F INANCIAL V ALUE

Another respondent also mentioned that he had also changed the way he sees consumption: “it definitely makes so much sense to me to rent something rather than owning it, especially for stuff that you don’t use that often or that requires too much maintenance. It is rather easier to rent things, and it is more convenient than spending money to buy or maintain them…” (P7, lines 1396-1398).

Additionally, it is important to mention that temporality seems to play an essential role in the respondents’ decisions. One the one hand, some of them said that, if they prolonged their stay here, they might think about buying a bike. On the other hand, other participants mentioned that they might continue using Swapfiets no matter for how long they stay in Denmark since they consider the service really convenient. Regarding renting/sharing the bike, they also mentioned that they would use Donkey Republic spontaneously as a last-minute choice if they needed a bike for a short time.

Most of the participants mentioned that they had previously owned bikes while they were living Copenhagen:

”I owned two bikes before. As I mentioned, I was simply tired of spending money on repairs, check-ups or new accessories like lights which were getting stolen from time to time” (P2, lines 133-134).

Moreover, they all agreed it was not worth to spend money on constant check-ups that they found expensive. While some of the male participants mentioned that they usually try to fix their bikes themselves, many were not keen on having to regularly pay a lot of money to get their bikes fixed in a shop. As a respondent commented:

“I tried to fix my bike but I couldn’t, and it would have been expensive to bring it to a bike shop and get it fixed. That is why I decided to use Swapfiets, so I don´t have to care about reparation costs” (P3, lines 532-534)

All the participants seemed to agree on the fact that it is easier for them to pay a fee every month and make sure they did not have to face high unexpected expenses if their bikes broke. Additionally, they mentioned the quality of the bike was outstanding in relation to the little amount of money they had to pay for it. Participants had found a balance between the utilitarian and financial values of the service.

Throughout the next section, I compare the different outcomes in terms of perceived financial value regarding accessing vs. owning.

5.2.1. Accessing vs. owning

An important fact to mention is that many of the interviewees are students working part-time, meaning for many their financial situation could be severely and negatively impacted by unexpected costs. Additionally, they considered that paying a small monthly fee to be more financially manageable rather than having to make a significant investment (paying for a bike service) all at once. It is also interesting to note how some mentioned that if they had more stable jobs and higher salaries that they would think about buying themselves a bike outright.

When the participants were asked how they would feel about losing their bikes, they all mentioned it would be annoying to pay the 450DKK penalty. However, they suggested that they did not consider it a significant amount of money, and they would be happy to pay it as an exchange for the benefits they get. It can be seen that participants place particular value on the convenience and ease of use that Swapfiets offers. They also agreed that if they had to pay the 450DKK penalty, they would ‘erase’ the bad feeling about losing their bikes, a feeling that would be different if they owned it. For example, a respondent mentioned:

“I would feel worse if I lost my bike. If my Swapfiets bike gets stolen, I will pay the amount of money, and that is all, it would be like “my way of fixing the problem”, but I would feel there is nothing I can do if someone steals my own bike” (P3, lines 551-553).

In terms of consumers responsibility and personal involvement with the product, there seem to be contradictory thoughts about the feeling of losing their Swapfiets bike compared to losing a purchased bike. Some participants stated that the feeling of losing their own bikes would be worse than losing their Swapfiets bike, explaining that when your own bike is lost or stolen, “you are losing your own assets” (P7, line 1456).

In terms of temporality, participants showed differing opinions. On the one hand, some of them agreed that in the long term they might be losing money by leasing a bike they are not going to own at the end. As one of the participants stated, “in the long term, I think I would save money by buying it.” (P6, line 1224). On the other hand, some of them felt that, by using Swapfiets instead of owning their bikes, they would save money in maintenance. As another respondent mentioned: “in a long-term perspective, if I own my bike, I would save money, but at some point, I would also need to get it repaired, that means more costs, too.

So, it makes perfect sense for me to stay with Swapfiets” (P8, lines 1727-1729).

Some of the participants definitely felt like they are losing their money in the long-term because they do not get the ownership of the bike. However other participants agreed that they are saving money by paying a monthly fee that ensures the maintenance of their bikes, so they do not have to pay every time their bikes need to be repaired, offsetting the cost of upkeep against the loss of ownership rights.

Another important fact related to the temporality of accessing instead of owning a bike is that participants seemed to be cost-oriented but not just focusing on the initial price they had to pay for the bike. For example, some of the participants mentioned they had just arrived in Copenhagen when they decided to lease their bikes. They said that they chose Swapfiets mainly because they did not want to make a big investment in a bicycle as they already had other significant expenses. As one participant mentioned: “it is just a bit of money every month and not a big amount of money that I had to pay at once” (P4, lines 729-730).

Additionally, most of the respondents seemed to mainly be concerned about the future investment they would have to do on their bikes’ maintenance. As an interviewee stated: “I think I would stick to Swapfiets, basically because the bike is super nice, it is going well, and I get the repairing system also. So, I don’t see the point in buying a new one.” (P8, lines 1725-1726).

Finally, participants were asked if they believe there is some kind of cultural stigma associated with leasing instead of owning. One of the most interesting answers regarding that topic was related to the fact that people might feel like they are losing their money when they are renting something and not owning it at the end. That point of view is related to the perceived financial value of leasing instead of owning things. As one participant mentioned,

“I used to think that people leasing or renting didn’t really care about their money, like, they are investing in something they don’t own yet” (P5, lines 1043-1044). However, as the same participant stated afterwards: “for me, it was kind of like a negative thing, like a waste of money. But now, I do see the benefit and convenience of it” (P5, lines 1048-1049).

As some participants mentioned, that stigma could have changed through time, arguing that their generation does not seem to think in that way anymore. However, they still perceive a stigma attached to their decision to eschew ownership from other generations, including for many from their parents’ generation. Additionally, some of the participants mentioned that the culture they come from might have an impact on how they feel about leasing things, as well as noting that their feelings might vary depending on the type of product.

5.2.2. Sub-conclusion

The perceived financial value seems to be crucial for consumers using Swapfiets. Most of the participants defined themselves as “cost-oriented” and mentioned that the price of the lease is one of the most important variables for them. It is interesting how they seem to be paying for the service of maintenance more than the bicycle itself.

Furthermore, there is a strong relationship between the perceived functional and financial value of the product which comes across strongly in the interviews. Participants kept mentioning that the functional aspect of convenience which they get in exchange for a low price (financial) aspect was one of the main reasons why they started and decided to keep using Swapfiets. Participants seemed to be looking for a balance between functional and financial values of the PSS.

Respondents agreed on the fact that even though they do not identify themselves with it, there might be some cultural stigma associated with paying money for something they are not going to ever own. Some mentioned their belief that their generation does not think in that way, and that they and their contemporaries are changing the way they see “access”.

These facts will be further on explained through the analysis of access-based consumption in other types of products.

Finally, when they talk about the fee they would have to pay if they lost their bikes, they mentioned that they would not be happy about it, and probably the “financial cost” would be higher than the “emotional cost” of losing their bikes. As one of the participants mentioned, this can be related to the fact that she does not think a bike is something she could get attached to. However, she said that the fee itself, would, at the same time, make her feel

“less bad” about it or, would be her way to solve the problem of losing her bike.