AUTEURS

The : an exploratory study on revenue models of Belgian digital platforms and sharing initiatives Karijn Bonne Artevelde University of Applied Sciences

ABSTRACT

At present, all kinds of sharing initiatives are active in Belgium, and many still are being launched. Within the sharing economy, peers, consumers or private persons give each other temporary access to (otherwise unused) goods. It is called a two-sided : platform owners match con- sumers with needs and suppliers with haves. Key to success is to build and maintain a critical mass of users on the platform. Although the sharing economy seems a growing business, the question arises whether these platforms are able to evolve into valid businesses. The focus of this paper is how sharing initiatives generate revenue, especially since sharing, lending, swapping, etc. are often free of charge. Nicky Malfliet Platform owners (N=20) of (mainly) Belgian sharing initiatives were interviewed. Results of the study Artevelde University of show that the transactional or commission based model is used the most. However, there is no one- Applied Sciences size-fits-all approach to create, deliver, and capture value. Therefore, many platforms combine various revenue models for different target groups or services. Some platforms started without any earnings in mind because the founders value(d) and social issues more than financial ones. Of course, without earnings, the platform cannot expand and must eventually evolve towards extra re- venue stream and towards another model. Each model has its issues: the transaction-based model is a ”low margin, high volume model”. Another downside to the transaction model is that peers can skip and bypass the platform. Finally, the most general issue within the sharing economy, is the struggle to reconcile social values and profit.

Keywords: sharing economy – digital platform – revenue models – business models

Vicky Franssen Binnen de deeleconomie in België bestaan heel wat verschillende soorten deelinitiatieven en komen er Artevelde University of nog steeds bij. Peers, consumenten en privé personen geven elkaar tijdelijk toegang tot (ongebruikte) Applied Sciences goederen in de deeleconomie. Het is een tweezijdige platform economie: platformeigenaars matchen vraag van consumenten met aanbod van leveranciers. Een kritische succesfactor hierbij is een kritische massa van gebruikers op het platform hebben. Alhoewel de deeleconomie een bloeiende business lijkt, stellen we ons de vraag of deze platformen kunnen groeien tot waardige ondernemingen. Deze paper focust op het verdienmodel van deelinitiatieven mede omdat delen, lenen, swappen etc. vaak gratis wordt aangeboden. Platformeigenaars (N=20) van (voornamelijk) Belgische deelinitiatieven werden geïnterviewd. De resultaten tonen dat het transactie of commissiegebaseerd model het vaakst wordt gebruikt. Maar er is duidelijk geen standaard verdienmodel dat waarde kan creëren, leveren en capte- ren voor elk soort platform. De meeste platformen combineren daarom verschillende verdienmodellen voor verschillende doelgroepen of diensten. Sommige platformen starten zonder enige inkomsten om- dat de oprichters duurzaamheid en sociale waarden boven financiële stellen. Zonder inkomstenstroom Christel De Maeyer kan het platform natuurlijk niet groeien en opschalen en daarom evolueren de meesten naar bijkom- Artevelde University of stige verdiensten of een ander verdienmodel. In het algemeen heeft elk verdienmodel zijn nadelen. Het Applied Sciences meest gebruikte model, transactiegebaseerd, is een “lage marge, hoog volume model”. Daarenboven kunnen gebruikers het platform makkelijk passeren en rechtstreeks bij de aanbieder gaan. Tenslotte blijkt de algemene uitdaging in de deeleconomie om sociale waarden met die van profit te verzoenen.

Keywords: deeleconomie – digitale platformen – verdienmodellen – businessmodellen

Marilyn Michiels Artevelde University of Applied Sciences 81 The sharing economy

1. INTRODUCTION involved and if sharing/giving/lending is for free (Verdegem, 2016). Finally, Acquier et al. (2017) describe the sharing econo- 1.1. The sharing economy my as based on three foundations: an access, a platform and a community based economy (Fig 1). The latter involves plat- According to Google Trends, the first search for the term “shar- forms that value contributing to a community project, creating ing economy’ worldwide took place in 2009 (Demary, 2015). In social bonding and promoting a social mission more than eco- August 2015, Flanderstoday.eu published: “The sharing econo- nomic maximalisation. my has arrived in Flanders and the rest of Belgium, even if most people don’t know about it yet. Awareness and levels of partici- Indeed, many sharing initiatives have no revenue model. With- pation are low […], but the idea of sharing appeals to people, in a business model that describes how a company creates and which leaves local companies in this innovative area of business provides value for its consumers a revenue model defines how feeling optimistic” (Mundell, 2015). Today, all kinds of sharing the payments are converted into profits (De Maeyer & Bonne, initiatives are well-known and embraced in Belgium, and many 2016). Since sharing, lending, swapping, etc. is often free of platforms have been and are still being launched. For example, charge, the way in which sharing initiatives generate revenue, in 2016-2017, several new initiatives arose in Belgium, such as in particular, and influence the economy, in general, may be in- JoinUs2Eat (eating together with strangers in teresting and debatable, and forms the main someone’s house), Flavr (cooking for others), “Note that many platforms focus of this paper. SurrounThings (lending and letting goods) did not start from the and Helpper (time banking). JoinUs2Eat, how- beginning with a nicely This paper is structured as follows. First, busi- ever, did not really attain the necessary num- working high-tech ness and revenue models in general and in ber of cooks to succesfully get started and platform or app. the sharing economy are described. Then, the Flavr stopped only two years after it started, ” methodology of the present study is present- eventhough the platform was well-known and quite a success. ed, followed by its main results. Finally, some conclusions are The platform could not generate enough revenue, since there drawn and discussed. were insufficient transactions on the platform. Platforms need to reach an adequate critical mass to survive, but many fail to do so and do not evolve into a financially viable business and eventually, they shut down (Piscicelli, Ludden, & Cooper, 2018). Although the sharing economy seems a growing business, the question arises whether these platforms are able to evolve into fully-fledged businesses. This paper focusses on the revenue model(s) of (sustainable) Belgian sharing platforms.

Several definitions on the sharing or collaborative economy have been published. One of the first books on this topic was “What’s mine is yours” (2010), in which Botsman and Rogers described how the collaborative economy changes our lives. Botsman defines the collaborative economy as“an economic system of decentralized networks and marketplaces that unlocks the value of underused assets by matching needs and haves, in ways that bypass traditional middlemen.” (Botsman, 2015). What makes this sharing economy new, is that a participant is not only helping a friend but can also help a stranger, and this not only for free, but potentially for money (Sundararajan, 2016). This sharing economy thus opens new ways of generating rev- enue (Kathan, Matzler, & Veider, 2016), for suppliers as well as for the platform owners. Frenken specifies that within the shar- Figure 1. Combining the cores of the sharing economy ing economy, peers, consumers or private persons give each (Acquier, Daudigeos, & Pinkse, 2017) other temporary access to (otherwise unused) goods (Frenken K., 2016). Still others define the sharing economy in a stricter way and stress that there is only real sharing if no income is

82 Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, 2019

1.2. Business and revenue models, in general and in the get paid for doing so, and make a profit (Teece, 2010). With- sharing economy in the Business Model Canvas (Oosterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) that visualizes a business model in nine boxes, the revenue A business framework for creating customer value is called a stream can be seen at the bottom: which earnings and costs business model. It is the conceptual model of a company and can be distinguished and what is finally the return (earnings it defines how the company creates and provides value for minus costs). Fig. 2 illustrates some revenue models to get that consumers and how the payments are converted into profits stream or revenue in the field of e-businesses or online servic- (De Maeyer & Bonne, 2016). It thus reflects a management’s es, like getting money from advertisers, getting paid per use, or hypothesis about what customers want, how they want it, and getting a license fee. how the enterprise can organize to best meet those needs,

Figure 2. Revenue models used by e-businesses or online services (+50 Business & Revenue Model Examples, 2017)

83 The sharing economy

Typically, the prevalent business model consists of two players: referred to as non-profit platforms, do not have any business companies, producing goods or services which customers – be nor a revenue model since sharing, lending, swapping, etc. is it other companies (B2B) or households (B2C) – buy. Within the free of charge. Nevertheless, the distinction between profit and sharing economy however, three constituents can be distin- non-profit, which may have been clear in the past or at te start guished, namely platform owners, consumers of a particular platform, has become more and suppliers. The platforms or intermediar- and more blurred nowadays within the shar- Almost all the respondents ies bring two distinct groups of users together “ ing economy (Martin, Upham, & Budd, 2015). explain that well-thought- and enable their direct interaction. This triadic Some of the platforms and initiatives start as out algorithms and a business model is, therefore, referred to as a a non-profit variation, but at a certain- mo user-friendly app are key two-sided market (Fig. 3). The suppliers are ment either evolve towards a for-profit one, conditions to success. the individuals that supply goods and servic- ” or expand their offer by providing a for-profit es in these marketplaces. The consumers are the individuals alternative. In reality, business models in the growing diversity who demand (buy, rent, swap, use). Both consumers and sup- of sharing businesses are quite disparate and require further pliers are referred to as peers (Sundararajan, 2014). The tra- examination (Muñoz & Cohen, 2017). Therefore, this paper fo- ditional business models are challenged by complementary cusses on Belgian for-profit ànd non-profit sharing initiatives/ and non-traditional business models, which no longer focus on platforms, by interviewing the platform owners and startups owning but on (temporarily) using (Demary, 2015). Dervojeda on their revenue model(s)1. et al. (2013) call it “an accessibility based business model for peer- to-peer markets” when the value proposition consists of creat- ing a match between a consumer owning a certain resource 1.3. The purpose of this study (property, good, car, … or skill, competence) and a consumer in need of that resource, at the right time and against reasonable This paper focusses on the revenue model(s) of Belgian transaction costs. for-profit and nonprofit sharing platforms. To this -end, plat form owners (N=20) of (mainly) Belgian sharing initiatives were interviewed (between Octobre 2016 and August 2017)2. Half of the interviews were held face-to-face ((f) in Table 1 and 2), the other half were done using Skype, phone or e-mail. Platform owners were asked about the origin of their idea, about the functioning and evolution of the platform, their revenue model and finally about their aspirations for the future.

Figure 3. Two-sided market (Piscicelli, Ludden, & Cooper, 2018)

Key to a platform’s succes is to build a critical mass of users, which is often referred to as a ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem: to attain a critical mass of consumers the platform needs a criti- cal mass of suppliers, but to recruit enough suppliers, the plat- form needs a large enough pool of consumers (Hagiu & Wright, 2015). Only with a substantial number of users on both sides, platform owners can benefit from the platform dynamics and network effects, namely lower capital and operating costs, higher valuations relative to their revenue and faster growth 1 This was a sidetrack within a larger and main investigation on the sharing personality, see e.g. (Franssen, Bonne, Malfliet, De Maeyer, & (Piscicelli, Ludden, & Cooper, 2018). However, not only reach- Michiels, 2018). ing scale is crucial for success, the business model design and 2 Seven interviews were done by the authors, 13 were conducted by Business Management students as part of their bachelor’s thesis. execution are too (Piscicelli, Ludden, & Cooper, 2018). It is im- Bracke, R., Bourgois, H., Laebens, L., & Leyn, K. (2017). The Sharing portant to note that many of the (real) sharing platforms, often Economy: onderzoek naar de verdienmodellen in de deeleconomie [bachelor’s thesis]. Gent: Arteveldehogeschool.

84 Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, 2019

Table 1. Overview of the platform interviewees with their platform names, country of origin, sales market, sector, short description and website (or Facebook group)

2. RESULTS were renovating their house and did not have the money nor the space to buy or stock all kinds of material or renovation 2.1. At the start (of the idea) tools. Flavr was started by two 25-year old yuppies who com- muted to and from work every day leaving them little time to Most of the platform ideas arose from a personal need. This prepare a home-made supper. They found few healthy alter- was the case for HomeLink, Flavr, Peerby, MenuNextDoor, natives on the market for take-away food. One day their neigh- Kampshop, WeHelpen, Bsit, Helpper. For example, Peerby/ bour proposed to cook for them if they would cook for her Wijdelen (actually the original platform was called WijDelen, another evening. They started a closed Facebook group with but Peerby took over WijDelen) was initiated by two men who neighbours and friends who cooked for each other. Similarily,

85 The sharing economy

MenuNextDoor initially started with a closed Facebook group mum (investment) cost. They learned that some suppliers, vol- of friends, family and neighbours who cooked for each other. unteers, were a lot younger than they assumed and many did DeGeefVanGent also started out of personal needs. Although not want to get paid for their service. free giveaway Facebook groups already existed a long time be- fore DeGeefVanGent started, the administrator filled the gap that was left after the well-known Freecycle Ghent had to be 2.2. Acceleration and success removed and disappeared3. According to the interviewees, sharing is a centuries old habit In a way, Tournevie copied their initiative from existing “tool- but it is now facilitated by technology. HomeLink for example libraries” in the US and Canada. This is also called “elegant was created in the fifties by teachers who wanted to exchange stealing”: 99% of new ideas are adaptations, translations or homes with colleagues during their summer holiday. Internet combinations of existing ones (Kleon, 2012). Likewise, Campr, did not exist, so every year a printed catalogue including pic- which started as a school project, was inspired by to tures of the houses was distributed. Only subscribers received initiate their Airbnb-like garden sharing platform for campers. the catalogue in order to make reservations. With the emer- Similarly, the owner of Croqqer started working with and got gence and aid of technology, ‘sharing’ or better, ‘collaborating’ inspired by a Dutch ecosystem of several organisations, includ- has grown exponentionally and has become an international ing Peerby. He attended the Sharing festival in Paris (2013), success. read “What’s yours is mine”, and wanted to create a practical, non-existing sharing initiative in the Netherlands (as sharing Indeed, almost all the respondents explain that well-thought- accomodation and cars or rides already existed). As a result, out algorithms and a user-friendly app are key conditions to Croqqer was founded. For CarAmigo, the owner was inspired success. Many platforms match offer and demand of peers, by a company that rented out free office spac- based on predefined algorithmes using loca- es to companies in need of office space, thus “There seems to be no tion, categories, reviews,etc. Peerby, for ex- utilizing unused assets. During a holiday trip one-size-fits-all approach to ample, started with an online peer database in France he saw the same principle for un- create, deliver, and capture of (renovation) tools such as a ladder, a drill, a used cars and was eager to found his own car value with marketplaces and saw, … but the database was not considered sharing initiative in Belgium in 2015. Taxistop platforms.” user-friendly. The website was not a succes, started its carpooling service inspired by a customer of Tax- as there were many subscribers, but nothing really happened istop who thought that carpooling would suit Taxistop’s vision. or ‘moved’. Now, an app matches a question (consumer) ‘’I need a drill for Saturday’’ with an offer (supplier) within a Some of the platforms surpassed personal needs, searched for 7.5 km location radius. opportunities and were accepted for an incubator program, like Flavr, Campr, Helpper. The Campr students were stimulat- ed by one of their professors to continue their project even 2.3. Business and revenue model after graduating and to join the incubator program. Being se- lected in the program and being the winner of the final pitch Most of the platforms we interviewed (N=19) are marketplaces, competition gave them the necessary start capital to market that match offer and demand, and use a commission-based their platform. (transactional based) revenue model. Some platforms (N=5) started without any earnings in mind because the founders val- Note that many platforms did not start from the beginning with ue(d) sustainability and social issues more than financial ones. a nicely working high-tech platform or app, but rather began Therefore, they chose to start as a cooperative, like Partago, as a Facebook group (MenuNextDoor and Flavr) or as an Ex- or a non-profit organization, like Taxistop. MenuNextDoor is celsheet distributed among friends (Peerby/WijDelen). When still building the database and community, but had no revenue this Facebook group exploded as many others felt the same stream at the moment of the interview. Their investors agree need, initiators started building the platform. Helpper, for ex- that it is more important to create fuzz and to grow than to ample, started as a very basic website with manual matching have immediate financial return. Once there are enough pro- behind the scenes just to see what happened and how they viders (suppliers, like a cook) and users (consumers, like the should modify their business model. This lean startup method one eating a meal) and transactions, they will move on to a allowed them to get to know the market very well at a mini- transactional based revenue system. Still another platform, Helpper, intended to have a transaction based earning model, 3 , the original Freecycle non-profit in the US but a large number of participants (suppliers) indicated that state of Arizona, has registered the term Freecycle as a trademark and requested to all major Freecycle groups on Facebook to immediately they did not want to get paid. Helpper, where one can help remove the entire group(s), or at least, the name of this/these groups. 86 Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, 2019

elderly and can get paid per hour in return, struggles with help- 6. Product placement: is a marketing technique in which refer- ers who register on the website, but do not want to get paid, ences to specific brands or products are incorporated with they just want to volunteer. Nevertheless, Helpper considers a specific intent to promote said product or brand. Flavr, to ask a fixed but rather small fee or wage to prevent abuse for example gained additional earnings through product and to cover insurance. Of course and applicable to most plat- placement. They were contacted by several producers to forms, without earnings, costs cannot be covered and the plat- promote new products among the hobby chef cooks. They form cannot expand. Hence, most platforms eventually evolve started experimenting with product placement and consid- towards some type of revenue stream/model. ered this a very lucrative side revenue4. 7. Partnership: is a collaboration with other one or more or- The most common revenue models mentioned by our inter- ganisations or people. Campr, for example, is partnering viewees are presented below (see Table 2 for an overview). with music festivals to create their own page on the Campr Some platforms combine various revenue models for different website/app with gardens or meadows close to the festival target groups or services. where participants can camp. Peerby Go has a try-out for 1. Transaction based: a percentage of every transaction on collaborating with B2C shops or partners: if no peer-to-peer the platform is taken, either from the Seller/Giver, from match is found within 24 hours on the platform, users can the Buyer/Taker, or from both (like Flavr). This is the most borrow materials from classical sellers with a 10% discount frequently used model (N=11) among our interviewees. In for the user and another 10% fee for the platform (paid some cases, for example Bsit, Helpper and plat- by the seller). Lastly, Taxistop creates carpooling apps for forms, part of the percentage is used to cover insurance. companies to facilitate carpooling among their employees What remains is the margin for the platform. and advise them on taxation matters. Thus they sell their 2. Subscription: users pay a fixed amount per month or three carpooling expertise rather than taking a margin per km or months to use services or goods, for example, toys from transaction from users. Their argument is that they would AgainAgain, or unlimited services or goodsof babysits from risk the users to bypass the carpooling app and contact the Bsit+. Three of our interviewed platforms use this model. driver by other means (e.g., WhatsApp) so that Taxistop 3. Membership: users pay a fixed amount per year for partici- would miss their margin. pating or using a platform. HomeLink members, for exam- ple, pay a yearly subscripton fee to get access to the house database. From then, house exchange is free of charge. In Brussels, to have access to the tools library, one needs to pay a yearly membership fee and then, all use is for free. Three of our interviewed platforms use this model. 4. Pay-per-use and pre-paid model: users pay in advance for hours to use, for goods to rent or for kilometres to drive. This is for instance the case with Partago, where electric cars are shared and paid per minute of use via a prepaid system with a certain number of minutes. However, Parta- go has a cooperative system meaning that only members of the cooperative have access to the car sharing service. To be able to use a shared car, one must pay for a share in the cooperative. Only one respondent, Partago, uses this kind of revenue model. 5. Free: users do not pay to share goods or services. Some platforms (N=4) we interviewed have a free model. Peerby basic users do not pay for using tools from peers found via the app. However Peerby has (several) other paying variants of its basic formula. When Peerby’s services are offered to companies within the Peerby Groups variant, where only the proper employees can use the service and share with co-workers, this specific company pays a month- ly subscription fee to Peerby. 4 Note that this platform stopped several months after we interviewed them, despite their relative success.

87 The sharing economy

Table 2. Overview of the platform interviewees and their revenue model

3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION is (66%). However, the transaction-based model is known as a “low margin, high volume model” meaning that it can only This research gives a first insight into revenue models driven work when sufficient transactions are made. Most of - there by sharing platforms, which may inspire other start-ups. The spondents told us that they do not make enough earnings transaction-based model is a very common through this model, because transactions are if not the most common used model by the “Many of the platforms too cheap (e.g., Campr sometimes earns only platforms. This is conform the finding in we interviewed seek the 0.80 cent per transaction) or volumes are not Täusher and Laudien (2018) that the major- best option, using trial and high enough. Therefore they are obliged to ity (72%) of their respondents (randomly se- error, pivoting their revenue fall back on additional revenue models (e.g., lected marketplaces) generate revenue from model.” advertising, product placement) or an extra commission fees. Especially for C2C, a commisson-based mod- job (e.g. website development). Flavr announced this year that el is the primary option, whereas, for B2B a subscription one May 9th would be their last day of selling meals from hobby

88 Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, 2019

cooks to consumers. Although they reached 5,000 chefs and money-driven, simply to be able to continu to exist. Yet, how 20,000 consumers and the platform seemed a success, their can a for-profit model fit with a soft objective? Perhaps, a work- revenue stream (transaction based and product placement) able solution for this gap and discord lies in a co-operative? was insufficient to cover the costs. According to Flavr, building According to one interviewee, turning into a co-operative could a successful two-sided platform is only possible when starting strengthen the sustainability and social goals of many sharing on a large scale from day one (Moos, 2018). To obtain such initiatives and especially of the more pro-social sharing busi- a critical mass, Helpper for example, set up a structural part- nesses. Rather than focussing on profit maximalisation, focus- nership with a health insurance fund that refers any person in sing on “sustainability through profit” could be the answer to need of care (consumer) to the platform. This health insurance the “aversion for earning money on unused goods or services”. fund also promotes the platform and stimulates helpers (sup- This expert in co-operatives told us that in Belgium only few pliers) to subscribe. platforms are co-operatives although it is the ultimate legal structure for a sharing platform. Another downside to the transaction model is that peers can skip and bypass the platform. They can -after a while- direct- ly contact each other without using the app and ignoring the BIOGRAPHY platform. For example, Bsit, the babysitting app, is challenged to find methods to bind the babysitters and the parents to the Karijn Bonne is a researcher at Artevelde University of Applied app so they would still keep using the app (and thus would still Sciences in Ghent, Belgium. Her research domain consists of pay a percentage per transaction to the platform). entrepreneurship of diverse entrepreneurs (women, migrants, refugees, …) and new business models. She is head of the Re- Next, there seems to be no one-size-fits-all approach to create, search and Development Center Business and Management. deliver, and capture value with marketplaces and platforms She holds a master in Business Science specialisation Market- (Täuscher & Laudien, 2018). Actually, we noticed that many of ing Management from Ghent University where she also ob- the platforms we interviewed seek the best option, using trial tained her PhD in 2008. Her work has appeared in a number of and error, evolving to a different revenue stream, or evolving peer-reviewed journals and in the popular press. https://www. from a free to a paid model with revenue, or evolving from a linkedin.com/in/karijnbonne/ single towards a combined revenue model. Peerby, for exam- ple, announced their new revenue model in May 2018: suppli- Nicky Malfliet, researcher and lecturer at Artevelde Univer- ers can now also ask for a compensation when lending out a sity of Applied Sciences, Ghent, Belgium. She holds a Master (valuable) material to a consumer. degree in Business Science, specialisation Marketing Manage- ment, where she researched the ROI of billboarding. At Arte- In addition to those specific issues, referring to the sharing velde University College she researched new business models “economy”, in general, may be problematic, because many in the sharing economy and the impact of influencers in the emerging sharing initiatives have no economic transactions at media impact. As a researcher I am also responsible for the all. Moreover, many suppliers are “ashamed of earning mon- management of projects between businesses and our universi- ey” when they lend within sharing initiatives, just as consum- ty college. Her main interest is in the domain of marketing and ers who are “ashamed to ask for free”. Similarily, referring to business. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickymalfliet/ “sharing” economy, in general, is often problematic, since lit- tle “sharing” may be involved in many (mini-)capitalistic digital Vicky Franssen is a lecturer and researcher at Artevelde Uni- platforms. So it is sometimes difficult to reconcile profit with- versity of Applied Sciences in Ghent. She does research on, in a non-profit paradigm, and vice versa. Muñoz and Cohen teaches about and is interested in: the circular/sharing econ- (2017) confirm, on the one hand, that it is difficult to obtain the omy, sustainable development goals, social psychology, group “utopian sharing typology” or “the sharing economy ideal” (see dynamics, social networks, the sharing personality, statistics middle intersection of Fig. 1). This would then be a platform and digital stress (management). with a strong focus on community building amongst peers, She studied theoretical and experimental psychology at Ghent that adresses income inequality, in which profit is not the main University where she also obtained her PhD in 2003. Her work, aim. On the other hand, non-profit platforms sometimes must research and opinions (as a social psychologist and about be encouraged to become more profit-minded, just to better social media and digistress) have appeared in a number of serve this ideal goal (of sharing). Instead of hoping that less peer-reviewed A1 journals and in the popular press (Ad Rem, capitalist or mini-capitalist excesses and motives destroy the Knack, De Morgen, De Standaard, Het Nieuwsblad, De Kruit­ beauty/ideal of pro-social and soft sharing, pro-social and ide- fabriek op VIER, Feeling, Plus Magazine, ...). linkedin.com/in/ al sharing platform owners sould become more economic and vicky-franssen-64b0655

89 The sharing economy

Christel De Maeyer, researcher and lector at Artevelde Uni- Demary, V. (2015). Competition in the sharing economy. IW versity of Applied Sciences, Ghent, Belgium. She has an inter- policy paper, No. 19/2015, ZBW, Cologne. national career in the Digital Media space for over 30 years. Dervojeda, K., Verzijl, D., Nagtegaal, F., Lengton, M., Rouw- She holds a Master degree in Communication Science, New maat, E., Monfardini, E., & Frideres, L. (2013). The sharing econo- Media and Society in Europe, VUB – SMIT – Brussels, where she my. Accessibility based business models for peer-to-peer markets. researched wearable devices and behavior change. In 2008 European Comission Business Innovation Observatory. she got involved in the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford Franssen, V., Bonne, K., Malfliet, N., De Maeyer, C., - &Mi University, working on behavior design with the team of Dr. chiels, M. (2018). The Sharing Economy: About Micro-Entrepre- BJ Fogg in the area of Peace Innovation and wearable tech. neurship and Givers’ (Financial) Motives. Management Internati- Currently she is also a PhD Candidate at the User Centred En- onal Conference (MIC), (pp. 233-249). Venice. gineering Group, Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven Frenken, K. (2016). Deeleconomie onder een noemer [oratie]. University of Technology. Her main interest is in the domain of Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved from https://www. behavior change through technologies. http://be.linkedin.com/ uu.nl/sites/default/files/20160211-uu_oratie-frenken.pdf. in/christeldemaeyer Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental innovation and societal transiti- Marilyn Michels is a full-time lecturer of Business English with ons. a passion for language and coaching. She studied Germanic Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. Harvard languages (specialization Dutch and English) and a subsequent Business School. Master in Multilingual Business Communication, before start- How Airbnb Works | Insights into Business & Revenue Mo- ing her professional career at Ghent University. Here, she had del. (2015, 7 7). Retrieved from Juggernaut: http://nextjug- the opportunity to perform research, teach doctoral schools (in gernaut.com/blog/airbnb-business-model-canvas-how-air- the field of Humanities and Social and Behavioural Sciences) bnb-works-revenue-insights/. and specialize in both Dutch and English for Specific Purposes. Kathan, W., Matzler, K., & Veider, V. (2016). The sharing econ­ After 5 successful years, she decided to expand her horizons by omy: your business model’s friend or foe? Business Horizons, starting at Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, where she 59, 663-672. has been teaching ESP in fields such as Finance & Insurance, Kleon, A. (2012). Steal like an artist: 10 Things Nobody Told You Law Practice, Event Management and Medical Management. In About Being Creative. Workman Publishing. her free time, she (sub-)edits and copywrites research propos- Laebens, L., Bracke, R., Leyn, K., & Bourgois, H. (2017). PWO als, theses and dissertations. Sharing Economy. Onderzoek naar verdienmodellen in de deeleco- nomie. Ghent : Artevelde University College. Martin, C., Upham, P., & Budd, L. (2015). Commercial orien- REFERENCES tation in grassroots social innovation: insights from the sharing economy. Ecological Economics, 118, 240-251. +50 Business & Revenue Model Examples. (2017, 10 5). Retrie- Moos, A. &. (2018, April 27). Het einde van een geweldig avon- ved from Board of Innovation: https://www.boardofinnovation. tuur. Retrieved from Medium: https://medium.com/@addFLA- com/business-revenue-model-examples/. VR/het-einde-van-een-geweldig-avontuur-d0d4cefa2e22. Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and Mundell, I. (2015, 08 13). Sharing initiatives in Flanders slowly paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. pick up steam, and fans. Retrieved 03 01, 2016, from www.flan- Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 125, 1-10. derstoday.eu: http://www.flanderstoday.eu/living/sharing-ini- Böckmann, M. (2013). The Shared Economy: It is time to tiatives-flanders-slowly-pick-steam-and-fans. start caring; value creating factors in the sharing economy. Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing eco- 1stIBA Bachelor Thesis Conference. Enschede, the Netherlands. nomy: a configurational approach to sharing business mode- Byerly, R. T. (2014). The social contract, social enterprise, ling. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 125, 21-37. and business model innovation . Social Business , 4(4), 325-343. Oosterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Gene- Bylund, P. (2017, 1 21). 3 Ways the Sharing Economy Changes ration: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challen- Entrepreneurial Opportunity. Retrieved from Entrepreneur: gers. Campus Verlag. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/254725. Piscicelli, L., Ludden, G., & Cooper, T. (2018). What makes a De Maeyer, C., & Bonne, K. (2016). Entrepreneurship 3.0: sustainable business model succsesful? An empirical compa- tools to support new and young companies with their business rison of two peer-to-peer foods-sharing platforms. Journal of models. Journal of Positive Management, 6(3), 3-15. Cleaner Production, 172, 4580-4591.

90 Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, 2019

Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy. The end of em- ployment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Täuscher, K., & Laudien, S. (2018). Understanding platform business models: a mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management Journal, 36, 319-329. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172-194. Verdegem, P. (2016, 06 02). De politieke economie van de deeleconomie en deelcultuur [pdf]. Retrieved from http://www. csi.ugent.be/workshop-deeleconomie/.

91