like Airbnb and CouchSurfing, Malhotra and Van

Alstyne (2014) view the movement in a more negative light. The authors assert that the sharing economy has worsened the state of affordable housing in the U.S. because it has increased short- term rentals in apartments and homes where traditional lower-income residents lived. As more affluent people are able to purchase second homes and studio apartments, it only reduces the chance for lower-income families and individuals to find affordable housing options.

Additionally, Frenken and Schor (2019) found that a large portion of the revenue brought in through the sharing economy stems from home sharing, where upper-class citizens are able to more easily share their unused spaces given the larger homes they can afford.

Although Botsman and Rogers (2011) claim that the sharing economy creates trustworthy transactions between users through honest feedback mechanisms, Murillo et al. (2017) does not believe that a society built on two-way feedback about products and services is always inherently good. The authors argue “This hyper-accountable world in which everyone rates everyone

39 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

(drivers to passengers, hosts to homeowners, and customers to messengers) opens the door for yet another ethical debate around the increasing penetration of user feedback mechanisms,”

(Murillo et al., 2017, p. 71). Furthermore, the authors question if all individuals should be allowed to influence the reputations of offerings in the sharing economy and worry that biases and false reviews can harm the trust created in the new environment. Additional empirical research on the credibility of customer reviews conducted by Luca and Zervas (2016) on the popular review website, Yelp, shows that many organizations filter reviews to make them look more positive, and over 16 percent of restaurant reviews were found to be misleading and unrepresentative of the collective responses.

Lastly, while sharing economy companies highlight environmentally-friendly efforts through reduced emissions from driving and less energy consumption compared to hotels,

Murillo et al. (2017) challenge this belief by asserting that although the sharing economy may provide users with cheaper services and products, people are able to consume more and end up creating more negative environmental effects. The authors found that “Zipcar will tell you that each club car takes 14 privately-owned cars off the roads and estimates that London alone will have one million car sharers by 2020. Lyft paints a similar picture and appears to be working with city councils to collaborate on reduced emission plans. Airbnb will tell you that home- sharing is another way to save the planet,” (Murillo et al., 2017, p.72). These claims are further demonstrated in Airbnb’s, 2014, environmental report that claimed Airbnb properties “consume less energy than hotels per guest night by 63% in North America and 78% in Europe,” (Airbnb,

2014, para. 1). However, many scholars remain skeptical of these environmental findings produced by companies in the sharing economy and believe that these companies lack the research to back up these claims (Murillo et al., 2017; Mangiaracina, Marchet, Perotti & Tumino,

40 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

2015). Mangiaracina et al. (2015) reference other studies that show how e-commerce has actually increased consumption by making offerings more affordable and accessible

(Mangiaracina et al., 2015). Ultimately, more research is needed to confirm the positive environmental claims many sharing economy companies make.

With so much research focusing on the positive aspects of the sharing economy, it is important to also be cognizant of the criticisms and concerns that come with this new socioeconomic movement. As the sharing economy continues to grow, additional questions and criticisms will emerge that relate to government regulation and free-market concerns. One area that has sparked criticisms of the sharing economy concerns discrimination. For example, both

Airbnb and Uber have faced multiple allegations of discrimination. The following section will briefly discuss those situations and how they suggest a need for greater diversity, equity and inclusion in sharing economy company contexts.

Discrimination and Diversity and at Airbnb and Uber

Discrimination is a growing area of concern for sharing economy companies. Many of them have diversity statements on their websites and DEI programs within their organizations, yet they still come under fire for what are perceived to be discriminatory actions. Airbnb and

Uber, in particular, have drawn the ire of the public for recent incidents. Airbnb was harshly criticized by both the general public and the news media when a working paper conducted by

Harvard researchers was released in 2015 (Edelman & Luca, 2015). The report that found non- black hosts were able to charge around 12% more than black hosts (Edelman & Luca, 2015). The report also found that black hosts “received a larger price penalty for having a poor location score relative to non-black hosts,” (p. 2). Following the alarming report, Airbnb users came into the public spotlight, including Gregory Selden, an African-American man, who stated that he had

41 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY been denied an Airbnb accommodation based on his race (Benner, 2016a). Gregory’s claims were filed into a class-action lawsuit against Airbnb, and the company eventually responded to these critical concerns by hiring a former U.S. Attorney General to create anti-bias policies

(Benner, 2016b). Airbnb published a 32-page report outlining how the company planned on fighting discrimination and sent all hosts “community commitment” agreements to stop all forms of host discrimination. Airbnb CEO, Brain Chesky wrote a message to compliment the report that stated “Bias and discrimination have no place on Airbnb, and we have zero tolerance for them,” (Benner, 2016-b, para. 6). While profile photos are found to increase trust and transparency in the sharing economy (Ert et al., 2016), the discrimination that has taken place as an outcome of profiling users’ photographs remains a major problem for organizations in the sharing economy.

Uber has also been under scrutiny for its handling of discrimination instances on its platform, and the company is currently facing a lawsuit filed by a former driver who was fired because of his low driver rating score (Allyn, 2020). Uber asks all riders to rate their driver after the completion of a ride, a system that “disproportionately leads to the firing of people who are not white or who speak with accents,” (Allyn, 2020, para. 2). According to the attorney representing the driver who was fired, having a system that gives the passengers, or the overall general public, the power to control who is rewarded and who is punished is discriminatory because it may reflect racial biases that are prevalent in society at any given time. The federal lawsuit represents many other instances of minority drivers who have been fired because of a low star rating. Uber has not been a stranger to federal lawsuits, as the company payed $4.4 million in 2019 to multiple victims who experienced sexual harassment in the workplace

(Siddiqui, 2019). In response to the case, Uber updated its workplace policies to increase focus

42 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY on preventing gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the future. However, sexual harassment has also been plaguing the company on its app between users, and the company released a report detailing that there were “464 reports alleging rape between 2017 and 2018 and nearly 6,000 reports of sexual assault,” (Siddiqui, 2019, para. 2).

As Airbnb, Uber and the many other sharing economy companies continue to revamp their regulation of the peer-to-peer interactions carried out on their platforms, it will be essential that they find ways to enforce guidelines that extinguish all forms of discrimination and sexual harassment within their organizations in order to establish trust with all stakeholders and maintain a positive reputation. The allegations of discrimination plaguing their organizations suggests that these organizations and others within the sharing economy will need to increase their focus on DEI. Having established a comprehensive understanding of the sharing economy including its definitions components, criticisms and challenges, the following section will review the literature pertaining to public relations and the sharing economy.

Public Relations in The Sharing Economy

The role of public relations in the sharing economy has received very little attention, and

Gregory and Halff’s (2017) research serves as one of the only studies that has attempted to conceptualize the sharing economy in terms of public relations. Using the circuit of commerce model of communication, Gregory and Halff (2017) reconceptualized public relations in the sharing economy. The term ‘organization’ has been given a new meaning in the sharing economy and the authors write: “Not only does the circle of those who the organization affects or who affect it grow wider and wider, they become increasingly difficult to define and are far more fluid and dynamic than traditional stakeholder groups” (Gregory & Halff, 2017, p. 9). The authors posit that the “spanning of boundaries between organizations, communities and

43 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY businesses also puts conceptual pressure on public relations” (Gregory & Halff, 2017, p. 5).

While traditional public relations research has explored organizations and publics as distinguishable stakeholder groups, the authors contend that public relations outcomes in the sharing economy are much more dependent on users performing the business transactions and require constant two-way communication. The sharing economy’s online method of access provides all types of users—hosts, guests, people interested in the sharing economy service— with a forum to make business transactions, write commentaries on experiences with the goods and services exchanged and have conversations in a community-centered atmosphere, all of which are self-sustaining and allow each communicator the freedom to form their own beliefs about the organization. Sharing economy organizations are unable to manage all communication between users, and this lack of control changes the way public relations practitioners interact with stakeholders. Public relations in the sharing economy is transforming to focus on becoming a “coach and mentor about best practice and establishing common meaning based on agreed purpose, values and a shared culture,” (Gregory & Halff, 2017, p. 10) for all users of a sharing economy business. By setting boundaries for what is deemed acceptable amongst stakeholders communicating about business transactions, public relations practitioners working for organizations can help them have some level of control of their reputation and image, creating a community of conversations that center around shared values. The authors argue that public relations in the sharing economy will have to focus on engaging in discussions that build positive communities of support for issues and conflicts that may arise. Lastly, Gregory and Halff (2017) assert that “public relations becomes a meta-communicative function communicating about communication rather than undertaking the communication itself,” (p. 10). As communication continues to serve as a cornerstone for sharing economy success, the authors stress that more

44 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY research is long overdue and encourage future endeavors to step away from “traditional” public relations practice.

Gregory & Halff’s (2017) study expands public relations research in the sharing economy and responds to the underwhelming attention given to the new movement in literature. They maintain, “The public relations academy has been slow in providing a contribution to the debate on the ‘sharing economy’” (p. 11). This thesis responds to the authors’ call for more public relations research on the sharing economy. It does so by taking a relationship management approach to examining how sharing economy companies communicate to establish and maintain relationships with stakeholders. The next section will explore relationship management theory in public relations as a means to emphasize the common interest both public relations and the sharing economy have in establishing and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders.

Relationship Management Theory

Relationships are a critical component of public relations theory and practice, as organizations attempt to build strong, mutually-beneficial relationships with the public to ensure long-term support and commitment. Relationship management theory’s roots stem from

Ferguson’s (2018) work, originally presented at a 1984 conference. She defined relationship management as “understanding organizations, understanding publics, and understanding the larger social environment within which these two social units exist,” (Ferguson, 2018, p. 173).

Public relationships are found to represent characteristics of the communication process between organizations and the public and must be explored in order to make sense of the world. To understand the context and significance of developing a more comprehensive relationship management theory, Ferguson (2018) studied articles published in Public Relations Review over a nine-year period ending in 1984. The author found that there was a limited number of articles

45 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY that focused on the relationship between organizations and the public and stressed a need for improved communication research methods that more specifically targeted the relationship aspect of organizations. Ferguson (2018) states that relationships can be both dynamic and static and open or closed. These differing levels of a relationships are broken down into four states: organization satisfied, public satisfied; organization satisfied, public unsatisfied; organization unsatisfied, public satisfied; and both organization and public unsatisfied. While this classification is not empirically verified, Ferguson (2018) asserts that researching relationships will lead to more predictable behavioral outcomes in the public. Additionally, the development of relationship management theory needs to include communication from the organization to the public and within the organization internally. Studying relationships between an organization and the public are found to be especially useful for communication theory because they introduce many new levels of analysis, as outlined by Ferguson (2018):

1. Previous public relations research has addressed either the organization or the public and

does not account for changes that may happen to either party, whereas a relationship-

centered approach is more effective in adjusting to changes from either party that have

important outcomes for both groups.

2. With a focus on relationships, the unit of analysis is less clear, and this forces

communication scholars to find new, innovative ways to study communication.

3. Focusing on relationships helps public relations research be applied to other disciplines

that also examine public relationships in other areas other than between an organization.

4. The focus of relationship management research can be both broad or narrow, as

individual relationships between the organization and the public can be studied within a

certain market, such as the relationship between a clothing brand and a college-aged

46 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

demographic or broadly, such as the social impact of government agencies on local

communities.

5. Studying the relationship between organizations and its publics will provide more

opportunities to broaden the application of public relations research to more than just

practitioners working for an organization. Ferguson (2018) asserts that studying

relationships will legitimize the field beyond those who specialize in it.

By studying more than just the communicative elements and effects of an organization’s engagement with the public, Ferguson (2018) believed that public relations should focus on the aspects and context of an organization’s relationship with the public. The climate in which the organization manages a relationship with the public adds important considerations that public relations practitioners must consider, such as government regulations, community values and overall public opinion. The author asserts that public relations research needs to pay closer attention to the environment of a relationship and less attention to the communication taking place.

Further development of relationship management theory was conducted by Ledingham and Bruning (1998) who found that the traditional view of public relations as a communication activity needed to be replaced with relationship management. The authors defined relationship management as “the state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being of the other entity,” (p. 62). The authors sought to identify and verify dimensions of the organization- public relationship from the dimensions of successful interpersonal relationships which are made up of trust, commitment, openness, investment and involvement. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) define trust as “a feeling that those in the relationship can rely on each other,” commitment as

47 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

“the decision to continue a relationship. It adds the element of responsibility by suggesting that successful relationships involve facing relational difficulties together,” openness as “the numerous forces which can pull a relationship in opposite directions,” and investment as “the time, energy, feelings, efforts and other resources given to build the relationship,” (p. 58). Lastly, the authors define involvement as being a part of the community in which an organization operates.

The study used qualitatively verified survey questions that were created from a review of interpersonal relationship literature, social psychology and in-depth focus groups and interviews focused on customer behavior. Ledingham and Bruning’s (1998) results found that the:

organization-public relationship centered around building trust, demonstrating

involvement, investment, and commitment, and maintaining open, frank communication

between the organization and its key public does have value in that it impacts the stay-

leave decision in a competitive environment. (p. 61).

The results showed that customers value the relationship aspect of an organization, as participants in the study were more likely to support a telephone service provider that had made a noticeable effort to form a long-term positive relationship with its customers compared to a new telephone provider that scored lower on the relationship scale. While the traditional telephone service provider that had been around for a long period of time had a better chance of forming a relationship with the public, many focus group participants in the first part of the study were not aware of the local telephone provider’s efforts to help out in the community. When participants were made aware of these efforts, they were even more likely to stay with the current telephone provider. The results show that communicating relationship-building efforts of an organization to the public is important when working to improve the relationship with the public. Additionally,

48 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

“trust, commitment, and openness are strongly related and investment and involvement are substantially related to an individual’s decision to stay with the current provider or sign up with a new provider” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, p. 61).

Subsequently, the authors found that organizations providing “economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, p. 62) for the public make up ideal organization-public relationships. Furthermore, when key community-members and leaders know organizations are actively involved in supporting community initiatives, they become more loyal. Lastly, Ledingham and Bruning (1998) assert that organizations must “(1) focus on the relationships with their key publics and (2) communicate involvement of those activities/programs that build the organization-public relationship to members of their key publics,” (p. 63).

Later development of relationship management theory research expanded the initial two- step relationship management process to include five steps that organizations should follow in order to create an effective relationship with the public (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000): (Scan), analyze the environment surrounding the organization by looking at the communication patterns used and gauge the important public’s attitudes and behaviors surrounding the organization

(Map), create a comprehensive plan that provides mutual benefits for the organization and the publics (Act), test out the plan with pilot public groups to gain feedback that will inform final implementation (Rollout), carry out the strategic plan with the actual target population (Track), record the influence of the organization on key publics and complimentary behaviors. Bruning and Ledingham (2000) found that this process could be used to “support the supposition that perceptions of the organization-public relationship influences key public members’ evaluations”

(p. 91). An organization’s relationship with the public in the context of personal, professional

49 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY and community-based contexts is found to influence overall satisfaction with the organization leading to “the short-term and long-term economic well-being of an organization,” (Bruning &

Ledingham, 2000, p. 92).

Relationship management theory was later applied to the context of government affairs initiatives, and the theory examined the relationship of community members with the government (Ledingham, 2001). The author explored and assessed the reliability of the Bruning-

Ledingham Relationship Scale for predicting citizen behavior. Ledingham (2001) states that

“when public relations is viewed as the management of the OPR (organization-public relationships), the effectiveness of that management can be measured in terms of relationship building, and that, further, ratings of those relationships can act as a predictor of public behavior,” (p. 286). By studying the relationship aspect of public relations, practitioners can more adequately predict behavior and better understand what individuals seek in return from a business or social exchange. Ledingham’s (2001) study differentiated between public types— community, professional and personal—and sought out to measure the aspects of the local government’s relationship with the public that affected whether citizens would leave or stay in a local community. The study showed that citizens tended to stay in a community that had an involved government who looked out for its community members. Subsequently, citizens that viewed the government’s services and involvement with the community less positively, were more likely to want to leave the community. The study revealed that public relations initiatives that provide mutual benefit for both the organization and the public will foster loyal followers who view the organization more positively in the long-term. Public citizens seek a balance between the costly energy spent toward making meaningful government interactions and the positive social return gained from the experience (Ledingham, 2001). By examining public

50 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY behavior through a social exchange lens, further relationship management theory research can be discovered and add value to the theory (Ledingham, 2001).

As the discipline of public relations experienced a shift away from communication and toward relationships, further development of the theory was established in Ledingham’s (2003) work which provided a relational perspective of relationship management. By understanding public relations as a management process, scholars are able to assess relationship management theory more accurately. Ledingham (2003) performed a thorough literature review of relationship management’s application in public relations since his (2001) work and redefined the theory, defining it as “Effectively managing organizational–public relationships around common interests and shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding and benefit for interacting organizations and publics,” (p. 190). Additionally, he outlined 14 axioms of the organization-public relationship. Ledingham (2003) advocates that organization-public relationships should follow 14 axioms:

1. Organization—public relationships are transactional.

2. The relationships are dynamic; they change over time.

3. They are goal oriented.

4. Organization–public relationships have antecedents and consequences and can be

analyzed in terms of relationship quality, maintenance strategies, relationship type, and

actors in the relationship.

5. These relationships are driven by the perceived needs and wants of interacting

organizations and publics.

6. The continuation of organization–public relationships is dependent on the degree to

which expectations are met.

51 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

7. Those expectations are expressed in interactions between organizations and publics.

8. Such relationships involve communication, but communication is not the sole instrument

of relationship building.

9. These relationships are impacted by relational history, the nature of the transaction, the

frequency of exchange, and reciprocity.

10. Organization–public relationships can be described by type (personal, professional,

community, symbolic, and behavioral) independent of the perceptions of those

relationships.

11. The proper focus of the domain of public relations is relationships, not communication.

12. Communication alone cannot sustain long-term relationships in the absence of supportive

organizational behavior.

13. Effective management of organization–public relationships supports mutual

understanding and benefit.

14. The relationship perspective is applicable throughout the public relations process and

with regard to all public relations techniques. (p. 195).

This study explored the axioms of organization—public relationships that focus on being goal oriented, relationship type and quality, perceived needs and wants of the organization, communicative elements of the relationship formation, understanding the mutual benefit of the organization and the public, and the context of the public relations process and technique. By establishing these guiding elements of the theory rooted in previous literature, Ledingham (2003) asserts that it allows public relations research, teaching and practice to be more significant and furthers the support for this study’s results.

52 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

After a thorough review of the initial relationship management theory literature,

Ledingham (2006) applied the theory more directly to public relations practice. He argues that the theory pivots the direction of public relations toward “initiatives based on their impact on the quality of the relationship between the organization and the publics which it interacts,”

(Ledingham, 2006, p. 413). Strategic planning becomes an added element of importance for successful public relations practice, and communication is found to serve as a strategic tool to form beneficial relationships. The author adds that organizational relationships are not static but constantly change and emerge over time. Ledingham (2006) asserts that these relationships are goal oriented and “can be analyzed in terms of relationship quality, maintenance strategies, relationship type, and those involved in the relationship,” (p. 423).

While relationship management theory has been used to understand public relations practice within various U.S. government, business and nonprofit organizations, it has also been used internationally. Pratt and Omenugha (2014) applied the theory to managing ethnoreligious crises in Sub-Saharan Africa. The authors found that mutually beneficial communication strategies found in successful relationship management efforts within an organization could also be used to help individuals in the region establish meaningful interactions with others that followed a different religion. With significant conflict emerging between Christians and Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa, the authors use relationship management theory as a “searchlight for managing communicatively ethnoreligious conflicts,” (Pratt & Omenugha, 2014, p. 105). Using relationship management strategies, involving two-way communication that brings to light common, shared beliefs, is found to be important for helping Muslims and Christians find similarities in their beliefs of God. The authors declare that the saying “My God is Not Your

God” “even as religions worship the same God and share some significant tenets, is as

53 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY misleading, destabilizing, and threatening as it is obfuscating, unsettling, and gnawing, pitting one religious group needlessly against the others” (Pratt & Omenugha, 2014, p. 119). By encouraging both groups of religious followers to see similarities amongst their beliefs and values, relationship management theory allows these different groups to employ effective conflict-management strategies that improve congenial interactions.

Communication serves as an important tool in implementing an organizational relationship; however, the organization’s history, the type of the transaction and frequency of its occurrences also serve as other factors to keep in mind. To see how public relations scholars have extended relationship management theory into different research topics, the following section will review the literature on relationship management theory and its application to assessing different types of organization-public relationships.

Hon and Grunig’s (1999) guidelines for assessing successful relationship management outcomes have been used by several scholars to analyze organization-public relationships (Lee &

Park, 2013; Bortree, 2010). Hon and Grunig (1999) assert that a while a major goal of public relations practice is to form positive, mutually beneficial relationships with key publics, practitioners lack a clear method for assessing the relationship outcomes of their work and lack of sufficient means to measure the outputs and outcomes of public relations campaigns. Hon and

Grunig (1999) created a reliable PR Relationship Measurement Scale that focuses on measuring six elements of the organization-public relationship. The first is Control Mutuality—which involves “the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another,” (p. 3). A stable balance of power and effective two-way communication feedback between both the organization and the public is important in order to achieve this level of the scale. Questionnaires that assess this element focus on asking the public if they believe their

54 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY feedback is deemed legitimate and heard by the organization. The second element of the scale,

Trust, is defined as “One party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party,” (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 3). Trust is broken down into three dimensions—integrity, dependability and competence—that center around the organization’s fairness and ability to carry out actions that it claims it will do. The third element of the scale involves Satisfaction, which is defined as “The extent to which each party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced,” (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 3). When the public feels happy and content with an organization’s interaction with the public, this level is found to be successful. The fourth element of the scale is Commitment, which is defined as “The extent to which each party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote,” (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 3). Successful commitment-level relationships are achieved when the public feels that an organization is making a consistent effort to maintain a relationship with them for the long-term compared to other competing organizations. The fifth element of the scale is Exchange Relationship, which is defined as when “one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future,” (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 3). This level is successful when the public understands that they must give something in return to the organization that provides them with a benefit. Lastly, the sixth element of the scale is Communal Relationship, which is defined as

“both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other—even when they get nothing in return,” (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 3). This type of relationship is deemed more important for organizations, as the public feels that they are valued and cared for without having to expect something in return.

55 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Relationships are found to be an essential element of public relations because without them organizations are unable to carry out their public relations goals and sustain effective long- term support. Organizations rely on the public to provide feedback on their offerings and guide their future actions. Hon and Grunig (1999) conclude by claiming that because relationships serve as the fundamental assessment of an organization’s offerings and future actions, “we should be able to determine the value of public relations by measuring the quality of relationships with strategic publics. And, we should be able to extend our ability to evaluate communication programs by measuring the effects of these programs and correlating them with relationship indicators,” (p. 9).

Following Hon and Grunig (1999), Hung (2005) found that organizations create and manage relationships with the public for different purposes ranging from more self-interested concerns to a concern for others’ interests. To assess how organizations perceive different types of relationships with the public, Hung (2005) conducted 40 personal interviews with 36 different companies in China and Taiwan and created a continuum categorizing these various types of organizational relationships which can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Modified continuum of organization-public relationship types

Concern Win- Zone à à Concern for Self win for interest Other’s Interest Exploiti Manipulati Contractu Symbiot Exchang Covenant Mutual One- ve ve al ic e al Commun sided al Commun al

(Hung, 2005, p. 416)

56 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

The author found that participants believed reaching the win-win zone should be the goal of an organization, as these relationships provide the best balance of the publics’ interest and the company’s goals.

Exploitive relationships were found to focus solely on the organization’s benefits and lack any consideration of the public’s benefits. These relationships can harm the reputation of an organization and make it difficult to garner important public support for long-term success. The second most self-concerned type of relationship is manipulative, which is found when an organization purposefully uses the public for its own benefit. These relationships are also problematic as they do not account for the public’s concerns. Contractual relationships involve an agreement between the organization and its employees at the start of the relationship. These relationships are not in the optimal win-win zone because the power dynamic significantly favors the organization which is in control of all employee job duties and pay. Symbiotic relationships provide a better outcome for the public because they involve working together with an organization, however, organizations that fall under this category do not make a purposeful effort to include the publics’ opinion and often do not adjust goals to align with the demands of the public. Exchange relationships are the first type to fall into the win-win zone, and these relationships provide mutual benefits to both groups. Companies often achieve these relationships by providing incentives for employees to work harder, which increases productivity for the company and provides employees with a bonus. Covenantal relationships were found to be more beneficial for the public, as they involve actively communicating with the public to incorporate their feedback to create common goals. Mutual-communal relationships were found to involve a heightened motivation for organizations to include public feedback. One-sided relationships were found to involve benefitting the public without a guarantee of reciprocal

57 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY action that benefits the organization. Hung (2005) asserts that the win-win zone is ideal for an organization and the public because “both the organization and publics can benefit to the highest degree without being exploited,” (p. 417). Identifying key attributes of an ideal organization— public relationship helps conceptualize the wide spectrum of organizations and helps guide this study to focus on how companies create beneficial relationships in the sharing economy. The following section will outline the theory’s application to online communication and organizational websites that will serve as this study’s objects of analysis.

Relationship Management Theory Online

While the section above provides an overview of the history and development of relationship management theory in public relations, it is also helpful to see how the theory has been used to assess how organizations attempt to form relationships with publics through online,

Web 2.0 communication strategies. Web 2.0 is a term used to describe the latest, interactive version of the internet that gives users the opportunity to create user-generated content (UGC) and allows for the exchange of social content online (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008).

Organizations can respond instantly to users’ requests or concerns in the Web 2.0 environment, presenting new opportunities for relationship management. Organization websites are found to be important places for the public to both form and maintain relationships, and research by

Vorvoreanu (2006) asserts that “one important site of relationship building and maintenance is the organizational website,” (p. 395). The analysis found that a majority of public relations website research uses content analysis to analyze the data, showing a gap in the literature where more qualitative, theory-driven studies are needed to further advance public relations research and practice in relationship management. Furthermore, research by Capriotti and Moreno (2007) found that the internet has become transformed into an important place where organizations are

58 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY able to communicate corporate responsibility to the public. The study found that 68.6% of the 35 sampled companies dedicated a space for corporate social responsibility on their websites.

With the internet serving as an important mediator of corporate values and corporate identity, organizations have started using blogs to increase their online presence and communicate more detailed opinions and views on popular issues. Research by Yang and Lim

(2009) examined how blogs are being used by public relations practitioners to foster relationships with the public, and the authors found that blog-mediated public relations can increase trust. The authors manipulated blogs in an experimental setting where participants were shown different blogs containing differing levels of blogger credibility, narrative structure and dialogic self to test for perceived relational trust. The results showed that the dialogic self, defined as the ability of the blogging author to incorporate the “process of ongoing interactions with others,” (Yang & Lim, 2009, p. 345), was found to increase user’s perceived relational trust when complimented with user interactivity. The study’s findings have practical implications for future blogging and public relations research by showing that blogs need to have elements of interactivity in order to allow for dialogic self-reflection and resulting trust perception. The study also found that credibility of blog authors has a significant impact on website audience’s perceived trust. Similar to Hon and Grunig’s (1999) assessment of relationship management theory, Yang and Lim (2009) also found trust is to be an important attribute of an organization- public relationship, furthering this study’s research focus and use of thematic analysis.

Additional research by Ingenhoff and Koelling (2009) assessed relationship management theory through the lens of an organizations’ website communication strategies in the context of charitable fundraising nonprofit organizations (NPOs) located in Sweden. The authors performed a quantitative content analysis of 134 Swiss NPOs to examine how organizations form dialogic

59 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY relationships with important stakeholder groups and found that “NPOs do not sufficiently take advantage of new Internet technologies for building relationships with stakeholders,” (Ingenhoff

& Koelling, 2009, p. 68). Furthermore, the study found that the NPOs used their websites to give the public information, but failed to build important relationships from using communicative new technological innovations such as chat rooms, forums, user surveys, podcasts or blogs. The study shows the need for more qualitative approaches to organizational relationship management theory and its function in website communication.

Further relationship management theory research within the online environment has been applied to online communication surrounding the political climate, as Levenshus (2010) looked at how former President Barack Obama’s campaign team used the internet to manage relationships with its grassroots public during the 2008 presidential election. The author employed “multiple methods of data gathering (in-depth interviews, news articles and the Obama website) to better test description accuracy and analysis of results,” (p. 319). The results of the study found that campaign staff benefited from using the internet to improve relationships by sharing videos, user-generated comments and giving users open-access to Obama’s voter file database. Additionally, campaign staff used the internet to engage with the public more easily by constantly sharing campaign updates and stories to keep the grassroots public informed and updated on the latest changes. Lastly, Obama’s campaign managers encouraged supporters to create MyBO profiles, which granted supporters access to a social media platform where behind- the-scene videos of the campaign were posted along with articles, blogs and open discussion boards. The MyBO platform allowed supporters to engage in two-way communication and opened the floor for important feedback for Obama’s campaign. The blogging elements along with the MyBO platform were found to benefit relationship management strategies as it was able

60 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY to “consistently provide talking points and strategy updates,” (Levenshus, 2010, p. 332).

Furthermore, the author concluded that this study demonstrated “the potential benefits of using the Internet to empower, dialogue with, and build mutually beneficial relationships with public,”

(Levenshus, 2010, p. 333).

More recently, relationship management theory in the online context has found that

“With the additional advantage that corporations have complete control over their contents and feedback, online communication platforms can serve as ideal outlets to engage in active two-way communication and facilitate organizational–public relationship building” (Lee & Park, 2013, p.

201). The authors tested the impact of website message interactivity on relationship management and organizational reputation through an interactive experiment where participants were given highly interactive online platforms (websites and blogs with a significant number of user comments) and more traditional websites with less comments available. The study used Hon and

Grunig’s (1999) organization-public relational outcome scale and found that it serves as “one of the most tested and reliable scales developed to date,” (Lee & Park, 2013, p. 191). While the study focused on effective two-way communication between organizations and users, it found empirical evidence that organizations’ active responses to public comments online increases the public’s perception of relationship management and their reputation. The study found that effective two-way communication is important for sustaining positive relationships between the public and an organization. Lastly, the study highlights the importance of ensuring that the public has a space to express their voices and opinions. Lee and Park (2013) assert “there is an opportunity for public relations practitioners to shine by directly and personally responding to these opinions in real time without the restrictions that have typically applied to traditional media” (p. 202). By measuring the effects of online communication and interaction between

61 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY users and the organization, the study shows how online websites and blogs serve as an important communicative strategy for public relations.

As more users begin to rely on organizational websites to gain information or have a relationship with the company, users also go to an organization’s website to obtain information about the company’s stance on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Today’s publics and stakeholders have heightened expectations for organizations’ diversity and inclusion initiatives, and organizations “must do much more than say diversity is important in recruitment materials and on the organization’s website. Organizations must craft programs to make diversity a cultural value and then convey those values to key stakeholders, all of whom want to see themselves represented in and by the organizations they support,” (Mundy, 2015, p. 25). Public relations practitioners are responsible for communicating DEI values to the public in order to establish and maintain a positive, trustworthy relationship (Mundy, 2015). Given past allegations of discrimination in sharing economy companies, and overall concerns about racial bias and discrimination in the tech industry, DEI has become an important focus for stakeholders who increasingly want to engage with ethical organizations.

The literature review provided a thorough conceptualization of the development of relationship management theory and how it has evolved over time in the public relations literature. By understanding the fundamental elements of the theory—which focuses on how organizations develop and communicate to develop and maintain mutually beneficial relationships with publics—it is possible that the theory needs to be revised to include account for the new communication dynamics created by the sharing economy.

The review of relationship management literature shows how it has evolved and been used in a variety of contexts, including online spaces. Concepts such as trust, establishing win-

62 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY win relationships, recognizing the challenges associated with contractual relationships as well as exchange relationships all serve as key concerns of relationship management theory that have relevance to the sharing economy and emerged as important concepts in the literature review.

The study will build on existing relationship management scholarship and extend the relationship management conversation to sharing economy companies. It will do so, not by applying relationship management theory as a set of rigid rules for analysis, but by using relationship management more broadly as a theoretical lens to orient thinking about the importance of relationships in both public relations and the sharing economy. Relationship management theory informs the forthcoming thematic analysis of selected corporate communication from three sharing economy company websites. The next section will outline how the thesis employs the methodological approach of thematic analysis.

Method

Thematic Analysis

An inductive qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to analyze how the selected sharing economy companies communicate in an effort to attempt to establish and maintain relationships with the two key stakeholder groups – customers and service providers – that are the focus of this study. Before explaining how thematic analysis was used in this study, it is first important to understand how thematic analysis functions as a qualitative research method. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) article outlines the main objectives and steps for using thematic analysis, and the authors explain how it can be applied deductively to a rigid theoretical framework that explores previously identified themes in the literature, or inductively, allowing the researcher to explore and discovered new themes that have not been previously identified in the literature. The authors write, “Through its theoretical freedom, thematic analysis

63 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY provides a flexible and useful research tool, which can potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex, account of detail (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 78). This paper on thematic analysis provides a ‘recipe’ that qualitative researchers can broadly follow when using the research method. The flexibility of thematic analysis gives researchers the freedom to decide which themes they find best fit for the data and serves as an excellent method for discovering a new phenomenon. As the literature review points out, the emergence of the sharing economy—and the lack of public relations scholarship about the sharing economy—provides an excellent opportunity to broadly explore this phenomenon in the context of relationship management theory through a thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke (2006) define thematic analysis as “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organizes and describes your data set in (rich) detail” (p. 79).

With themes being the fundamental aspect of the proposed research method, Braun and

Clarke (2006) assert that there is no right or wrong way to develop themes. It is up to the researcher to determine what types of themes exist in the data, but it is important that the researcher remains consistent when coding for the themes and their prevalence within the data.

Thematic analysis can be done both inductively and deductively. Deductive thematic analysis is used when the researcher is looking to analyze specific aspects of a theory more explicitly, and this form of thematic analysis uses previously discovered themes to guide the coding process.

Inductive thematic analysis is used when the researcher lacks preexisting knowledge of the research topic and previously discovered themes based in the literature. Inductive thematic analysis allows the researcher to develop themes grounded in the data that emerge as the analysis is taking place. This study uses an inductive approach because very little research has been conducted on the sharing economy and within the context of relationship management theory.

64 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

The inductive approach facilitated the discovery of new and reoccurring relationship codes that were shared across all the website communication of each company. These codes were then used to create the final themes that broadly relate to relationship management theory.

Thematic analysis is centered around finding “repeated patterns of meaning,” (Braun &

Clarke, 2006, p. 86), and the authors outline six phases of thematic analysis that are guided by a recursive process of revising themes as the analysis unfolds. The first phase involves completely reading through all of the data and making notes of initial ideas about the content. Following the initial reading of the data, the second and third phases involve coding the data into relevant categories that address the research questions and guiding theory. After the codes are developed, the researcher then creates corresponding themes by combining the codes together based on shared characteristics. Lastly, the themes are refined after the researcher reads back through all of the initial data, and then a final report is created. Braun and Clarke (2006) assert that the final summary of the themes should focus on telling a story of the data that is grounded in theory and the context of the research questions. The authors state, “your analytical claims need to be grounded in, but go beyond, the ‘surface’ of the data, even for a ‘semantic’ level of analysis,”

(Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 94). Following Braun and Clarke, this thesis tells the story of the data in relation to the research questions. Thematic analysis has been applied to several areas of communication research and will be further explored next.

Thematic analysis has been employed in the health communication field to analyze the differences between men and women going through cancer treatment and the ways each gender communicates to one another through online discussion boards (Gooden & Winefield, 2007). By applying a grounded theory approach to thematic analysis, the authors coded online discussion board content relating to breast cancer and prostate cancer data in three stages, enabling the

65 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY authors to develop themes as the data emerged. While both groups of people were found to use the discussion boards to gain information and receive emotional support about different forms of cancer, the authors found that men more frequently wrote lengthy summaries of important literature relating to cancer compared to women who wrote shorter summaries. Additionally, men were found to write more detailed accounts of the physical status and sexual limitations of their cancer compared to women. Women were found to “clearly express their emotions, whereas men tended to imply their emotions,” (Gooden & Winefield, 2007, p. 111).

Public relations scholars have used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis method to explore relationships between an organization and various publics. For example, Vardeman and Sebesta (2020) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to analyze the messages surrounding the 2017 Women’s March on Washington (WMW). To analyze the different types of discourse surrounding WMW, the authors examine three different items: (1) messages and media materials found on the website created by the WMW organizers; (2) social media posts from Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and (3) direct quotes from news articles featured in the organization’s news release section. Through analyzing each type of content in six stages, the authors were able to develop themes that overlapped and answered their research questions. The authors followed the six steps of a thematic analysis, as they “extracted meanings that were consistent as well as aberrant throughout the campaign,” (Vardeman & Sebesta, 2020, p. 9).

Results of the thematic analysis showed that the WMW public posts by organizational leaders and internal campaign social media accounts were successful in communicating inclusivity and engaging in conflict, but messages were only partially successful in being intersectional – appealing to a combination of social identities such as race, gender and class. However, the study

66 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY was successful in providing a broad understanding of how social media campaigns can provide intersectional communication.

Further use of thematic analysis in public relations literature can be found in Xiong, Cho and Boatwright’s (2019) study which explored how social movement organizations engaged in the #MeToo movement on Twitter. The researchers used a thematic analysis to analyze the hashtags and corresponding frames of tweets used to speak about the movement. The authors combined a semantic network analysis with a qualitative thematic analysis in order to focus on the more latent themes that emerged from the socially constructed conversations between the social movement organizations and the public. Xiong et al. (2019) used the #MeToo movement as a case study to “examine the co-creation process of meanings in activism,” (p. 19). The six themes that emerged were found to be: (1) directly and indirectly related to the movement, (2) references to related issues motivating the movement, (3) action oriented, (4) event specific (i.e., recurring or singular), (5) references to victims, and (6) activist mentions (Xiong et al., 2019).

This study’s thematic analysis was informed by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) work and further shows how themes can be found effectively using this qualitative method in public relations scholarship.

With little public relations research on the sharing economy, this thesis explored communication in the sharing economy using the thematic analysis method, informed by a key public relations perspective in relationship management theory. To analyze how two leading sharing economy companies, Airbnb and Uber, along with a smaller sharing economy company,

TaskRabbit, attempt to establish and maintain relationships with the key stakeholders, the study systematically examined website data from all organizations’ homepages, and most prominent customer-facing pages and service provider pages that were located at the bottom menu of each

67 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY organization’s website. Websites were selected because they are publicly available, easily accessible and serve as the main source of information for both customers and service providers.

They are also the starting point for both customers and service providers to form a relationship with organizations in the sharing economy. All users, including customers and service providers, are directed to the homepage when beginning an online interaction with the organization. After arriving at the homepage, users navigate to the pages most appealing to them and responsive to their needs. While there are thousands of website pages and resources available for all customers and service providers on each company’s website and corresponding resource center databases, this thesis focused on the most public-facing website pages that the researcher found most relevant to relationship management. For the purposes of this thesis, key information that was most relevant to from each organization’s homepage, customer-focused pages, service provider- focused pages and shared information, including DEI, were collected and analyzed. The next sections will outline all data to be collected and analyzed from Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit websites. All URLs of the webpage data can be found in Appendix A.

To begin, Airbnb has a list of clickable links at the bottom of the homepage which direct potential guests and hosts to corresponding pages. To examine the communication from Airbnb to the potential and current customers, defined as guests at Airbnb, the “How Airbnb works” tab was analyzed along with the “Cancellation options” page listed below the “Support” category.

The “Trust & Safety” page that focuses on the “traveling” portion of the page was also analyzed.

These pages addressed RQ1: How do sharing economy companies communicate to establish relationships with their publics, including service providers and customers? The other research questions will be addressed further in the findings section as well as in the discussion section. To address the second part of RQ1, that pertains to service providers, the “Host your home” link was

68 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY analyzed along with the individual links on the page that are labeled: “Why host on Airbnb?,”

“How to get started on Airbnb,” “Is my space a good fit for Airbnb?,” “What does Airbnb

Expect of Hosts?” and “What hosting regulations apply to you?” Further down, the host homepage labeled, “How we support you” section was analyzed with the links to “How you’re protected while hosting,” “Get to know the enhanced cleaning process” and “Steps we take to help hosts feel confident.” Additionally, the “Responsible hosting” link, and “Trust and Safety” links were analyzed for the thesis. Lastly, Airbnb also pages designated for both audiences— customers and service providers—that serve as important communication to both types of stakeholders. The following shared pages were analyzed and included the homepage, “Diversity

& Belonging,” “Against Discrimination,” “Accessibility,” “Trust & Safety,” “Safety,” and “Our

COVID-19 Response” pages.

Uber also has a similarly formatted homepage with various links found at the bottom to direct both customers, defined as riders at Uber, and service providers, defined as drivers, to corresponding pages. To examine the communication from Uber to its users, the “Ride” page was analyzed along with the “How riding works” link, “Learn more about safety” link, and all four links under the “Smooth rides from start to finish” including: “How pricing works,” “How to edit your location,” “Connect with your driver,” and “Tips on tipping.” The website sections dedicated to Uber’s communication to its drivers were collected from the “Drive” link homepage. The link to the “How to use the app” page was analyzed in addition to the links listed at the top of the page labeled “Requirements,” “Driving basics,” “Earnings” and “Safety.” The shared pages, that are used to communicate to both groups of Uber’s stakeholders included the homepage and links to the pages labeled “About us,” “How to use the Uber app,” “Safety,”

“Community Guidelines” and “Diversity and Inclusion.”

69 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Representing the smaller sharing economy companies, TaskRabbit has a homepage layout similar to Airbnb and Uber with location-specific offerings catered to the online user, but this website has much less information for customers and service providers, who are categorized as “Taskers.” To analyze the communication to customers, focus was directed to the “Services

By City” link and the “All services” link at the bottom of the homepage. These were the only public-facing links relevant to customers. Because TaskRabbit had so few communicative messages to customers, the first blog under the “Using TaskRabbit” category was also analyzed to offer an additional communicative element for the company. The blog post was titled “Getting

Started with TaskRabbit: What Happens After I Book?” The only homepage-based website element dedicated to current or prospective service providers was labeled “Become a Tasker,” and that page was analyzed. Finally, the shared website pages for both customers and service providers that were analyzed included the homepage, “COVID-19 Safety Standards,” “About

Us” and “TaskRabbit for Good.” There were no DEI pages that were listed on TaskRabbit’s website, although the company does have an anti-discrimination and harassment page located under the “Help” section. Because this page is not prominently featured on the public-facing web-pages, it was subsequently not used in the analysis.

With all of the items of analysis clearly outlined and specific to the first research question, the analysis answered the second research question: What are the main differences and similarities in how Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit communicate with their service provider and customer publics? This question was addressed by comparing the discovered themes across all platforms. The third research question, which is how should relationship management theory respond to the sharing economy, was addressed by examining the themes that emerge from the data analysis process to determine if or how the developed themes have implications for

70 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY relationship management theory. Additionally, the developed themes were also examined in relation to how the organizations attempt to create win-win relationships despite the challenges associated with the contractual relationships and exchange relationships (Hung, 2005) that are a basis for the sharing economy.

Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps of qualitative thematic guided this study. The study took an inductive approach to the thematic analysis and used the understanding of relationship management literature as a broad lens that informed the analysis of data. All website texts were printed, totaling 194 pages, and sorted into a binder that was divided into individual company categories and specific audience categories (customers, service providers and shared) within each company. The researcher began the thematic analysis by completely reading through each company’s printed website pages. After reading through each company’s entire webpage dataset, the researcher then wrote down overarching ideas and broad summaries of relationship elements communicated by each organization. After reading through the texts a second time, the researcher moved into the second phase of analysis and began to highlight individual headings, words and phrases that stuck out as important information relevant to each company’s relationship-based communication. These identified words and phrases were then summarized into specific codes that represented repeated patterns of meaning found across each individual website page. These codes were written at the top of the first page of each webpage, providing a summarization of focal points that were specific to relationships on the specific webpages. In the third phase, the researcher went back through the long list of relevant codes at the top of each website and created initial themes that accurately summarized the data across website communication from each company. The study identified themes on a semantic level by focusing on the explicit words and text found on each company’s webpages that attempt to establish and

71 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY maintain a relationship with both stakeholder groups – customers and service providers.

Semantic themes were used to connect the data to the research questions and used to focus on the specific communicative elements of the website relating to relationships. In the fourth phase, the researcher narrowed down the long list themes and combined them to form the three themes most relevant to the research questions. In the fifth stage, the researcher created a map of the three themes and began to structure the themes in a way that tells a story of the data. Finally, in the last stage, the researcher went back through the entire dataset and carefully selected examples of text that represent each company’s communication of each theme. The findings were then written with relevant website examples to support the defining elements of each theme.

With a clear outline of the method, items for analysis, and description of the systematic analytical process, the next sections of the study will present the analysis followed by the discussion and conclusion.

Findings

The following section lays out the findings from the study’s thematic analysis. The findings are organized in the following manner: Each of the three themes will be presented and defined. An example of each theme will be provided for each company. The examples of communication messages provided for the customers will be presented first for each theme.

Then, examples of communication to service providers will be presented, and examples of communication to all (customers and service providers) will be presented last. There were many examples of message content created by each company for each audience that represented each theme. A total of twenty-seven different examples could be included to fully represent each theme. However, given the space limitations of a thesis, only one example of each theme from each company is presented in the findings. In addition, several examples that are not able to be

72 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY included in the findings section, are included in the discussion section to exemplify relevant points. A shortened definition and example of each theme can be found below in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Discovered relationship themes

Theme Stakeholder Example Frequency Audience Social Trust Customers TaskRabbit- Services 62 Feeling of confidence By City: “Browse in the platform, trusted Taskers by community and skills, reviews and offerings established price. Chat with them to through user-generated confirm details,” (n.d.- feedback… c, para. 2)

Safety Service Providers Uber- Safety “Features 88 Commitment to to help keep you safe: providing secure The Driver app is built transaction features, with technology to help quality health standards you stay connected to and dependable safety your loved ones, the checks that alleviate Uber team, and risk… emergency authorities, so you can go even further,” (n.d.-f., para. 5)

Support All (customers and Airbnb-Trust & Safety 136 Act of helping all users service providers) “We’re here if you need on a platform complete us. Our global team is an exchange with step- standing by 24/7 in 11 by-step guides, clear different languages to communication of help make things right expectations and with rebooking simple technological assistance, refunds, mechanisms… reimbursements, our $1 million dollar Host Guarantee, and insurance programs for both homes and experiences. Just reach

73 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

out if there’s anything you need,” (n.d.-f, para. 8).

Social Trust

Trust has been a cornerstone of both relationship management theory literature

(Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham, 2003; Yang and Lim, 2009) and sharing economy literature (Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Abramova et al., 2015; Ert et al.,

2016; Cheng et al., 2019; Xu, 2020). Key definitional characteristics of trust found in the relationship management literature include establishing a feeling of confidence in the exchange occurring between both parties of an interaction (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998), carrying out dependable promises and offerings by an organization (Hon & Grunig, 1999) and the overall belief that the system or organization operating is reliable. Important defining factors of trust discussed in the sharing economy literature include the use of cumulative, user-generated reviews (Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Xu, 2020), two-way communication between service providers and users before and after a booking (Cheng et al., 2019), the ability to gain important information about an offering through detailed descriptions and reviews provided by other users

(Xu, 2020), and the use of high quality indicators, such as badges or rankings, that help users find high quality offerings more easily (Han et al., 2019). Based on the research conducted for this project, including the data analysis, social trust is defined in this thesis as the feeling of confidence in the platform, community, and offerings that is garnered through user-generated information mechanisms (reviews and chat features) which result in credible interactions with the company and its users from start to finish. The thematic analysis undertaken in this thesis demonstrated social trust is communicated by sharing economy companies through their efforts

74 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY to promote the use of user-generated reviews and rating systems that guide customers and service providers with detailed descriptions and information about each aspect of an offering (i.e., cleanliness of an Airbnb accommodation, Uber driver’s attention while driving, Tasker’s quality of a task, etc.). Sharing economy companies use these technological functions to increase confidence in the platform. Furthermore, sharing economy companies communicate social trust by encouraging users to provide feedback and stress that their feedback matters and contributes to a better experience for everyone.

A total of 62 examples of social trust were found on all sharing economy company website communications. Here is one representative example from Airbnb. The company communicated to establish social trust with potential and current customers, writing on its customer-facing page labeled, Trust & Safety:

Search & book with confidence. Read the ratings and reviews: Look through feedback

from past guests to help find the right fit for you. You’ll see ratings on several quality

dimensions, like cleanliness and accuracy, and detailed reviews with authentic feedback

about the experience. Guests can only leave a review after they’ve stayed with that

specific host, so you know the feedback you’re seeing is based on actual experiences.

(Airbnb, n.d.-e, Trust & Safety, para. 1)

By focusing on reviews and user-generated feedback, Airbnb emphasizes the socially-built trust tools available on their platform. Similarly, Uber also encourages users to learn more about the actual person on the other side of the transaction. The company communicates social trust to customers by encouraging them to explore a driver’s profile where they can read past reviews, view driver’s trip history and even examine personalized thank-you notes written by previous riders. With a wide variety of social tools available to customers, organizations in the sharing

75 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY economy make it a priority for customers to work together to collectively reward the best offerings and the most enjoyable experiences. All sharing economy companies studied in this thesis were found to communicate how their platform allows peers to work together to share effectively and collaborate together to distinguish between the many different offerings.

Focusing on communicating social trust with service providers, Uber communicated to its drivers that they can trust their riders and feel reassured about the community of Uber users by stating: “Your feedback matters. Low-rated trips are logged, and users may be removed to protect the Uber community,” (Uber, n.d.-d, Safety, para. 13). This example shows how Uber communicates that there are systems in place on their platform to prevent false offerings and eliminate illegitimate users. Uber makes sure drivers also have a way to rate their riders, fulfilling the two-way rating system, and all drivers are encouraged to work together to eliminate unqualified riders that behave inappropriately. The company also communicates to drivers that their phone number remains anonymous if they ever need to contact a rider by phone through the app, which further demonstrates the importance of social connection during a rider-driver interaction. Service providers in the sharing economy rely on the organizations orchestrating their services to clearly communicate the technological features available to them that can be used to spark social interactions. Having these social tools available can help alleviate any doubts that may arise when service providers come into contact with strangers in an unregulated space, such as a private vehicle (Uber) or private home, apartment or other living space (Airbnb and TaskRabbit). By getting to access or exchange information before a peer-to-peer interaction occurs on a sharing economy platform, service providers can have a much better idea of customer expectations before beginning the exchange.

76 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Finally, social trust was communicated to all users on each company’s shared pages. An example of this type of stakeholder communication can be found in the data from TaskRabbit’s website homepage, which states: “Get inspired. Explore tips, home tours and Tasker stories. See the stories of Taskers who have helped make life easier for people around the world,”

(TaskRabbit, n.d.-b, Homepage, para. 6). This statement communicates social trust to both customers and service providers. It communicates social trust to customers by providing them with a behind-the-scenes look into the lives of the Taskers on the platform, which can give them confidence in the platform and its community of dedicated service providers. Customers are also able to leave comments below these Tasker stories, which further demonstrates the user- generated feedback aspect of social trust present in the sharing economy. The inclusion of Tasker stories also appeals to service providers by helping them see how the organization is dedicated to promoting high-quality service providers and their offerings. By promoting various Tasker stories on the organization’s homepage, service providers can trust that the organization is actively working to make their offerings more appealing, resulting in increased organizational trust and confidence in the platform. Furthermore, TaskRabbit compiled reviews at the bottom of their homepage and used the reviews to bolster trust in their company. The company encouraged users to go beyond relying on their organization’s reputation as a private company and instructed customers to read the reviews of taskers to further gauge offerings. Featuring a portfolio of five- star reviews with personalized compliments from past customers, TaskRabbit communicates the socially-built success of their platform and relies on these social tools to help them be viewed as a legitimate organization.

Social trust emerged as an important component in sharing economy company communications and this was evidenced in the data, which depicted numerous statements from

77 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY all companies who tried to foster trust through encouraging social interaction and feedback in the form of reviews and the user-based rating system. By providing all users with the ability to rate their experiences with each company’s offerings and transactions, the sharing economy has put the power back in the hands of the people. Additionally, by making reviews available and easily accessible, companies in the sharing economy communicate to all users to that they can feel assured that their interactions are credible and trustworthy. This idea of trusting the community and online “neighborhood of users” is the desirable outcome of the sharing economy, and the use of reviews serves as an effective way to reduce fraud and get rid of the abusers (Botsman &

Rogers, 2011). The theme of social trust also aligns with previous research (Ert et al., 2016) that found trust to be an important prerequisite for successful participation and confidence in the peer-to-peer business model found in the sharing economy. After reviewing the emerging theme of social trust from the analysis, the next section will provide an examination of the second theme that emerged from the analysis, safety.

Safety

Although safety has not been labeled and defined as a specific pillar in relationship management theory literature, the idea of providing a safe, inclusive environment for all people interacting with an organization has been found to be an important aspect of building positive, long term relationships between publics and organizations (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998;

Freeman, 2001). Relationship management scholars have viewed safety as an organizations’ regard for the political and social well-being of the public (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) and focused on how organizations can create communal relationships that carefully consider the welfare or safety of both parties in an exchange (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Organizations have also been characterized as being responsible, upstanding corporate citizens that should protect

78 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY customers and the public from any potential safety hazards associated with their offerings

(Freeman, 2001). Sharing economy literature, however, has directly discussed the importance of creating safe, secure platforms where people can feel protected sharing their goods and services with strangers (Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Cheng et al., 2019). Important definitions of safety in sharing economy literature include reassuring all types of users that the online platform where the exchange takes place is secure (Botsman & Rogers, 2011) and providing a space where detailed information can be accessed by customers in order to feel safe staying in a new location, such as an accommodation on Airbnb’s platform (Cheng et. al., 2019). Transactional safety is found to have a positive impact on creating trust, and the term encompasses measures of security and guaranteed privacy that occurs between peers making an exchange online through a sharing economy platform (Kong et. al, 2020). The theme of safety emerged during the data analysis and is defined in this thesis as a commitment to providing secure transaction features, mandatory health standards and dependable safety checks that alleviate risk and ensure protection from potential harm for all people. All sharing economy companies analyzed in this thesis communicated safety to all groups of stakeholders by emphasizing how they protect users from danger, including health risks from COVID-19, illegitimate users on their platform, and even security breaches on their platform. Safety was a priority for all three companies, and each company states this clearly on their website communication headlines. For example, Airbnb includes the headline: “Your safety is our priority,” (Airbnb, n.d.-e, Trust & Safety, para 1.),

Uber includes the headline: “Your safety drives us,” (Uber, n.d.-d, Safety, para 4.) and

TaskRabbit includes the headline: “See our safety standards for COVID-19,” (TaskRabbit, n.d.- b, Homepage, para. 1). A total of 88 examples of safety were found across all companies’

79 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY webpages. The following selected examples show how each company communicated safety in a variety of ways to each stakeholder group.

Safety emerged as a dominant theme in sharing economy communication to customers.

For example, Airbnb communicated safety to customers by highlighting their secure platform.

The company states: “Our secure messaging tool is a safe and easy way for you to ask a potential host any questions you have...keep yourself, your payment, and your personal information protected by staying on our secure platform throughout the entire process,” (Airbnb, n.d.-e, Trust

& Safety, para 3. and 4.). Safety is an important aspect of the company’s communication, as they work to ensure that all customers feel safe communicating private information to hosts and carrying out sensitive payment information at the end of the exchange. Customers using Airbnb’s platform can rely on the organization to secure their credit card information and feel safe knowing that no form of payment should be completed outside the company’s platform. Uber and TaskRabbit also communicate the safety features embedded in their online platforms and alleviate any anxiety that may result in online payment methods.

Safety also surfaced in the sharing economy companies’ communication to service providers, and all companies communicated how they protect their service providers from harm, help service providers feel safe with guest identification measures, and provide updates on health crises to service providers, such as COVID-19. Uber communicated safety to its service providers by describing their commitment to protecting drivers and their riders. The company states: “Safety on the road. Your safety drives us to continuously raise the bar. Protection on every trip: Each trip you take with the Uber app is insured to protect you and your rider,” (Uber, n.d.-e, Drive, para 5). Safety was also communicated specifically to service providers on Airbnb and Uber’s website by providing them with detailed information regarding insurance policies

80 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY that cover accidents, such as if a car crash where to occur during an Uber ride or an Airbnb guest was found to have damaged an accommodation during a stay. Because driving is an inherent risk, Uber makes it clear that they are working to help drivers alleviate anxiety on the road and feel secure with a safe experience from start to finish. Airbnb also communicated similar information to service providers on their platform and reassured them that they have protections in-place to protect their property from possible damages caused by guests. While TaskRabbit did not mention any form of insurance policy for service providers, they focused on safety regarding the secure payment system that allows them to keep 100% of their earnings. Furthermore, health safety arose as a prominent safety theme for all companies, given the uncertainty users could feel when deciding whether or not they feel comfortable sharing a space such as a car or living space during a global pandemic. Airbnb communicated safety by rolling out mandatory safety practices for all community members to follow during COVID-19 and outlined a 5-step enhanced cleaning process hosts were required to abide by. Uber and TaskRabbit also featured health guideline pages specifically focused on COVID-19 measures.

Finally, safety was communicated to all types on each company’s website communication. For example, on TaskRabbit’s shared homepage, they state: “Help keep your community safe! To use TaskRabbit, you agree to follow standards for healthy and safe tasking, shared by everyone in our community,” (TaskRabbit, n.d.-c. See our safety standards for

COVID-19, para 1.). TaskRabbit further explains the list of required health safety measures that all users must abide by and emphasizes the importance of establishing a community of users that share the responsibility of keeping everyone safe and healthy. Safety is a shared concern for both customers and service providers, and all companies featured in the analysis prioritized their efforts to establish safe and secure interactions with all users. TaskRabbit also featured

81 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY communication on their homepage focused on how they ensure all Taskers go through rigorous background checks. By providing all users with the knowledge that background checks are used to create safe experiences and legitimate offerings, all users can feel safe browsing Taskers and interacting with users on the platform.

Through the data analysis, safety emerged as a prominent theme that focused on an organizational commitment to protect both the health and safety of all customers and service providers. Organizations in the sharing economy are found to pay attention to the security of their platform’s messaging system as they work to reassure users on both sides of the transaction that the mechanisms are safe. The specific focus on communicating the transactional safety measures aligns with Kong et. al’s (2020) findings that transaction safety needs to be communicated in order to create long term trust and support from stakeholders. Subsequently, the theme of safety also supports Botsman & Rogers’ (2011) work on the importance of establishing safe, secure communication between users in the sharing economy in order for an organization to be successful. Finally, by communicating user protections, such as insurance and health policies, the findings confirm Freeman’s (2001) work suggesting that organizations must protect the community from inherent risks and hazards. After a review of the themes of trust and safety, the next section will define and outline the theme of support that was discovered in the thematic analysis.

Support

Serving as the final theme to emerge from the thematic analysis, the theme of support represents an area of relationship management theory that has received little attention and focus in previous research. While Ledingham and Bruning (1998) hinted at the relationship quality of support, they situated the goals of successful organization-public relationships as more focused

82 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY on investment, or the process of spending valuable time and energy to build or maintain a relationship, which they connected to organizational support of public endeavors. The authors found that organizational initiatives that support local community efforts contributed to more long-term support from customers that approved of the organization’s impact in the community

(Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). Other relationship management literature has emphasized that organizations need to support communities by carrying out projects and initiatives that extend beyond just communicating prosocial values (Ledingham, 2001; Ledingham, 2003). Important factors of support found in relationship management literature include the use of two-way communication to engage and support stakeholders online (Lee & Park, 2013) and the use of internet platforms to provide updated, transparent communication about an organization’s latest news and latest actions (Levenshus, 2010).

Communicating diversity and inclusion initiatives has also been found to be important in public relations. It helps to establish positive relationships with stakeholders and the public

(Mundy, 2015). DEI endeavors help support communities and help all people feel welcome when interacting with an organization (Mundy, 2015). Sharing economy literature highlights the overt supportive nature of sharing products and services in a community that results in spreading knowledge and connecting people to useful resources (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Defining factors of support in the sharing economy literature are built around helping all types of people access products and services that contribute to more community-interaction and a return to a more collectivist culture (Botsman & Rogers, 2011).

The data analyzed in the thesis uncovered the theme of support throughout all companies’ communication to stakeholder groups. Support in this study is defined as the act of helping a user on a platform complete an exchange with another user through advice, step-by-step guides,

83 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY clear communication of expectations and simple technological mechanisms that reduce uncertainty and improve accessibility. Various types of support were communicated to each stakeholder group including customer-service outreach information, technological features, such as in-app tracking data for Uber drivers, financial support for service providers struggling to complete their taxes for their sharing economy job, detailed guides that outlined recommended health procedures or best practices, and community support through prosocial campaigns that advocate for social change. With less direct organizational control in sharing economy exchanges than in traditional businesses (Gregory & Halff, 2017), sharing economy companies are transitioning their public relations practice into supportive measures that provide advice and guides for users to follow when interacting with their platform. Each stakeholder group was specifically supported through specific guided policies and advice for best practices.

While a total of 136 examples of support were identified during the analysis, attention will be directed toward explaining how one example of each type of support represents communication to each stakeholder group by the sharing economy companies that are a focus of this thesis. For example, Uber communicated the category of customer-service support to customers stating: “Help if you need it. In the U.S., the Emergency Button in the app lets you call 911. You can also count on 24/7 support for questions or safety concerns,” (Uber, n.d.-f,

Ride, para 3.). This customer-service type of support also overlapped with technological support, as the company communicated its convenient app design that enables riders to conveniently call for emergency help if they were to be involved with a troubling situation during a ride. Uber also provided customers with a step-by-step list explaining how to use the Uber app and neatly communicated a list of steps a rider must take before embarking on their first ride. Airbnb and

84 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

TaskRabbit also featured neatly organized checklists for new and returning customers to reference when carrying out transactions with service providers on their platform.

Support was communicated to service providers on Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit’s platforms across all support types listed above. An example of how support was communicated to service providers under the detailed guides category can be seen in an example from the analysis of Airbnb. Airbnb published multiple guides and recommendations on their website for hosts to use when first beginning to use the company’s platform. The company stated: “The essentials: Get started on Airbnb. From creating your listing to prepping your space, learn how to start hosting. Create your listing. Think of your listing as an advertisement for your space. You’ll want to make it as compelling as possible, while being honest about any quirks,” (Airbnb, 2021,

How to get started on Airbnb, para 1.). Airbnb goes on to provide advice for helping hosts decide if they have enough space to host guests and even outlines exactly what the company expects hosts to do in the case of a cancellation and how long they should take to respond to a message on Airbnb’s messaging platform. Communicating recommendations and home-improvement tips helps new and experienced service providers have a collection of resources they can turn to in order to be successful and offer high quality stays. Lastly, the category of financial support was communicated in Airbnb’s detailed page titled “Responsible Hosting” which answers questions such as “What local regulations apply to me?” and important tax considerations hosts must make each year to account for their rental income. Sharing economy organizations make it clear that they want to help their service providers carry out their jobs in a specific way that upholds their standards and expectations.

Lastly, support was communicated to both groups of stakeholders on the shared pages that specifically focus on ways each company supports the community by giving back.

85 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

TaskRabbit communicated support to both target groups on their TaskRabbit for Good page where they state: “TaskRabbit for Good strengthens communities by helping neighbors in need find a place to call home. Supporting grassroots organizations: We give grants and TaskRabbit credits to community nonprofits that help people get back on their feet,” (TaskRabbit, n.d.-a,

TaskRabbit for Good, para 1.). All companies in the sharing economy were found to communicate the ways they help give back to the community and support their needs.

Companies in the sharing economy understand the importance of engaging local citizens and rely on their participation in order to establish new offerings around the world.

In terms of contributions to the public good, Uber and Airbnb both dedicated entire sections of their website, linked in the homepage, to focus on the ways in which they are working toward a more inclusive environment that fights discrimination and promotes diversity throughout their respective platforms. Uber labeled their page “Diversity and Inclusion,” and

Airbnb labeled their page “Diversity and Belonging,” which strategically furthers the company’s mission of helping all travelers belong wherever they are. Although TaskRabbit does not feature a link to a discrimination page on their homepage, the company does have an anti-discrimination and harassment policy that is less publicly-facing on the website and described in their “Help” section. This page was not used in the analysis, but it does serve as an important page to acknowledge in the discussion of anti-discrimination communication. Fighting discrimination is particularly important for all three companies in the sharing economy because they have all faced and continue to face multiple allegations of discrimination on their platform, such as service providers discriminating accepted guests based on race (Benner, 2016a), user-rating systems becoming a target for discriminatory reviews against non-white drivers (Allyn, 2020), and many other accounts of race and gender bias that are causing inequalities in the likelihood a user

86 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY receives a positive review after an exchange (Dennin, 2016). Discrimination is problematic for all companies in the sharing economy because these organizations lack control over peer-to-peer transactions during the selection processes. Prejudices are able to flourish in both the pre- approval process of selecting customers and following a transaction when both users are asked to write a review of one another (Ramaswamy, 2017). Other examples of discriminatory actions occurring in the sharing economy are demonstrated in research that shows people with black sounding names face more ride cancellations and longer wait times after initially booking a ride on Uber, and other studies that show women are found to be taken on longer routes once they begin an Uber ride (Ramaswamy, 2017).

Given the heightened attention all the analyzed companies have received in the media following these discrimination cases, it has become even more important that these organizations work to rebuild their relationships with the public and reshape the public’s perception of their

DEI efforts. By dedicating entire sections of their website for DEI communication and activism, organizations in the sharing economy are working to regain and retain support from customers and assure service providers that their business model accepts all people from different backgrounds and with different beliefs. In order for companies in the sharing economy to be successful in the future, they must adapt their messaging and policies to fit the needs of their diverse array of customers and service providers and stay ahead of the evolving social climate not just in the U.S. but also globally.

With each category of support clearly described, the findings discovered in this theme are found to align with the only public relations-based sharing economy research in the field

(Gregory & Halff, 2017) that suggests organizations in the sharing economy should mentor, support and coach both stakeholder groups in order to ensure all users are acting appropriately

87 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY and representative of the organization’s mission and values. This idea of creating a shared culture of agreed-upon values between stakeholders and organizations in the sharing economy is an important next step for ensuring all organization-public relationships are successful and built around mutual understandings. Without supportive guides and clear expectations, the opportunity to create this sense of shared understanding and mutual accountability is lost. While the theme of trust has been explicitly defined in relationship management theory literature, as well as sharing economy literature, the theme lacks important social elements that are relevant to today’s sharing economy companies. In addition, the newly discovered themes of safety and support point the theory of relationship management into new directions that account for the sharing economy business model. Although each theme has been defined with its own independent definition, it is important to consider that language is subjective and not all themes are mutually exclusive. It is possible that content for one theme could also fit in another, however, this systematic thematic analysis provides the initial categorization and development of themes based on what the data suggested. Future research could explore if or how these themes may possibly overlap. The next section will further discuss the themes that emerged from the analysis and answer the study’s research questions.

Discussion

As organizations begin to adapt their offerings to harness the increased peer-to-peer sharing capabilities available in the sharing economy, the importance of communicating social trust, safety and support proves to be increasingly critical for ensuring long-term support and mutually-beneficial relationships between an organization in the sharing economy and its various stakeholders and publics. This study demonstrated how three prominent sharing economy companies communicated to form relationships with key stakeholder groups through their

88 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY organizational websites, which serve as the primary channel that stakeholders’ access to begin and carry out a relationship with these organizations.

The first research question asked, “How do sharing economy companies communicate to establish relationships with their customer and service provider publics?” The findings demonstrated that companies in the sharing economy communicated relationship qualities of social trust, safety and support (in places where relationship formation occur) in order to communicate to establish a relationship. Traditional businesses have relied on communicating and maintaining relationships with the buying public through an exchange of information, products and services with their customers directly. They strived to create trust with honest offerings and quality service (Hawlitschek, 2016). However, organizations in the sharing economy must foster an environment and platform where trust is gained through facilitated technological mechanisms that help strangers trust one another as a prerequisite for the exchange of information, goods and services. Furthermore, by utilizing reviews and rating systems on their platforms, sharing economy companies give users the tools they need to reward high quality offerings and services that are built on collective feedback. Social trust is different from traditional trust because it is centered around individuals (peers) trusting one another through an online platform compared to traditional trust that is predominantly focused on establishing trust between a stakeholder and an organization. Sharing economy research has pointed out that social trust is a key element needed in order for these types of peer-to-peer transactions to be successful

(Mutz, 2005), and this study confirms the importance of communicating social trust in the sharing economy environment. While companies in the study were found to utilize trust-building mechanisms, such as accessible review features, ID verification measures and two-way rating systems, the analysis showed that organizations predominantly used language that focused on

89 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY creating trust between service providers and customers, which differs from the traditional view of creating trust between an organization and its publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Hon &

Grunig, 1999). Communication was not directed at legitimizing trust in the organization, but instead communication was centered around helping both service providers and customers use the reviews from others to inform their decisions and reassure their actions. By giving users the platform or space to view detailed information and read past reviews about a service, such as an accommodation, ride service or person’s ability to complete a task, companies in the sharing economy are fostering trust between the users on their platform and not between their organization and the public. When trust is successfully cultivated by users on both sides of the exchange in the sharing economy, the overall trust in the sharing economy organization is then established and used to improve future interactions with the organization. Establishing trust between users in the sharing economy is a precursor for establishing organizational trust, and this serves as a new avenue for relationship management theory to examine.

Research has suggested that without these self-governing tools, sharing economy companies will not reach their full potential and provide users with enough assurance that the offerings are legitimate (Ert et. al., 2016; Botsman & Rogers, 2011). This study re-emphasized the importance of socially-built trust for continued long-term support and success. Finally, while traditional word-of-mouth recommendations provided ways to gauge legitimacy in traditional businesses (Botsman & Rogers, 2011), reviews have become the new norm for establishing trust in the sharing economy and provide updated, peer-reviewed assessments of offerings that help guide users to make more informed purchases. Social trust allows the sharing economy to be successful and it is imperative that public relations theory and practice incorporates this aspect into future research and practice. Airbnb asserts this idea very clearly: “On any given night, 2

90 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY million people stay in homes on Airbnb in 100,000 cities all over the world. There are more than

6 million listings in 191 countries to choose from —that’s more than the top five hotel chains combined. What makes all of that possible? Trust,” (Airbnb, n.d.-e, Trust & Safety, para 1.). As more organizations begin to explore the potential of the sharing economy, communicating social trust will need to remain a top priority. It is important to note, however, that the sharing economy companies studied in this thesis did not include guidelines for users to follow when writing reviews. If companies in the sharing economy rely on creating social trust between peers to successfully carry out transactions, it could be helpful for these companies to outline important feedback to include in a positive or negative review that can contribute to more constructive feedback for both service providers and customers.

The findings also demonstrated that companies in the sharing economy prioritized communicating safety to all users in order to reduce any worries that arise when taking part in a peer-based business model. By communicating safety, organizations were found to also subsequently bolster trust in the sharing economy, as trust and safety work together to alleviate doubts and improve confidence in all users. In congruence with Kong et al.’s (2020) findings that transactional safety is a critical measure that must be established for users in the sharing economy to carry out transactions with strangers, this study found that all three sharing economy companies dedicated significant portions of their website communication to highlight the secure features of their website and app. Customers and service providers will not be able to take full advantage of the social capabilities present on the sharing economy platforms if they are not confident that the platform is safe and secure. Once users are fully acquainted with the organization’s secure online platform, they can then fully indulge in intimate discussions with one another that can help lead to more successful exchanges. Additionally, given the heightened

91 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY health risks that became present during a global pandemic, such as COVID-19, organizations in the sharing economy must find ways to communicate health and safety measures effectively in order to prevent skeptical users from turning to a more traditional business that operates in a more familiar way and that has a longstanding positive reputation. As tourists and other types of customers begin to turn to the sharing economy as an alternative means for travelling, finding a ride, or completing a task for reasons such as authenticity, a more affordable price (Botsman &

Rogers, 2011; Guttentag et al. 2018; Han et. al, 2019), or for convenience, it will be essential that these organizations can satisfy customers’ anxiety interacting with a stranger by communicating safety throughout all levels of their website and user-facing communication. Relationship management theory literature can benefit from this study by beginning to rethink how relationships are communicated with organizations operating nontraditionally. In line with many other new technological innovations created in the twenty-first century, safety and security remains a critical component that users must establish in order to take the first steps and begin to form a relationship with a new organization.

The last theme that emerged during the analysis, which answers the first research question, was support. Support was communicated to both customers and service providers in a variety of ways that focused on guiding each stakeholder group through the organization’s platform in order to successfully complete a peer-to-peer transaction. Organizations in the sharing economy want to make it easy for users to interact on their platform and frequently communicate how they are actively working to make the experience positive for everyone. In addition to creating comprehensive guides for customers and service providers to read through when they first begin using the platform, or if they want some new ideas for ways to increase the attractiveness of their offerings, companies in the sharing economy were found to support users

92 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY through technological innovations that improve accessibility and performance. Uber states to customers: “The app has powerful features to help you make the most of your time on the road.

From tracking trends to informing you of earning opportunities nearby, the app is your resource on the road,” (Uber, n.d.-h, How much can drivers make, para 7.). Compared to traditional organizations that support employees with weekly trainings, constant feedback based on their job performance, and negotiable salaries, companies in the sharing economy are found to support their service providers with the latest data and trends taken from their platform that can lead to improved ratings and higher transaction rates for service providers. Furthermore, companies in the sharing economy communicated support to service providers by helping them complete required tasks, such as filing taxes and staying updated with the latest health policies, such as

COVID-19 mandates. In regards to supporting all customers, service providers and the general public, traditional organizations have been found to support and form positive relationships with these collective public groups by providing well-being to the community through volunteering and charitable giving (Freeman, 2001). This thesis demonstrated that support was communicated to the shared groups by helping all users learn how to use the platforms effectively, have realistic expectations with service providers and also feel accepted regardless of any demographic or socioeconomic differences. Relationship management theory can be more representative and reflective of all business offerings if it adjusts its core themes to include this new theme that has only been found in the sharing economy. Future research should further explore the theme of support and its role in successful organization-public relationships in the sharing economy.

The second research question set out to find the main differences and similarities in how

Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit communicate with their service provider and customer publics.

The findings show that relationship qualities of social trust, safety and support were present in

93 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY both types of communication to stakeholder groups – customers and service providers – and no major differences were discovered in how the companies in the sharing economy communicated to each separate stakeholder group. Minor differences were found in how sharing economy companies communicated social trust. While Uber and Airbnb do have a two-way rating system in place for both customers and service providers to rate one another, companies in the sharing economy focused on the social trust elements slightly differently for customers compared to service providers. Companies communicated social trust to customers as more of a way to check the legitimacy of an offering and to aid in the selection of the quality of an offering based on other peers’ experiences. On the other hand, social trust was communicated to service providers as a way to legitimize customers (only for Airbnb and Uber), but more importantly as a way to interact with customers before and during an interaction in order to feel confident that the stranger staying in their space, riding in their car or coming to complete a task in their home was real and not illegitimate. Despite these minor differences, both stakeholder groups were encouraged to rely on one another and the greater community at large to work together to rate and describe offerings, reward extraordinary experiences and communicate to one another in order to make the sharing platform run smoothly.

The findings demonstrated that safety was communicated similarly across stakeholder groups, as both stakeholder groups rely on having a safe and secure experience using each sharing economy company’s platform. Both groups – customers and service providers – have to feel safe and protected in order to communicate private information on the company’s platform and exchange large sums of money and credit card data. However, because of the inherent risks that come with sharing an asset with a stranger (i.e., a home/apartment, car), mainly on Airbnb and Uber’s website communication, safety was communicated to service providers with more of

94 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY a focus on the insurance and protections in-place in case of an accident or damage caused to the service provider’s asset. While TaskRabbit did not communicate insurance policies for service providers, this study demonstrates the importance of service provider protections, and the company can benefit from additional website communication. Despite these differences, health safety measures were applicable and communicated by all companies in the sharing economy to both groups of users in addition to community guidelines that both stakeholder groups were instructed to follow.

Other minor differences can be found in how support was communicated to service providers compared to customers, with service provider-based communication centering around helping service providers get started on the online platform and then providing detailed guidance in how the services providers can be successful either hosting their home, providing a ride or completing a task. It was apparent from the data that organizations in the sharing economy want service providers to act in a desirable way, follow certain rules and carry out behavior that upholds their company values of being inclusive, accommodating of reasonable requests and adhering to health protocols, especially during a global pandemic such as COVID-19. The idea of setting boundaries for acceptable behavior in the sharing economy aligns with Gregory &

Halff (2017) who found that public relations practice needs to include communicating best techniques and practices for all users in the sharing economy. Companies in the sharing economy have specific expectations for service providers, and Airbnb even designated an entire section of their service-provider communication to outline cleanliness measures to abide by, cancellation policies, and suggestions for rules hosts should post in their house to ensure guests act accordingly. Despite receiving slightly more attention in service provider communication, companies in the sharing economy did communicate support to customers and on shared pages

95 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY by emphasizing that they are available to help answer questions with customer-service representatives available across the world. Customers were also supported by companies in the sharing economy with information about how and why the organizations are diverse and inclusive and by including expectations customers should have when interacting with a service provider.

Finally, the last research question asked how relationship management theory should respond to the sharing economy. The thematic analysis demonstrated that organizations in the sharing economy must transition their relationship management communication to focus on helping all users establish social trust interacting with strangers, feel safe and secure exchanging money and information on an online platform, and support both customers and service providers with detailed guidelines, expectations and instructional manuals that aid in the peer-to-peer sharing process. While traditional business organizations and stakeholder groups have been organized into clearly defined categories such as employees and customers, the analysis demonstrated that a deeper understanding of service providers as a stakeholder group is needed in the sharing economy. The sharing economy business model has dramatically altered the way customers interact with a company, as products and services are temporarily borrowed or rented from independent contractors serving as representatives of the organization. These service providers can be viewed as a new type of stakeholder group in public relations that are not treated the same as traditional employees of an organization but are still communicated to regularly by an organization in hopes of establishing expectations and guidelines they should follow. This has important implications for the expansion of internal communication theory and practice in public relations. Organizations in the sharing economy communicate clearly defined expectations to service providers in order to help them present their offerings in the

96 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY organization’s preferred way. Relationship management theory needs to account for this new stakeholder group and begin to reconceptualize the role of public relations in the sharing economy by increasing focus on how service providers represent organizational goals and values on company platforms and behave in relation to the organization’s clearly defined best practices.

The data found in this study highlighted the potential elements of relationship management theory (social trust, safety and support) that can be incorporated to communicate a relationship with these newly defined stakeholders in this new economic model. These findings expand upon previous public relations sharing economy research, which has defined stakeholders in the sharing economy as fluid and dynamic (Gregory & Halff, 2017), and furthers the understanding of this new stakeholder group by examining the ways in which organizations communicate to them through the organizational website.

The thematic analysis also demonstrated the heightened importance of organizations communicating social trust and safety to both stakeholder groups in order to create confidence on the organization’s platform. Research has suggested (Scott, 2020) that intrusive data tracking measures often required for sharing economy companies to be successful – such as tracking the exact location of where a driver is located, or where a dog walker has recently been on the

Doggy Logs app – can be problematic for sharing economy companies who look to increase their support from all types of people, including those who remain skeptical about new technological mechanisms that require personalized tracking. This study found that companies in the sharing economy are actively working to reduce users’ uncertainty and anxiety surrounding privacy by communicating exactly how their app/platform is secure and private. Airbnb states to both stakeholder groups: “As long as you stay on Airbnb throughout the entire process—from communication, to booking, to payment—you’re protected by our multi-layer defense strategy,”

97 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

(Airbnb, n.d.-e, Trust & Safety, para 7.). Furthermore, TaskRabbit makes it easy and safe for users to stay on their app throughout the entire peer-to-peer exchange and states: “Chat, pay, tip, and review all through one platform,” (TaskRabbit, n.d.-b, homepage, para 2.). Social trust and safety complement each other, and this study demonstrates that companies in the sharing economy communicate safety and security through transactional mechanisms that are secure and safe, resulting in an assurance that users can feel confident writing personalized reviews, rating service offerings and communicating back-and-forth between one another before, during and after an exchange.

In the sharing economy, service providers are forced to give up some of their privacy in order to meet the transparency needed for successful peer-to-peer transactions. For example,

Airbnb hosts are required to post the general location (not specific address) of their listing and are often encouraged to share their phone number with guests in order to be available in case any problems arise during a stay. Similarly, Uber drivers are tracked by their geographic location on a live, updated map that identifies their location for riders. TaskRabbit also gives customers detailed information of all available Taskers, including their name, photograph and detailed reviews of the Tasker’s past work. Service providers must surrender traditional privacy norms that employees of traditional business organizations do not have to relinquish in order to be transparent and alleviate any doubts of credibility that customers may experience when interacting with the sharing economy. Without these trust-building mechanisms, companies in the sharing economy can be viewed as illegitimate and could struggle to ensure users that all offerings are reliable. The balance between trust, safety and privacy for sharing economy companies is an ongoing process that sharing economy companies must navigate and that public relations scholars and practitioners must be cognizant of.

98 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Finally, social dynamics, or the return to a society where community members interact and exchange goods and services with one another socially (Botsman & Rogers, 2011), emerged as an important aspect of relationships communicated by organizations on their websites. Airbnb,

Uber and TaskRabbit believe in connecting people and resources together and place emphasis on the collective effort to share again. Airbnb’s front homepage state in bolded words: “Your world is worth sharing,” (Airbnb, n.d.-f, Homepage, para. 2). While transparent and effective organizational communication with the public has previously been found to be a critical component of successful relationship building (Ledingham, 2006), this analysis expanded organizational communication with the public to include communicating a space where effective communication between customers and service providers can take place. TaskRabbit states to customers “Taskers always tell us that communication is the cornerstone of every task’s success, so we encourage you to use the chat thread with gusto!” (TaskRabbit, 2020a, Getting started with

TaskRabbit, para 5.). Successful relationships in the sharing economy are not only communicated not by the organization to the public, but relationships are built from the ways sharing economy organizations give customers and service providers the space to communicate to one another and build their own relationship on their platform.

Lastly, Hung’s (2005) continuum for assessing the outcomes of public relationships has relevance for sharing economy companies. Hung (2005) asserts that traditional organizations should try to fall into the win-win zone of successful organization-public relationships, which allows for an equal consideration of the organization’s own self-interests and the interests of the public. This thesis found that organizations in the sharing economy do broadly fall into the win- win zone of establishing mutually-beneficial relationships with their publics – both service providers and customers. This study also found that organizations have more of a mutual

99 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY communal relationship with their service providers compared to the other two types of relationships found in the win-win zone (exchange and covenantal). Hung (2005) defines mutual communal relationships as those in which “highlight the intention or motivation in thinking about the interest of others,” (p. 416). Despite lacking the official title of employee, the study demonstrated that service providers are carefully supported and considered in sharing economy company decisions and communication. For example, Uber states to drivers on their Driver requirements page: “You deserve strong support—from your communities, from your government, and from Uber. We’re finding new ways to increase the support you receive, including working with government officials to help you get access to financial relief for lost earnings you may be eligible for, and providing you with access to more opportunities to earn,”

(Uber, n.d.-g, Driver requirements, para 1.).

Although companies in the sharing economy do not treat their service providers as employees, they must consider their preferences and desires if they want their continued support and future participation. As service providers continue to negotiate their benefits and compensation structures with the sharing economy companies and the federal government, more research is needed to fully evaluate how public relations initiatives can aid in establishing and maintain successful organization-public relationships with service providers. Furthermore, Hung

(2005) asserts that a stronger mutual communal relationship exists when an organization acknowledges its role in being an outstanding public citizen and actively works to give back to the community. As discussed earlier, companies in the sharing economy, analyzed in this thesis, recognize their role in giving back to the community through specific community-based initiatives listed on their websites. Companies also communicated organizational updates that relate to fighting discrimination on their platform. For example, Airbnb states: “We know that

100 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY addressing discrimination requires ongoing attention and care to make sure we get things right.

Here are some of the other actions we’ve taken – and what you can expect more of in the future,”

(Airbnb, n.d.-g, Against Discrimination, para 5.). Having answered all research questions, it is important to briefly acknowledge one more aspect of the sharing economy and that is the powerful role technology plays in the new movement’s success.

There are several critiques of the role technology plays in the sharing economy. Some have argued that technological determinism offers universal benefits while others argue that it is

“reductionist, ahistorical, and simplistic” (De la Cruz Paragas & Lin, 2014, p.1). According to

De la Cruz Paragas and Lin (2014), the situation is more nuanced and complex, and the authors offer a typology that characterizes the range of possibilities technology enables. Many education- based research studies may even “overemphasize the influence of technology,” (Oliver, 2011, p.

373) and fail to acknowledge many technology-driven disparities in different educational settings. Additionally, despite having increased access of the internet globally, a disproportionate amount of accessible web-based content and high-speed internet capabilities are present in

English-speaking nations (Herring, 2004). The internet may be helping sharing economy companies access underutilized resources and bring together human connections, but it is not without its drawbacks. The intrusive nature of online data tracking software, in addition to the many accounts of unwanted trolling, stalking and other forms of online harassment, have only become more prevalent on the internet since its creation, and many scholars have raised concerns regarding its overarching positive support (Herring, 2004). However, others argue that technology has enabled a more community-centered approach to fields such as journalism.

García-Orosa, López-García and Vázquez-Herrero (2020) assert that technological

101 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY advancements have added value to citizens through “participatory strategies and thematic specialization” (p.12).

This study recognizes that while on one hand the sharing economy – and its alignment with the latest technological advancements – may open up many new positive opportunities for society, the other hand realizes that there also exist many disadvantages associated with these technologies that are foundational to the sharing economy. Technological advancements can result in the exclusion of many groups of people that have limited access to its high-speed demands. It is premature to say that all outcomes and results of the sharing economy are positive for all people, but it is also not accurate to say that all outcomes of the sharing economy are unproductive or harmful for society. There is hope that the sharing economy invites corporations to be more in-touch with people’s daily lives and that the movement will encourage corporations to acknowledge the importance of having meaningful interactions with local communities.

Without purposeful collaboration between companies in the sharing economy and its diverse stakeholder groups, the success of its business model could be at risk. It could also risk exacerbating inequity, discrimination and other social ills. Hopefully, this study can serve as a useful reference point for organizations to consider when planning and managing their efforts to build and uphold positive organization-public relationships for the present and the future.

Limitations

While the findings from this study can be used as a starting point for future research and practice, it is critical to point out the limitations from this study. First, the study was limited because it did not explore all forms of communication between the sharing economy businesses and all of their respective stakeholder groups and publics. All companies have additional methods of communicating with customers and service providers. Future research should

102 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY examine other forms of communication that are not found on the organizations’ website, including direct email messages sent out to all current customers and service providers, blog content, multi-media videos, social media posts, advertisements and other lesser public-facing information. Additionally, the study was limited in assessing which relationship outcomes are used to successfully build and manage relationships with the public over time. Future research would benefit from more empirical assessment of the discovered themes and quantitatively measuring each type with more long-term implications. Further limitations are found in the accuracy of the URLs listed in the Appendix A. Given the constantly changing nature of each organization’s web page content, all URLs are subject to change from when they were originally obtained during this study. It is also important to note that not all aspects of each company’s offerings were analyzed. Airbnb and Uber have both expanded their original home sharing and ride sharing offerings to include additional services, such as Airbnb’s addition of hosting experiences and online experiences and Uber’s food delivery, freight and other business-related services. Future research should analyze these additional services offered by each company to fully understand their relationship communication with all types of customers and service providers. Other limitations of this study include a lack of other qualitive measures, such as focus groups, interviews and surveys that provide important insight into the attitudes real customers and service providers have regarding each company’s communication of relationship qualities. Finally, more public relations research is needed on the sharing economy to fully exhaust the endless possible relationship qualities that can lead to successful organization-public relationships in such a new environment. Nevertheless, this study provided several important research contributions. It identified key themes of sharing economy company communications that have relevance for public relations theory and practice. In addition, the study provided a

103 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY public relations informed perspective of the sharing economy, including a definition, and it also expanded relationship management theory, setting the stage for future research.

Conclusion

This thesis set out to explore how companies in the sharing economy communicate to establish relationships with its stakeholders, including customers and service providers. The sharing economy, an alternative method of product and service-based consumption that focuses on peer-to-peer sharing through an online platform, is expected to become a $335 billion industry by 2025 (Yaraghi & Ravi, 2017) and has yet to receive significant attention in public relations literature. This study sought out to fill the gap in the literature by exploring the topic using relationship management theory broadly as a lens to uncover how organizations in the sharing economy communicate relationships with stakeholders. Given the abundance of varying definitions on the sharing economy, this study first identified the most prominent definitions of the sharing economy and then reviewed the literature pertaining to the movement and its impact in society. Doing so allowed this thesis to ultimately develop its own definition of the sharing economy within the context of public relations. With this in mind, the sharing economy can be defined as the communicative, online platform where users obtain information and increase trust to permanently or temporarily share products, services or assets with other users for an agreed upon price. The thesis found that the relationship qualities of social trust, safety and support were communicated most prevalently across all three featured sharing economy company websites. This thesis also found that organizations in the sharing economy want both stakeholder groups to use their online platforms to communicate to one another and leave reviews to help build socially-mediated trust amongst themselves, which can help improve organizational trust and legitimacy in return. Given the growing concern for privacy on the internet, this study also

104 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY found that organizations communicate safety to customers and service providers surrounding the security of its online platform and the policies put in place to alleviate health risks, fraudulent activity, presence of illegitimate users and the possibility of physical or property damage caused from an accident. Lastly, the study found that support is a critical focal point for sharing economy companies to communicate, as they lack control over interactions between users and must rely on providing expert guidance, recommended best practices and technology-driven insights that improve the experience for all users. Although no major differences were found in how each company communicated a relationship to each stakeholder group, support and some types of insurance-based safety were found to be focal points for service provider-based communication, whereas the use of socially-mediated reviews was found to be an especially important area of communication directed to customers on all sharing economy websites. The study also found that the sharing economy presents new directions for relationship management theory to consider that have not traditionally been included in its focus, specifically dedicating attention to supporting users through the online platform and communicating safety to alleviate any doubts pertaining to technology-mediated platforms.

This thesis has important implications for the sharing economy, as it presents one of the first and only studies with a public relations perspective of this new socially-built movement.

This study can better inform organizations operating in the sharing economy on the most important relationship elements that need to be communicated in order to form and maintain beneficial organization-public relationships. Relationships are a critical component to creating and managing any business in the sharing economy, as ordinary people must be carefully considered on either side of an exchange. This study provides a necessary, up-close examination of the relationship aspects found in the sharing economy. Furthermore, managers and employees

105 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY in the sharing economy can benefit from considering how they communicate the qualities of social trust, safety and support in their daily operations and future planning so they can effectively communicate desirable relationship qualities. Organizations that are weighing the pros and cons of entering the sharing economy market and thinking about offering sharing economy-based offerings, such as hotel chains in the accommodation industry, rental car companies in the ride-service industry, or temporary agencies employing short-term workers, can be better informed about successful components of the sharing economy by reviewing the findings that emerged in the data analysis. Other sharing economy-based research endeavors should continue to explore how relationships are communicated and maintained across different sharing economy organizations in order to be more representative of all types of offerings found in the sharing economy. Lastly, this thesis has implications for the sharing economy in that it provides another definition of the movement situated in the context of public relations. Future research should assess the elements of this study’s definition, along with the many others referenced in the literature, in order to be accurate when categorizing future sharing economy research and practice.

Relationship management theory has yet to explore the implications of the sharing economy, and this thesis expanded its theoretical reach to be inclusive of this new business phenomenon. This study provides relationship management theory with updated relationship qualities of social trust, safety and support that can be used to more accurately explore how companies in the sharing economy communicate to build and maintain relationships successfully. The discovered themes also have important implications for understanding the role of public relations in the sharing economy, as the days of gathering an organization’s entire staff together in one location, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, has been replaced with

106 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY the era of temporary labor, independent contractors and digital communication. Service providers are stuck in a middle ground of being an employee, yet without the important protections and benefits, and public relations research and practice should consider this new stakeholder group in future work. Future relationship management theory research that uses case studies and empirical research designs to measure relationship outcomes of other sharing economy companies can benefit from this study by using its explored themes as a starting point for research objectives.

Being likely the first study to explore the sharing economy in relationship management theory literature, this study highlighted new themes that can be included in the theory. Finally, this study accepted Gregory and Halff’s (2017) call for more public relations focus in the sharing economy and provides another conceptualization of the way organizations in the sharing economy can communication relationships and conduct public relations initiatives with a purpose.

References

Abramova, O., Shavanova, T., Fuhrer, A., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2015). Understanding

the sharing economy: The role of response to negative reviews in the peer-to-peer

accommodation sharing network.

Airbnb. (2014, July). A Greener Way To Travel: The Environmental Impacts of Home Sharing.

https://blog.atairbnb.com/environmental-impacts-of-home-sharing/

Airbnb. (2021, March). The essentials. Get started on Airbnb.

https://www.airbnb.com/resources/hosting-homes/a/the-essentials-get-started-on-airbnb-1

Airbnb (n.d.-a). Fast Facts. https://news.airbnb.com/fast-facts/

Airbnb. (n.d.-b) Careers at Airbnb. https://careers.airbnb.com/

107 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Airbnb. (n.d.-c). Diversity. https://www.airbnb.com/diversity

Airbnb. (n.d.-d). How do I become a Superhost? https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/829/how-

do-i-become-a-superhost

Airbnb. (n.d.-e). Trust & Safety. https://www.airbnb.com/trust

Airbnb. (n.d.-f). Homepage. https://www.airbnb.com/

Airbnb. (n.d.-g). Against Discrimination. https://www.airbnb.com/against-discrimination

Albinsson, P.A., & Perera, B.Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building

community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4), 303–315

Allyn, B. (2020, October). Uber Fires Drivers Based On 'Racially Biased' Star Rating System,

Lawsuit Claims. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927851281/uber-fires-drivers-

based-on-racially-biased-star-rating-system-lawsuit-claims

Bellafante, G. (2018, January). What the Sharing Economy Really Delivers: Entitlement. The

New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/nyregion/what-the-sharing-

economy-really-delivers-entitlement.html

Benner, K. (2016a, June). Airbnb Vows to Fight Racism, but Its Users Can’t Sue to Prompt

Fairness. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/technology/airbnb-

vows-to-fight-racism-but-its-users-cant-sue-to-prompt-fairness.html

Benner, K. (2016b, September). Airbnb Adopts Rules to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts. The

New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/technology/airbnb-anti-

discrimination-rules.html?_r=0

Böcker, L., & Meelen, T. (2017). Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for

intended sharing economy participation. Environmental Innovation and Societal

Transitions, 23, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004.

108 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Bortree, D. S. (2010). Exploring adolescent–organization relationships: A study of effective

relationship strategies with adolescent volunteers. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 22(1), 1-25.

Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s Mine Is Yours. How Collaborative Consumption is

Changing the Way We Live. Harper Business.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in

psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Bruning, S. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of

satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.

Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The importance

and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public relations

review, 33(1), 84-91.

Chappelow, J. (2020, September). Tragedy Of The Commons. Investopedia.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp

Cheng, X., Fu, S., Sun, J., Bilgihan, A., & Okumus, F. (2019). An investigation on online

reviews in sharing economy driven hospitality platforms: A viewpoint of trust. Tourism

Management, 71, 366-377.

Conger, K. (2020, November). Uber and Lyft Drivers in California Will Remain Contractors.

The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/technology/california-uber-

lyft-prop-22.html

Conger, K. & Griffith, E. (2020, May). The Results Are In for the Sharing Economy. They Are

Ugly. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/technology/the-results-

are-in-for-the-sharing-economy-they-are-ugly.html

109 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S. J. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing

issues. Journal of direct, data and digital marketing practice, 9(3), 231-244.

Craft. (n.d.-a). Airbnb. https://craft.co/airbnb

Craft. (n.d.-b). Uber. https://craft.co/uber/locations

De la Cruz Paragas, F., & Lin, T. T. (2014). Organizing and reframing technological

determinism. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1528-1546.

Dennin, J. (2016, November). Data shows race and sex bias is costly for gig economy workers at

startups like TaskRabbit. Mic. https://www.mic.com/articles/160276/data-shows-race-

and-sex-bias-is-costly-for-gig-economy-workers-at-startups-like-task-rabbit

Dreyer, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hamann, R., & Faccer, K. (2017). Upsides and downsides of the

sharing economy: Collaborative consumption business models' stakeholder value impacts

and their relationship to context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 87-

104.

Dutta, P. K., & Sundaram, R. K. (1993). The tragedy of the commons? Economic Theory, 3(3),

413-426.

Edelman, B. G., & Luca, M. (2014). Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb. com. Harvard

Business School NOM Unit Working Paper, (14-054).

Ert, E., Fleischer, A., & Magen, N. (2016). Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The

role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tourism management, 55, 62-73. Doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.013

Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as

a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 164-178.

10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810

110 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Freeman, R. E. (2001). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. Perspectives in Business

Ethics Sie, 3(144), 38-48.

Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2019). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. In A Research

Agenda for Sustainable Consumption Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gallagher, L. (2017). The Airbnb story: how three ordinary guys disrupted an industry, made

billions... and created plenty of controversy. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

García-Orosa, B., López-García, X., & Vázquez-Herrero, J. (2020). Journalism in digital native

media: Beyond technological determinism. Media and Communication, 8(2), 5-15.

Gooden, R. J., & Winefield, H. R. (2007). Breast and prostate cancer online discussion boards: a

thematic analysis of gender differences and similarities. Journal of Health

Psychology, 12(1), 103-114.

Gregory, A., & Halff, G. (2017). Understanding public relations in the ‘sharing economy’.

Public Relations Review, 43(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.008

Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism

accommodation sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192–1217. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/10.1080/13683500.2013.827159

Guttentag, D., Smith, S., Potwarka, L., & Havitz, M. (2018). Why Tourists Choose Airbnb: A

Motivation-Based Segmentation Study. Journal of Travel Research, 57(3), 342–359.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517696980

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate

in collaborative consumption. Journal of the association for information science and

technology, 67(9), 2047-2059. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/10.1002/asi.23552

111 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Han, H., Shin, S., Chung, N., & Koo, C. (2019). Which appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) are the

most important for Airbnb users to booking? International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management.

Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2016). Trust in the sharing economy. Die

Unternehmung, 70(1), 26-44.

Heinrichs, H. (2013). Sharing economy: a potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA-

Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22(4), 228-231.

doi:10.14512/gaia.22.4.5.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated

communication. New media & society, 6(1), 26-36.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.

Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations

Hung, C. J. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization–public relationships and their

implications for relationship management in public relations. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 17(4), 393-426.

Ingenhoff, D., & Koelling, A. M. (2009). The potential of Web sites as a relationship building

tool for charitable fundraising NPOs. Public relations review, 35(1), 66-73.

Kim, K., Baek, C., & Lee, J. D. (2018). Creative destruction of the sharing economy in action:

The case of Uber. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 110, 118-127.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.014

Kong, Y., Wang, Y., Hajli, S., & Featherman, M. (2020). In sharing economy we trust:

Examining the effect of social and technical enablers on millennials’ trust in sharing

commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 105993.

112 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational theory

of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 285-295.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00087-X

Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public

relations. Journal of public relations research, 15(2), 181-198.

Ledingham, J. A. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations. Public

relations theory II, 465-483.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations:

Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55-

65.

Lee, H., & Park, H. (2013). Testing the impact of message interactivity on relationship

management and organizational reputation. Journal of public relations research, 25(2),

188-206.

Leonhardt, M. (2019, July). 82% of people think Airbnb-ing their home is a good money-making

strategy—here’s what you need to know. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/03/is-

running-an-airbnb-profitable-heres-what-you-need-to-know.html

Lerman, R. (2020, December). Airbnb’s stock soars in its debut, the biggest tech IPO of a rocky

year. The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/10/airbnb-stock-market-

debut/+&cd=24&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Levenshus, A. (2010). Online relationship management in a presidential campaign: A case study

of the Obama campaign's management of its internet-integrated grassroots effort. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 313-335.

113 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

LinkedIn. (n.d.). TaskRabbit. https://www.linkedin.com/company/taskrabbit/about/

Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2016). Fake it till you make it: Reputation, competition, and Yelp

review fraud. Management Science, 62(12), 3412-3427.

Macmillan, D. & Demos, T. (2015, August). Substitution or complements? The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/taxis-v-uber1

Malhotra, A., & Van Alstyne, M. (2014). The dark side of the sharing economy… and how to

lighten it. Communications of the ACM, 57(11), 24-27.

Mangiaracina, R., Marchet, G., Perotti, S., & Tumino, A. (2015). A review of the environmental

implications of B2C e-commerce: a logistics perspective. International Journal of

Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.

Mi, Z. & Coffman, D. (2019, March). The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies.

Nature Communications. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09260

Mundy, D. E. (2015). Diversity 2.0: How the public relations function can take the lead in a new

generation of diversity and inclusion (D&I) initiatives. Research Journal of the Institute

for Public Relations, 2(2), 1-35.

Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017). When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism

on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 125, 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024

Mutz, D. C. (2005). Social trust and e-commerce: Experimental evidence for the effects of social

trust on individuals’ economic behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(3), 393-416.

NASA. (2020, July 29). Sea Level. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Network, G. F. (2011). What happens when infinite-growth economy runs into a finite

planet. Global Footprint Network 2011 annual report. Oakland, California, 94607-3510.

114 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some

alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and

technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373-384.

Paul, K. (2017, September). Here’s how much Uber drivers really make. MarketWatch.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-much-uber-drivers-really-make-2017-12-

01#:~:text=Uber%20drivers%20make%20an%20average,tax%2C%20Uber%20said%20i

n%202014.

Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption:

insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 97, 21-29.

Pratt, C. B., & Omenugha, K. A. (2014). “My God is Not Your God”: Applying Relationship

Management Theory to Managing Ethnoreligious Crises in Sub-Saharan

Africa. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 8(2), 100-125.

Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K., &

Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and

public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.

https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.30.1.31

Ramaswamy, C. (2017, February). ‘Prejudices play out in the ratings we give’- the myth of

digital equity. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/20/airbnb-uber-sharing-apps-digital-

equality

Richardson, L. (2015). Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum, 67, 121-129.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.11.004

115 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Rooney, K. (2019, April 15). Valuation expert says Uber is worth a little more than half the $100

billion it's seeking. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/15/valuation-expert-says-

uber-is-worth-a-little-more-than-half-the-100b-its-seeking.html

Scheiber, N. (2020, September). Uber and Lyft Could Gain From U.S. Rule Defining

Employment. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/business/economy/labor-gig-workers.html

Schor, J. (2016). Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management

Economics, 4(3), 7-22.

Scott, L. (2020, January). How the ‘Sharing’ Economy Erodes Both Privacy and Trust. The New

York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/opinion/sunday/privacy-trust.html

Siddiqui, F. (2019, December). Uber to pay up to $4.4 million to alleged gender discrimination

victims after EEOC investigation. The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/18/uber-pay-million-victims-

alleged-gender-discrimination-following-eeoc-

investigation/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Sigala, M. (2017). Collaborative commerce in tourism: implications for research and industry.

Current Issues in Tourism, 20(4), 346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.982522

Singer, N. (2014, August). In the Sharing Economy, Workers Find Both Freedom and

Uncertainty. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/technology/in-

the-sharing-economy-workers-find-both-freedom-and-uncertainty.html

Smith, A. (2020, August 14). The New Digital Economy: Shared, Collaborative and On

Demand. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/05/19/the-

new-digital-economy/

116 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Stors, N., & Kagermeier, A. (2015). Motives for using Airbnb in metropolitan tourism—why do

people sleep in the bed of a stranger?. Regions Magazine, 299(1), 17-19.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13673882.2015.11500081

Streitfeld, D. (2014, February). Sharing Is Caring, Unless It Costs You Your Job. The New York

Times. https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/sharing-is-caring-unless-it-costs-you-

your-job/

TaskRabbit. (2020a, February). Getting Started with TaskRabbit: What Happens After I Book?

https://blog.taskrabbit.com/getting-started-with-taskrabbit-what-happens-after-i-book

TaskRabbit. (2020b, January). TaskRabbit Fact Sheet.

https:www.taskrabbit.com/press/2020_T2_Fact_Sheet_US.pdf

TaskRabbit. (n.d.-a). TaskRabbit for Good. https://www.taskrabbit.com/taskrabbitforgood

TaskRabbit. (n.d.-b). Homepage. https://www.taskrabbit.com/

TaskRabbit. (n.d.-c). See our safety standards for COVID-19. https://www.taskrabbit.com/

Tussyadiah, I. P., & Pesonen, J. (2016). Impacts of Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Use on Travel

Patterns. Journal of Travel Research, 55(8), 1022–1040.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515608505

Uber. (n.d.-a). How long does the activation process take? https://help.uber.com/driving-and-

delivering/article/how-long-does-the-activation-process-take?nodeId=2e983a37-ea4a-

45eb-bf5f-03b7f543ae14

Uber. (n.d.-b). History. https://www.uber.com/newsroom/history/

Uber. (n.d.-c). Company-Info. https://www.uber.com/newsroom/company-info/

Uber. (n.d.-d). Safety. https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/safety/

Uber. (n.d.-e). Drive. https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/

117 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Uber. (n.d.-f). Ride. https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/

Uber. (n.d.-g). Driver requirements.

https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/requirements/?city=roanoke

Uber. (n.d.-h). How much can drivers make with Uber? https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/how-

much-drivers-make/

Vardeman, J., & Sebesta, A. (2020). The problem of intersectionality as an approach to digital

activism: the Women’s March on Washington’s attempt to unite all women. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 1-23. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1716769

Vorvoreanu, M. (2006). Online organization–public relationships: An experience-centered

approach. Public relations review, 32(4), 395-401.

Wallsten, S. (2015). The competitive effects of the sharing economy: how is Uber changing

taxis. Technology Policy Institute, 22, 1-21.

Wang, D. and Nicolau, J.L. (2017). “Price determinants of sharing economy based

accommodation rental: a study of listings from 33 cities on airbnb.com”, International

Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 62, pp. 120-131. Doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.12.007

Xiong, Y., Cho, M., & Boatwright, B. (2019). Hashtag activism and message frames among

social movement organizations: Semantic network analysis and thematic analysis of

Twitter during the# MeToo movement. Public relations review, 45(1), 10-23.

Xu, X. (2020). How do consumers in the sharing economy value sharing? Evidence from online

reviews. Decision Support Systems, 128, 113162.

Yang, S. U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on

relational trust. Journal of public relations research, 21(3), 341-359.

118 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY

Yaraghi, N., & Ravi, S. (2017). The current and future state of the sharing economy. Available at

SSRN 3041207.

Appendix A.

Airbnb Uber TaskRabbit https://www.airbnb.com/d/howa https://www.ube https://www.taskrabbit.co irbnbworks (customers) r.com/us/en/ride/ m/locations (customers) (customers) https://www.airbnb.com/help/art https://www.ube https://www.taskrabbit.co icle/2701/extenuating- r.com/us/en/ride/ m/services(customers) circumstances-policy-and-the- how-it- coronavirus-covid19 works/(customer (customers) s) https://www.airbnb.com/trust https://www.ube https://blog.taskrabbit.com/ (customers) r.com/us/en/ride/ category/using- safety/(customer taskrabbit(customers) s) https://www.airbnb.com/host/ho https://www.ube https://www.taskrabbit.co mes?from_footer=1(service r.com/us/en/ride/ m/become-a-tasker(service providers) how-it- providers) works/upfront- pricing/(custome rs) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube https://www.taskrabbit.co es/hosting-homes/a/why-host- r.com/us/en/ride/ m/ (COVID-19 link) (all) on-airbnb-2 (service providers) how-it- works/change- location/(custom ers) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube https://www.taskrabbit.co es/hosting-homes/a/the- r.com/us/en/ride/ m/about(all) essentials-get-started-on-airbnb- how-it- 1(service providers) works/driver- profiles/(custom ers) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube https://www.taskrabbit.co es/hosting-homes/a/how-to- r.com/us/en/ride/ m/taskrabbitforgood(all) earn-money-on-airbnb- how-it- 282(service providers) works/tips/(cust omers) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube https://www.taskrabbit.co es/hosting-homes/a/is-my- r.com/us/en/driv m/ (all) space-a-good-fit-for-airbnb-4 e/ (service (service providers) providers)

119 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube es/hosting-homes/a/what-does- r.com/us/en/driv airbnb-expect-of-hosts- e/how-it- 11(service providers) works/(service providers) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube es/hosting-homes/a/what- r.com/us/en/driv hosting-regulations-apply-to- e/requirements/? you-7(service providers) city=roanoke (service providers) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube es/hosting-homes/a/how-youre- r.com/us/en/driv protected-while-hosting- e/basics/?city=ro 235(service providers) anoke (service providers) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube es/hosting-homes/a/getting- r.com/us/en/driv started-with-the-5-step- e/how-much- enhanced-cleaning-process- drivers- 186(service providers) make(service providers) https://www.airbnb.com/resourc https://www.ube es/hosting-homes/a/policies- r.com/us/en/driv and-protections-to-help-you- e/safety/(service host-with-confidence- providers) 280(service providers) https://www.airbnb.com/help/art https://www.ube icle/1376/responsible-hosting- r.com/us/en/abo in-the-united-states(service ut/(all) providers) https://www.airbnb.com/trust https://www.ube (service providers) r.com/us/en/abo ut/how-does- uber-work/(all) https://www.airbnb.com/diversit https://www.ube y(all) r.com/us/en/safet y/(all) https://www.airbnb.com/against https://www.ube -discrimination(all) r.com/us/en/safet y/uber- community- guidelines/(all) https://www.airbnb.com/d/acces https://www.ube sibilit(all)y r.com/us/en/abo ut/diversity/(all)

120 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY https://www.airbnb.com/trust(al https://www.ube l) r.com/ (all) https://www.airbnb.com/d/covid safety(all) https://www.airbnb.com/ (all)

121