1.
The “I share! Do you?” survey was launched by la Fing and OuiShare under
ShaREvolution in order to understand the motivations behind users of collaborative
consumption as well as its trajectory. The survey, which was available online
for three months, gathered 2150 responses from collaborative "consumers."
This survey was not carried out among a representative sample of the French population
La Fing and OuiShare campaign
survey "I SHARE! DO YOU?"
Design by Collectif Bam
Fing is supported by its major partners

2.
Design by Collectif Bam
Survey participants
Main characteristics of "I share! Do you?" survey participants
accommodation vs marital status Digital practices of participants
On the other hand, only 15.2% post content on a
daily basis, 20.4% do it regularly and 35.1% occa-
sionally. 29.3% never post anything.
income
Profession
age
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
25 35 50 65 +
+ 5000 €
2500 à 5000 €
1800 à 2500 €
1200 à 1800 €
- de 1200 €
say they’re volunteers
16,6 %
19,5 %
2500 € to 5000 €
40%
18

3.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES
Design by Collectif Bam
Digital practices of participants
Carpooling
Homestay
P2P
car rental
Car-sharing
Bike Sharing
47.4 %
49 %
11.1 %
28.6 %
27 %
25 %
Do it
Do it
Do it
Do it
Don’t do it but say they
will at some point
Don’t do it but say they
will at some point
mAIN REASON
frequency
frEquencY
frEquencY
frequency
among them...
AMONG THEM...
AMONG THEM...
AMONG THEM...
a VAST MAJORITY OF CITY DWELLERS
(As this service is essentially urban)

4.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES
Design by Collectif Bam
Other collaborative consumption practices of respondents
P2P selling
Swapping /Giving
/ Renting
Collaborative
short food
supply chains
Private
exchange
of services
92 %
83 % 17 % 11 % 7 %
33 %
20 %
Do it
Have already given something
away that they had no use for
Have already lent something to
someone they didn’t know
Have already borrowed something
from someone they didn’t know
Have already rented something
out to an individual
Do it
Do it
AMONG THEM...
among them...
among them...
* Short food supply chains via community-supported agriculture or platforms. Buying directly from farmers has not been included.

5.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES
Design by Collectif Bam
What percentage of respondents has adopted multiple consumption practices?
2
3
4
5
Practices
Practices
PracticesPractices
46 %
25 %
22 %
11 %
11 %
3 %
45 %
26 %
19 %
At least
At least
At least
At least

6.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES
Design by Collectif Bam
Reasons for, concerns and vision of the collaborative economy
REASONS
expected income for an
individual service
IMPACT on the budget INCOME GENERATED FROM
COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION
monthLY INCOME
MAIN concerns FUTURE OF COLLABORATIVE
CONSUMPTION practices
Your main reasons
are...
40% of survey participants
said it is about seeking
fulfillment, while 36%
cited financial reasons.
The respondents don’t expect
collaborative consumption to give them
consistent income
According to the respondents,
collaborative consumption mainly allows
them to make marginal savings. ... and marginal income
Most survey participants say they don’t
make any substantial money from
practicing colloborative consumption

7.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption
1
2
“Young people carpool“
“Collaborative consumption is an urban practice”
Generally true
Generally true
Proportionally young people carpool on a much larger scale than their
older counterparts especially those aged between 18-24 (especially as
passengers) and 25-34 (both as passengers and drivers).
However, there has been a resurgence in carpooling after retirement
Citydwellers(citieswithover100,000inhabitants)practicecollaborative
consumption a lot more than people living in small towns. With certain
practices, there is quite a significant difference:
• Car-sharing and bike-sharing (particularly in Paris and big urban
areas because there is a supply for it)
• Short food supply chains via community-supported agriculture
• Carpooling
• Renting out cars privately as a car owner (particularly in Paris) via
digital platforms.
On the other hand, it is incorrect to say that country dwellers and people
age (65+ as drivers and passengers), whereas younger people mainly
carpool as passengers.
Usageisusuallybelowthenationalaveragebutisstillhighforcarpooling
(particularly as the driver) or for non-collaborative short food supply
chains.
living in small towns don’t practise collaborative consumption. Theirs
is usually below the national average but is still high for carpooling
(particularly as the driver) or for non-collaborative short food supply
chains.
Collaborative practices

8.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption
3
4
“Collaborative consumption exploded with the arrival of digital platforms“
“The most tech-savvy people are the most collaborative”
True
True
70% of respondents have seen their collaborative consumption activity
increase in the last few years. Over half of the respondents (53%) say
that their collaborative practices have generally increased over the last
few years, 21% say they have greatly increased, and only 1% say that
they have decreased.
However, the type of practice should be differentiated here: carpooling
and lodging provided by local hosts or the buying or reselling of second-
hand goods increase with the level of connection, and the least tech-
savvy people are the most reluctant to try out these practices. However,
the most connected people are more likely to engage in multiple
practices (both as a supplier and a buyer) or at the very least as a buyer
(passenger, traveller, etc.)
If we look at short supply chains, it comes as no surprise that digital
collaboration is more common with people who are more internet-
connected (such as the purchase or sale of second-hand goods).The
Having said that, we can see that collaborative consumption practices have
really risen for those who use digital platforms as opposed to those who don’t!
93.5% of respondents who have been using digital platforms for 1-4 years state
that their collaborative activity has increased, and 33% of respondents even say
that it has “significantly increased”.
difference is not as tangible for non-digital collaborative practices (community-
supported agriculture, etc.) Similarly, there is a difference between the most
connected and least connected people but it is less obvious in terms of
exchanging objects or services which is more of a marginal practice.
Is this correlation of collaborative practices and level of digital use really down
to the practices or solely to the fact that the most tech-savvy people tend to be
young people? In these circumstances, the trends can be seen in any age group
as previously seen (24-35, 50-64 for carpooling, for example), but it’s among
young people and the most connected people (e.g. lodging) that collaborative
consumption is more substantial.
Digital practices

9.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption
6“Collaborative consumption allows you to save money on your budget”
True
Most respondents (65 %) state their collaborative activity allows them
to make marginal savings. 17 % say these savings really increases their
purchasing power. Nevertheless, this income does not really allow them
to make ends meet or at the very least, this is not what these
collaborative practitioners are experiencing. Several people (42.5%)
state that it gives them a small income, but only 6% say that it really
helps them make ends meet. This statement is subjective and depends
on the respondents’ lifestyle (and standard of living). For people on a
tight budget, savings are more substantial than for those who don’t
have any money problems.
When we look at monthly income, 24% of respondents earn between
€0 -30 thanks to their collaborative consumption activity, 11% between
€30 and €100… only 2% say they earn over €300 a month. All practices
are not in the same boat. Carpoolers, those who turn to renting their
cars or lodgings with individuals, state that for the most part, they have
made small or substantial savings. It is less true for those who turn to
short supply chains or exchange services.
Impact of collaborative consumption on the budget
5
“Early adopters don’t have the same collaborative consumption
expectations as recent users”
Generally false
The reasons behind engaging in certain practices, notably carpooling
(which is mainly for economic reasons) are pretty much the same
however old the practices are: overall, economic reasons and sense-
making come in first, followed by practicality and then curiosity.
On the other hand, the practices themselves differ depending on these
profiles: collaborative practice tends to be more frequent (undoubtedly
more established) with the most versatile, pioneering collaborative
consumers: whether it be carpooling or peer-to-peer accommodation,
these pioneers are both the suppliers and the buyers, significantly more
so than the more recent users (possibly tend to be consumerists?) who
are either the driver or the traveller. Nevertheless, the pioneers get
more income from their activity than recent consumers...
For other practices, however, (buying or selling of second-hand goods,
short supply chains, service exchange...), the recent characteristic of
collaborative consumption doesn’t appear to come into play.
Time spent using collaborative consumption digital platforms

10.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption
7
8
“People do not try out collaborative consumption because they prefer
to own rather than rent or borrow”
“Bad experiences lead to giving up on collaborative practices.
Not owning what we use is not really seen as a big disadvantage... The
main deterrent is the time spent on research and the transaction (for
more than 67% of respondents); followed by having to go on digital
While a third of those who were surveyed say that they have had a
negative experience, only 10% of them stopped their collaborative
activity. Most people continued as before and a third of them reduced
or changed their practices. Who are the ones who “left” collaborative
platforms, and fewer people, only 10% of respondents, cite not owning
what they use as being the main deterrent for them to try out
collaborative consumption.
consumption?
These are mainly people who don’t think collaborative
consumption was economically beneficial to them; a big portion of them
were homeowners of a certain age, often living in small-sized towns.
Unsurprisingly, this also included a certain number of people who don’t
trust others (anymore?) and are also fairly ‘‘digitally unconnected.’’
Deterrents
Bad experiences with collaborative consumption
False
False

11.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
10 popular beliefs about collaborative consumption
9
10
“People living in a flatshare or group housing practise collaborative
consumption more than others”
“People who are already involved in some form of sharing (voluntee-
ring...) will be more inclined to be involved in collaborative consumption”
Ifwelookatthediversityofpracticeslinkedtocollaborativeconsumption,
people living in a flatshare/houseshare or in group housing are the ones
most likely to turn to it.
Carpooling shows the biggest difference, both with owners as with
”individual” renters. In regards to homestays, once again, there is a
significant difference, even if theoretically, the tenant needs to get
permission from the owner to rent out their property.
However, for other practices (exchange of services and goods between
individuals) , there isn’t much difference.
Carpooling, exchange of services, buying fresh products from farm-to-
table (particularly via community-supported agriculture) are practised
more by people who are involved in volunteering than those who aren’t.
This is also the case, to a lesser extent, for homestays. “Volunteers”
In reality, the differences between those who live in group housing and
those who live alone is also explained by the tenant/owner profiles. The
former are mainly young singles with low income whereas the owners
tend to be parents with children who generally earn quite a big income.
It is also important to note that housemates, in addition to being involved
in a number of collaborative practices, take on a supplier and buyer
approach.
will also tend to be involved as both the supplier and user in these col-
laborative forms: host and traveller, driver and passenger etc.
True
True
Volunteering and collaborative consumption

12.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
Standard practices
Some collaborative practices are more common than others.
Zooming in on the most standard practices
Carpooling
passenger
Homestay
vs
vs
Practising
Practising
Non-practising
Non-practising
Families with
children
High income
+ €5000
Executive or intellectual
professionals
(Do it more out of conviction than to
save money)
Young people
between18-24
25-34 35-64
People living in big
cities or Parisians
To a lesser extent, + 65
year-olds can be found
to be both the driver and
passenger
Connected people who
regularly use social media
People who are not very
connected, who are not on
social media
Low incomes less
(than €1200)
Homeowners
NB: Drivers don’t necessarily have these profiles and the practice is a lot less commonplace
Collaborative accommodation is a
fairly uncommon practice
However, as a double practice
(host/ traveller), it is more common among:
• Young people between 25 and 34
• People with no children
• Freelancers / managers
• Connected people (use social media on a
daily basis)
• Tenants
As a host, this is practised by :
• Parisians
• Tenants
It is a lot more uncommon for:
• Homeowners
• 35-49 year-olds
• People living in small towns

13.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
Private car rental
Collaborative short supply
chains (via digital platforms)
Renters
Parisians
Young people between 25 and 34
Parisians
Connected people who are on
social media and publish content
regularly
"Disconnected" people
Middle age groups
(35-49 and 50-64)
Owners
Generally young people
(25-34)
People with no children
Middle age groups
(34-64)
People living in small towns (2000 to 20
000 inhabitants) and country dwellers
Car owners
Live, via community-supported agriculture and/or food co-ops, buying locally sourced food is less
stereotypical. It is however, more common among people living in urban areas (outside of Paris) who are
involved in volunteering and feel quite strongly about the environment.
Standard practices
Some collaborative practices are more common than others.
Zooming in on the most standard practices
vs
Practising Non-practising
vs
Practising Non-practising

14.
Design by Collectif Bam
P2P exchange of services
As a supplier
P2P exchange of services
As the recipient or customer
vs
vs
Practising
Practising
Non-practising
Non-practising
GOING FURTHER
Young people (18-24), and students,
probably as a student job
People with no children
Tech-savvy profiles
Low incomes
People living in small towns (2000 to
20,000 inhabitants)
Families with one or two children
Profiles with quite comfortable
incomes (over €5000)
Middle age groups (35-49)
Managerial and
professional occupations
Young people (25-34)
People living in big cities (except
Parisians)
Those who exchange services (sometimes as suppliers, sometimes as clients) have a more similar socio-professional pro-
file. It is however, a lot more practised by people who are already involved in volunteering and who feel strongly about the
environment (as seen, notably, with the choice of everyday transport, etc.).
Standard practices
Some collaborative practices are more common than others .
Zooming in on the most standard practices

15.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
Collaborative consumer profiles
ZoomING IN ON "multi-practitioner" profiles
There are fewer 35-49 year-olds and 50-64 year-
olds in the multi-practitioner category, apart
from if we look at collaborative practices which
retain some form of ownership: carpooling driver + P2P
homestay host, for example.
The main divide between single-activity collaborative consumers
and multiple-activity ones seems to be age.
25-34 year-olds are much more
represented than the average
respondent in the multi-practitioner
category:
Particularly if we look at the logic
behind use rather than possession:
carpooling passenger + traveller
hosted by an individual, or double
practices (sometimes passenger,
sometimes driver).
They represent almost half of the
respondents who practise at least 3
(42-43%) or 4 collaborative activities
(46-47% ).
People living in big cities (+ 100,000
inhabitants) in Provence or Paris form
a disproportionately large percentage
of multi-practitioners (particularly
those who practise both carpooling, P2P
lodging, P2P exchanging of goods and
collaborative short supply chains)
The “multi-practitioner” is aged between 25 and 34, tends to live in the city, has an intermediate
or managerial occupation (executive, liberal professions...), but not a very big income (people
earning less than €2500 a month are over-represented here). He/she is quite confident in the role
collaborative consumption is set to have.
The place of residence also plays a part

16.
Design by Collectif Bam
GOING FURTHER
Reasons and opinions : individual profiles
Above all else, they look
for the practical aspect of
collaborative consumption
They want to find
meaning behind these
practices
They mainly turn to it
for financial reasons
They tried it out of curiosity
They carpool a little less, but use it as a
solution to get around frequently (18% do
it more than once a week) to save money,
but also because it is the most practical
way to get around in their case (which is
a lot more than other respondents). Their
other activity is average among the res-
pondents.
Their participation hasn’t exploded in the
last few years, they were already involved
in collaborative practices before plat-
forms burst onto the scene.
While most of them believe that collabo-
rative consumption ’’is going to overtake
traditional consumption’’, many (39%)
think that it will remain marginal.
35-49 year-olds and Parisians are also
slightly over-represented.
They are multi faceted practitioners: dri-
vers and passengers,...
While the majority of them turn to cer-
tain collaborative consumption practices,
like carpooling to save money, a higher
percentage of them compared to other
respondents (+ 30%) do it to be environ-
mentally friendly.
They also use collaborative short food
supply chains a lot more than other res-
pondents, especially via community-sup-
ported agriculture or food co-ops, but
also to a lesser extent, through digital
platforms.
They are also involved in other types of
group-related behaviour (volunteering
etc.) and are willing to consider collabo-
rative consumption as a form of solidarity,
accepting to offer services for free.
Theiractivityisnotfarfromtherespondent
average, but they practice collaborative
consumption a lot less if it doesn’t allow
them to save money or make an income
from it, like buying locally.
They are also less involved in forms of so-
lidarity (volunteering) and are a lot less
willing to offer their services for free; they
make more money from it than other res-
pondents. Unsurprisingly, they say they
are on tight budgets.
There are slightly more 18-24 year-olds
in this category.
More of them than in any other profile
(39%) have had a bad experience with col-
laborative consumption...and have given
up on it.
Based on their collaborative experience,
they are less trusting than other profiles.
They say they’re curious... but are howe-
ver more reluctant than others to get in-
volved with collaborative practices.
They find it hard to position themselves in
regards to collaborative consumption and
don’t really believe it will develop.
Mainly young people (18-24) and older
age groups (50-64 ans), without children
in this category.
This profile is still a weak category (5 % of
respondents).

17.
Credits
Pictograms
Noun Project
Thomas Le Bas - Iain Hector - Jon trillana - John Caserta
Jane Pellicciotto - Dan Hetteix - George Agpoon - Edward Boatman - Chris Kerr
Kaio Fialho - Natalia Bourges - Edward Boatman - Michael Stüker - Aneeque Ahmed
Graphic design
Scientific Coordination
Nathan Stern
BI tool
Nathan Stern / Shoppermind / DataPublica
Survey carried out by
la Fing is supported by its major partners
The ShaREvolution team would like to thank its partners (La
Poste, ADEME, Nord Pas De Calais, Orange, Bouygues Immo-
bilier, Bouygues Construction, Renault and EDF) and the colla-
borative consumption platforms (BlaBlaCar, Drivy, AirBnb and
Zenweshare) who passed on the survey to their networks al-
lowing us to reach a significant number of respondents.
Through the open knowledge approach, the survey information
was firstly explored openly and collectively at NUMA in Paris.
The data linked to the survey will be freely accessible on la
FING website.