Ability barriers

Page 73 of 154

wish to be met. Car size and safety was much more important for them, than the car being a certain type like BMW or Mercedes. This finding however should be labeled as a possible tendency that applies to consumers living in Copenhagen and cannot be argued as a general trend. In order to find out if the findings are universal in Denmark more studies and interviewees are needed.

MinbilDinbil should try to establish a strong range of car types in order to meet the interest of all consumers’ different needs and perhaps emphasize the car’s safety condition on their website.

Page 74 of 154

With the barrier of limited knowledge, it was also discovered through the literature research that the educational level of a consumer could mean an increase in the interest of joining a peer to peer car sharing service. It was found that if a consumer had a high education level he or she might be more aware of the world’s environmental problems and this would create a higher willingness to participate in car sharing. From the socio demographic questionnaire it was found that carless consumers had a high level of education, whereas consumers who owned a car all had a low level of education. This is interesting because it puts to question the scholarly findings that higher educational level equals more interest in peer to peer car sharing. This could also indicate a split in the consumer barrier where car owners who have a lower educational level is more interested in car sharing and carless consumers with a high educational level is more interest in car sharing. While this might not seem as a barrier, it can be analyzed as though carless consumers who do not have a higher education reject the service and that car owning consumers with a high education reject the service. To combat this barrier MinbilDinbil could have reviews on their website, to show different consumers and their background story.

Income level

Thøgersen (2010) found that a limitation on financial resources can be a barrier for behavior.

Related to consumers’ personal resources it was found during the literature review that those who belong to a low-mid income class are more likely to join a car sharing service. Overall the figures reveal that there is truth to the barrier, however there is also quite a lot of uncertainty. The results tell that MinbilDinbil could be losing some carless customers because they have too high an income and therefore are not interested in the service. Not surprising, car owning consumers had the complete opposite data. As written in the introduction, to own a car in Denmark, which has some of the world’s highest taxes on cars, you are likely to earn an average salary. What can be gathered from the data is that the barrier of income does not apply to car owners who are interested in the service. As with the possible barrier above, MinbilDinbil should emphasize that all people in a society use their service. This could for example be done through interviews or consumer statements.

Coordination & review time

In relation to financial restraints a consumer can, as found by Thøgersen (2010), also be limited by time. Concerning car sharing it was found that time could restrict a consumers’ willingness to join

Page 75 of 154

the service on two levels: coordination time and review time. Review time was deemed not to constitute a barrier and will therefore not be discussed.

Carless consumers on the one hand embrace the notion of dealing with other consumers and the quick response time that will follow, on the other hand however they proclaim to think it will be more difficult than renting through a normal car renting company. Car owning consumers had equal concerns about pick-off and drop-off coordination issues. In the end coordination time is likely to be a barrier for some consumers, who will rather opt for a “normal” way of doing business.

Coordination in connection with renting out ones car is an issue between the two involved parties and therefore there is little MinbilDinbil can do about this part of the experience. If a car renter decides to deliver a car late, the company can only give a small fine, or remove them from the system. A bad experience can for the owner mean that he or she will not use the service again. They need to recognize the owner’s fears of coordination issues and further implement a feeling of safety through an improved system or perhaps GPS tracking.

Trust

Another of Thøgersen’s (2010) limiting factors to sustainable behavior is cognitive capacity.

Limited cognitive capacity restricts the consumer’s attention and awareness towards new issues. As found in the literature review, consumers have a natural skepticism towards new phenomena’s. Car sharing lies within this category and therefore mistrust can easily be generated towards the service.

Mistrust of car sharing was found throughout the literature review to exist in both segments. This finding was quickly backed up by the respondents from both segments’, who strongly advocated their concerns with borrowing something of a certain value out to or from a stranger. The mistrust was found to be strongest at the demand segment, which is quite peculiar seeing as it is the supply segment that is “giving up” a seemingly important possession. This could indicate that MinbilDinbil should emphasize their efforts on this barrier towards car renters more so than the owners.

Trust is in MinbilDinbil’s case connected with many of the above mentioned barriers, but it has the strongest ties to limited knowledge. MinbilDinbil needs to create a more trusting environment that builds on safety for both parties and which keeps emphasizing openness and honesty. Research by Keetels (2012) from the literature review emphasized that strong verification instruments would increase willingness to rent.

Ingrown transportation habits

Page 76 of 154

Habits are an adventurous consumer’s worst barrier. Habits are found by Thøgersen (2010) to restrain a consumer’s ability to engage in a behavior because it makes them repeat bad or unwanted behavior. From the literature review it was found that a consumers previous transportation habits could have a negative effect on adopting car sharing. When reviewing the carless consumers’

answers the strong transportation network that was analyzed during the opportunity section still had a strong hold in their responses. It seems that this network caters for their current needs and it appears that only if something extraordinary should occur, they would be interested in renting a car.

MinbilDinbil will have a tough time breaking the ingrown transportation habits of public transportation users in Copenhagen. What they need to do is to emphasize the odd situations in which public transportation does not meet the needs of the consumers. This could for example be moving, going on a trip to the woods or shopping for a party. Data from the consumers owning a car showed inconclusive results. However it is worth noting as one respondent mentioned, that MinbilDinbil needs to ensure that the car owners do not feel like their losing their freedom to drive whenever they want to.