Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Is money the biggest driver? Uncovering motives for engaging in online T

collaborative consumption retail models for apparel
Hyejune Parka,∗, Cosette M. Joyner Armstrongb,1
a
Department of Design, Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma State University, 442 Human Sciences, Stillwater, OK, 74078-6142, USA
b
Department of Design, Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma State University, 434A Human Sciences, Stillwater, OK, 74078-6142, USA

A B S T R A C T

The purpose of this study was to understand the phenomenon of collaborative apparel consumption (CAC) by discovering the consumer motivations for engaging in
collaborative consumption and comparing motivations across different modes of CAC. This study focused on the two types of online platforms for CAC that are most
relevant to the current apparel industry including online apparel renting and resale sites. Using the grounded theory approach, 38 users of CAC platforms were
interviewed. A variety of themes concerning consumer motivations for engaging in CAC emerged from the data. The final eight themes for renting and six themes for
resale were categorized into five basic consumer motivations: saving money, saving time, finding desirable product assortment, utility, and no burden of ownership.
Specific theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

1. Introduction in different online platforms for collaborative apparel consumption

Academic research on the phenomenon of collaborative consump-
tion (CC) has recently flourished with the growth of the digital sharing
economy in a variety of industry sectors. These technology-driven
business models have made ‘sharing’ resources much easier (Barnes and
Mattsson, 2017; Hamari et al., 2015; Tsui, 2016) by combining the
basic components of e-commerce with social networking (Barnes and
Mattsson, 2017). While the concept of CC has been defined and in-
vestigated in many studies (e.g., Belk, 2014; Botsman and Rogers, 2010;
Hamari et al., 2015; Mӧhlmann, 2015), applying the CC concept to real
consumption practices is somewhat complicated, since the nature of CC
is different depending on how CC is facilitated by the service provider
(Benoit et al., 2017). For example, car sharing may occur through
borrowing a car from a rental service company (e.g., Zipcar), providing
or paying for a ride service (e.g., Lyft, Uber), or carpooling (e.g., Waze)
(Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). In the case of apparel, sharing may mean
renting clothes for a short amount of time from the retailer (e.g., Rent
the Runway) or peer-to-peer (P2P) exchange of clothes via a retailer
that connects buyers and sellers without owning inventory (e.g., Tra-
desy) (Park and Joyner Armstrong, 2017). However, extant research
tends to treat these different types of CC as a single phenomenon,
thereby limiting understanding of why and in what forms consumers
are engaged in CC.
To fill this research gap, this study specifically focuses on CC for
apparel and attempts to uncover the consumer motivations for engaging
(CAC). Understanding consumer motives, especially in the context of
new retailing technologies, is critical in developing more comprehen-
sive theories of shopping behavior (Childers et al., 2001; Westbrook and
Black, 1985). The limited amount of research and anecdotal evidence
suggest that consumers are engaged in CAC because they are motivated
to save time and money, experiment with new styles without pur-
chasing, and to practice sustainable consumption (e.g., Becker-Leifhold
and Iran, 2018; Lang and Joyner Armstrong, 2018). Yet, previous stu-
dies have not collected data from actual CAC users but tested theore-
tical models using general consumer samples, limiting predictions only
to the intention level. Further, previous research has not distinguished
the different types of CAC, thereby not providing a comprehensive
picture of CAC. Therefore, this study was designed as a theory-building
study guided by the grounded theory tradition and draws heavily on
consumer interviews with those who have previously engaged in CAC.
The purpose of this study was to better understand the phenomenon of
CAC by discovering the consumer motivations for engaging in CAC and
comparing motivations across different modes of CAC.
2. Literature review
A common definition of collaborative consumption (CC) is Belk
(2014) conceptualization as an activity that occurs via the Internet and
includes the “acquisition and distribution” (p. 1597) of some resource
for another, for a fee or some other type of resource exchange. Further,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: june.park@okstate.edu (H. Park), cosette.armstrong@okstate.edu (C.M. Joyner Armstrong).
1
Tel: 1-405-744-9525

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.022
Received 21 February 2019; Received in revised form 24 April 2019; Accepted 20 May 2019
0969-6989/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong
technology's role in the definition of CC has been emphasized by other
researchers who highlight social media and other online peer-to-peer
interactions that facilitate it with fewer costs and greater ease (Barnes
and Mattsson, 2017; Hamari et al., 2015; Tsui, 2016). Hence, CAC in
this study refers to the consumption facilitated by the two types of
online platforms for CAC that are most relevant to the current apparel
industry including online apparel renting and resale sites (Amed and
Sherman, 2018; Park and Joyner Armstrong, 2017). Renting involves
only access to and utility of a product (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012;
Reim et al., 2014) while resale is most similar to traditional ownership
but involves second-hand goods (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). To be
sure, both renting and resale stand to be highly disruptive to traditional
retail in the coming decades (Barnes and Mattsson, 2017).
2.1. Online apparel renting
Apparel rental is expected to reach $1.8 billion in sales within the
next few years (Chen, 2018, October 5). Though this is hardly a rival to
mainstream fashion retail, it clearly represents a substantive shift in
how some consumers are thinking about apparel ownership (Chen,
2018; Sherman, 2018). The abundance provided by the fast fashion
industry has assuredly raised consumers’ expectations for novelty and
change (Joy et al., 2012), and renting platforms seek to capitalize on
these desires, perhaps without the environmental consequences of
premature disposal and other burdens of ownership (Amed and
Sherman, 2018). Platforms like Rent the Runway provide short-term
rental for one-time occasions and long-term subscription-based rental.
While companies like Rent the Runway and Bag Borrow or Steal have
provided affordable access to luxury goods for some time, other more
moderately-priced offerings are now entering the marketplace (see
Fig. 1). Mall brands such as Ann Taylor and Express are now entering
the rental business to supplement their retail revenue by offering po-
tential future customers a way to try their products (Chen, 2018). Other
platforms target specific market segments, such as Gwynnie Bee for plus
size women and Mine for Nine for the maternity segment, addressing
previously overlooked market problems (e.g., limited product options,
short-term use).
Notably, rental platforms are distinct from styling services that are
also offered by subscription, such as Stitch Fix or Nordstrom's Trunk
club, where garments are packaged and sent to the customer based on
style preferences, and the end goal is for the customer to purchase (Woo
and Ramkumar, 2018). While there is some muddy area between these
services because of additional services offered by retailers (e.g., a
Fig. 1. Collaborative Apparel Consumption (CAC) Providers based on CC Mode and Product Status.
43
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50
renting platform allowing customers to buy any item if they want to
keep, and a styling service encouraging customers to send back any
unwanted items with no shipping cost), since their marketing focus are
clearly different, the styling services is not included in the current
study.
2.2. Online apparel resale
The resale market has substantially expanded opportunities for
consumers to dispose of apparel while recouping some of their previous
investment by reselling still-valuable items. Apparel is redistributed to
become owned once again, and the access period is undefined (Botsman
and Rogers, 2010). The resale sector is growing 20 times faster than
traditional retail and five times faster than off-price retail, expected to
soon top $33 billion in sales (Weinswig, 2017). This sector's growth has
been significantly facilitated by technological advances that have made
connecting a vast number of resale customers much easier and less
costly (Barnes and Mattsson, 2017) as well as growing support from
Millennials (Weinswig, 2017).
Though some companies such as the RealReal and Vestiaire
Collective offer luxury goods, platforms such as Poshmark, Mercari, and
Thredup provide a broader assortment where affordability is a chief
feature (see Fig. 1). The resale sector is also home to other emerging
models like Eileen Fisher Renew, created to redistribute Eileen Fisher's
branded goods (Fernandez, 2018) and ThredUp Remade, an online
consignment platform that launched a line of high-quality classics with
circularity in mind (Chua, 2018).
2.3. Motivations for collaborative apparel consumption (CAC)
Notwithstanding the fast growth of the CAC market, surprisingly
little research has examined why consumers engage in CAC. Extant
research on the drivers of CAC tends to define CAC broadly to include
various consumption modes, such as donating, gifting, thrift shopping,
and swapping (see details in Table 1), which requires careful con-
sideration of different consumption scopes and contexts (e.g., online vs.
offline) in the interpretations of results. Nevertheless, prior research
provides important evidence for consumer motivations of CAC, such as
economic benefits (Becker-Leifhold and Iran, 2018; Hamari et al.,
2015), environmental consciousness (Becker-Leifhold and Iran, 2018;
Hamari et al., 2015; Lang and Joyner Armstrong, 2018; Parguel et al.,
2017), and other hedonic factors, such as enjoyment and fashion lea-
dership (Becker-Leifhold and Iran, 2018; Hamari et al., 2015; Lang and
 H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong

Table 1
Research on motivations of collaborative consumption for apparel and consumer goods.
Author Mode of CC Context of CC investigated Research approach/ Study participants Motivations of CC
method

Becker-Leifhold and Iran Renting, resale Gifting, swapping, buying used, sharing, Systematic literature N/A • Hedonic motives (e.g., treasure hunting, nostalgic pleasure,
(2018)a lending, renting, or leasing; review need for uniqueness, social interaction)
Apparel • Utilitarian motives (e.g., search for fair price, hunt for
bargains)
• Biospheric motives (e.g., environment-friendly consumption,
prevention of wasteful disposal)
Harmari et al. (2015) Renting, resale Online P2P exchange Consumer survey Registered users of Sharetribe (Finland), most • Sustainability (ecological consumption) (extrinsic)
General consumer goods inactive: female & male consumers • Enjoyment of the activity (intrinsic)
• Economic gains (extrinsic)
Johnson et al. (2016) Resale Swapping, donating, purchasing, or Consumer survey Convenience sample of US consumers • Materialism (−)
selling used using the internet; • Subjective norms
Apparel CC experience

44
• Offline of CC participants
Lang and Joyner Armstrong Renting, resale Renting from a library, attending swap Consumer survey US female consumers
• Integrity leadership
(2018) event;
• Fashionfor uniqueness (−)
Apparel
• Need (−)
• Materialismtoward sustainable consumption
• Attitude norm regarding sustainable consumption
• Subjective behavioral control in sustainable consumption
• Perceived
sustainable behavior
Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) Renting Online P2P sharing; Consumer survey Members of peer-to-peer sharing network
• Past importance (−)
General consumer goods (Germany); Female & male consumers
• Possession
orientation
• Trend orientation (e.g., time & energy)
Parguel et al. (2017) Resale Impulse buying of secondhand via online Consumer survey French consumers who are active buyers on the
• Convenience
P2P sharing site; P2P platform Leboncoim.com
• Materialism
General consumer goods
• Environmental consciousness
a
These studies either focused on CC in the offline environment or did not distinguish between offline and online activity. Attention was paid when interpreting results related to motivations for engaging in offline CC
modes (e.g., renting clothing from fashion library, attending clothing swap event), as those may not be applied to online CAC, the focus of the current study.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50
H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50

Joyner Armstrong, 2018). Several researchers have examined the role Table 2
of materialism on CAC intention and found that materialistic consumers Participant descriptors.
are less inclined for CAC because it involves no ownership (Johnson CAC mode Participant CC platform experience Years of
et al., 2016; Lang and Joyner Armstrong, 2018; Moeller and use a
Wittkowski, 2010). Parguel et al. (2017), however, found that materi-
Renting RN1 Rent the Runway 4
alistic consumers were more likely to engage in indulgent consumption
RN2 Gwnnie Bee 3
of unnecessary products through CAC platforms, which has environ- RN3 Bag Borrow or Steal, Gwnnie Bee, Rent 3
mental consequences. These inconsistent findings suggest that CAC is a the Runway
complex phenomenon that requires a more nuanced approach to in- RN4 Gwynnie Bee, Le Tote, Rent the Runway 2
quiry. Thus, simplistic approaches based on the notion that CAC creates RN5 Rent the Runway 1
RN6 Rent the Runway < 1
a social and environmental utopia does not accurately delineate con-
RN7 Rent the Runway 6
sumers’ inner motivations for engaging in different modes of CAC for a RN8 Curtsy, Rent My Wardrobe 4
variety of different reasons. RN9 Bag Borrow or Steal, Rent the Runway 4
RN10 Bag Borrow or Steal, Rent the Runway 3
RN11 Le Tote < 1
3. Methods
RN12 Gwynnie Bee, Rent the Runway 2
RN13 Le Tote 3
The lack of empirical research in the area of CAC led us to select RN14 Rent the Runway 1
grounded theory, which is useful for building theory about phenomena RN15b Rent the Runway 5
of interest (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory requires re- Resale RS1 FB Market, Letgo, Tradesy, Depop < 1
RS2 Depop, Letgo, Poshmark < 1
searchers to seek theoretical saturation on core concepts that emerge
RS3 FB Market, Poshmark, Thredup < 1
from the data through an iterative process (Strauss, 1987). By inter- RS4 FB Market, Thredup 1
viewing CAC users, this study attempted to elicit consumers’ real ex- RS5 FB Market, Letgo, Offerup, Mercari, 5
periences to identify motivations for their engagement. Poshmark, Thredup
RS6 FB Market, Letgo, Mercari, Offerup, 1
Poshmark
3.1. Sampling procedure RS7 FB Market, Offerup, Mercari, Poshmark, 2
Thredup
Based on literature, the users of two types of CAC platforms (i.e., RS8 FB Market, Poshmark 1
online apparel renting and resale) were considered as the theoretical RS9 FB Market, Poshmark 4
RS10 FB Market, Poshmark 2
population in this study. Given that the majority of CAC platforms cater
RS11 Ebay, FB Market, Letgo, Offerup, Mercari, 1
to female consumers, this study focused on female users. A mass email Tradesey, Thredup, Vinted
was sent to a random sample of 5000 female faculty, staff, and students RS12 Ebay, Mercari, Offerup, Poshmark, 4
enrolled in or employed at three campuses of a large Southwestern 5Miles
university in the U.S. The email requested participants for the study RS13 FB Market, Poshmark, Mercari 2
RS14 Ebay, FB Market, Poshmark, Mercari 2
who had previously engaged in online renting or resale. A $15 cash RS15 FB Market, Mercari, Poshmark, Vinted 3
incentive was offered for participation. Participants completed an on- RS16 Anthropologie FB Resale Group, Ebay, FB 4
line screening survey, which yielded a total of 106 respondents, and 38 Market, Offerup, Poshmark
responded to a follow-up email to schedule the interview, of which 14 RS17 FB Market, Poshmark 1
RS18 FB Market, Offerup, Poshmark 3
were renting users and 24 were resale users (see Table 2), and only one
RS19 FB Market, Offerup, Poshmark 2
user utilized both modes. The lower number of renting users may be RS20 Ebay, FB Market, Neighborhood 5
due to a slower uptake of renting in rural areas (Bashin, 2017) where Consignment FB Page, Letgo, Poshmark
most of our participants resided. Although participants were largely RS21 FB Market, Letgo, Offerup, Poshmark 1
young consumers aged 18 to 40, this characteristic was deemed ade- RS22 FB Market, Poshmark, Mercari 5
RS23 FB Market, Poshmark 4
quate given that CC is more attractive to young consumers who are RS24 Ebay, Letgo, Poshmark 5
open to new ideas and concepts (WARC, 2017).
a
Length of use was calculated by subtracting the year the participant first
3.2. Data collection started using the platform from the current year (time of interview). Note that
this indicator may not necessarily imply the frequency of use.
Theoretical saturation was achieved after 38 phone interviews were
b
This participant is the same as “RS20” who had experience with both CAC
conducted with participants, each requiring 30–60 min (Glaser and modes. She shared her experience with both modes of CAC during the same
interview.
Strauss, 1967). A semi-structured interview guide outlining the basic
motivations for CAC based on the literature was used to establish the
topics for these conversations. Each participant's pre-interview survey subsequent interviews. Each interview was audio-recorded and later
responses (e.g., the type of platforms and products, membership length, transcribed verbatim to allow for text analysis.
and demographic information) helped the researchers begin each in-
terview with a grand tour question (e.g., “What motivated you to first 3.3. Data analysis
try XYZ website for clothing or fashion accessories?“) and then tailor
remaining questions accordingly. Some sample interview questions in- Data reduction and coding are integral parts of the grounded theory
clude: “What were some considerations you made in making the deci- analysis process (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Following a constant
sion to try this platform?” “Can you discuss the features of this website comparative technique whereby data collection and analysis, field
that make renting/consigning easy? Can you compare the online memos, and literature comparisons are iteratively conducted (Spiggle,
renting/consigning procedure to other online clothing retailers?” 1994), data were analyzed with three levels of data coding: open, axial,
In the grounded theory approach, the process of data collection is and selective (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). First, each interview script
guided by the constant comparative method whereby the researcher was analyzed with open coding to note the themes or factors emerged in
develops concepts from the data by collecting and analyzing at the same the data. A broad range of themes and categories related to CAC
time (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998). Thus, each interview prompted ad- emerged during this procedure. Then, focusing on the participants’
ditional questions and probes to reinforce theory generation in motivations, each discussion was further analyzed to identify the

45
H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong
specific types of motivations for engaging in CAC. Using axial coding,
key motivations were grouped into categories, and any themes not re-
levant to motivations were set aside. The coding table created during
this procedure included the list of all possible motivations along with
the copy of interview script relevant to each category. Lastly, this initial
list of themes was further developed and refined through selective
coding. During this procedure, similarities and relationships among
themes were identified, and categories were further developed. After an
iterative analysis of core concepts and themes, modifications were
made, and the final list of motivations was determined.
3.4. Trustworthiness
Two researchers initially coded the data and then reviewed each
other's coding table to validate the data. With more comprehensive
interpretations and additional insights from each researcher, refine-
ment and re-classifications of data were made during this procedure,
which also facilitated triangulation through the process of continually
exchanging insights obtained from the data (Hirschman, 1986; Strauss
and Corbin, 1990). Further, both researchers spent sufficient time (i.e.,
one year) collecting and analyzing data to triangulate the data with
multiple theoretical perspectives, further establishing the credibility of
results (Denzin, 1978; Patton, 1999).
4. Findings
A variety of themes concerning consumer motivations emerged
from the data. It must be noted that, while renting and resale for ap-
parel have been classified as a similar phenomenon in both practice and
academia, we found that these two consumption modes are clearly
different in their forms and underlying consumer motives. Nevertheless,
the framework (Table. 3) presented here attempted to describe renting
and resale under the umbrella concept of CAC since it provides strong
relevance to how they are practiced in the current marketplace. For
instance, retailers like Rent the Runway and Bag Borrow or Steal pro-
vide both renting and resale for their customers under the consistent
marketing messages emphasizing fashion freedom and “sharing.”
Therefore, when the researchers collapsed open codes into concepts, it
was ensured to describe the themes for renting and resale within a
single, grand model of CAC, providing a basis to clearly make com-
parisons. From a theoretical standpoint though, more fruitful in-
vestigation may be conducted when each CAC mode is explored in-
dividually because of the difference in each CAC mode. The Discussion
and Limitations section will discuss how some of these themes within
each mode could be further investigated with other guiding theories for
future research. In this section, we will focus more on what each motive
essentially suggests by presenting the themes in a straightforward
manner. Eight themes for renting and six themes for resale were cate-
gorized into five basic consumer motivations: saving money, saving
time, finding desirable product assortment, utility, and no burden of
ownership. Table 3 summarizes this classification, including definition
of each theme and participants’ comments to support the theme.
4.1. Saving money
The most frequently cited motivation among users of both online
renting and resale platforms is saving money. Affordable access, the
ability to access clothing products one cannot ordinarily afford is an
attractive feature of CAC platforms. This motivation is particularly
evident in renting since many participants indicate that if they could
afford the item, they would rather buy it. In other words, consumers
rent clothing online because it is the best alternative given their fi-
nancial constraints. Money as a constraint is also found in the users of
resale, since participants frequently comment that they look for mod-
erate or luxury brand names online, which can be distinguished from
traditional thrifty shopping behavior. One additional theme that
46
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50
emerged among resale users is “save more earn more.” Many resale
users emphasize the ability to acquire items that are new with tags or
“like new” for less than full price, and the addition of fees is not con-
sidered a barrier, especially if fees are built into the price paid.
Certainly, seeking bargains is described by many participants as
common practice on resale websites.
4.2. Saving time
Another dominant motivation to engage in CAC is saving time.
Renters especially highlight the ability to eliminate a lengthy refund
process in case they return the product. Unlike regular retail websites
with which a refund process sometimes takes more than a month,
renting sites promptly send another product in return for their returned
product. This benefit seems especially appealing to those who fre-
quently return products for a variety of reasons (e.g., sizing issues).
Another aspect of saving time is reducing shopping time through use of
the subscription service. Once renters sign up for the subscription ser-
vice, they regularly receive a “box” based on their style and other
preferences, even replacing regular shopping tasks to some participants.
Convenience as a result of reduced shopping time was also articulated.
Online resale users can save time by searching for clothing via an app
rather than sorting through in-store secondhand assortments, which can
be overwhelming in volume and poorly organized. Resale users also
find the process of selling an item online to be much shorter compared
to hauling items to a resale or consignment shop. Likewise, participants
also discussed that shipping time was often less than typical online
retailers, and for Facebook Marketplace users, they can acquire things
the same day.
4.3. Finding desirable product assortment
Both renters and resale participants are motivated to use CAC
platforms because it allows them to find a desirable product assortment.
Renters indicate that they can find better products with the styling
services provided by the renting sites (e.g., Letote, Gwynnie Bee) and
have access to greater size range (e.g., plus sizes, petite sizes). Resale
participants also report that online resale websites provide a broader
and deeper assortment compared to local resale stores. Some partici-
pants even claim that they perceive broader assortments of online re-
sale stores compared to regular online retailers because they can search
for many different brands in one single website.
4.4. Utility
If one was tentative about trying CAC, ease of use for CAC platforms
often motivates users to engage. Both online renting and resale users
revere the ease of use of these platforms; especially, the navigation of
the app or website. General shopping website features, such as pre-
sentation of products, search options, and payment procedures seem
comparable or superior to regular retailer websites, with additional
features like a renting scheduler for renters or a messaging system be-
tween buyers and sellers for resale users. Another utility-related moti-
vation, unique to resale platforms, is disposal method. Participants
explain that the online resale platforms offer an ideal method to dispose
of unwanted products that still have value, which is helpful when
downsizing or replacing items for fit reasons.
4.5. No burden of ownership
Unlike resale that is similar to traditional ownership but involves
second-hand goods, renting involves only access to products and no
burden of ownership. Many renters indicate that they use the rental
service because it makes financial sense to rent for special occasion
garments they need for one-time use. It should be noted that this mo-
tivation is not applied to the rental subscription model for which
 Table 3
Basic motivations for engaging in renting and resale.
Motive CC Theme Definition Participant comments

Saving money RN Affordable access Access to luxury brand name products one could not ordinarily afford “… if I had the luxury of spending how much I want, maybe I'll buy new stuff
instead of renting.“; “Obviously, I can't afford it at this point of time, but at least I
can enjoy it for the time being.”
“… If I want an item but then if it was something out of my price range, I think I
would really struggle with that. Because I love the item, I want it in my wardrobe,
but I can't necessarily afford it… So I could see that as being a little bit upsetting.
H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong

Everything to me a bottom line is price [laughs].”

RS Affordable access Access to quality, like new, and/or moderate or luxury brand name products one “I was usually looking for Lululemon athletic wear because that's just through-the-
could not ordinarily afford roof expensive. So, people will sell their pieces that are usually gently used or rarely
worn for half of the price.”
Save more, earn more For buyers: Save money by purchasing products for less than full-price; For sellers: Buyer: “I liked the idea of getting really nice, slightly used clothing at a discounted
Earn more money for items than using consignment/resale stores. Users consider rate, at a pretty reasonable price. I just really like the idea of the bargain,
various fees in perception of money saved. essentially.”
Seller: “I definitely thought that the things that I wanted to sell were worth more
than what I was getting from like consignment stores in my city like Plato's Closet;
they just kind of undervalue what you give them because they have to make a profit
on it … I found that selling them online completely changes the value of what
something's worth.”
Saving time RN Saving shopping time Save shopping time by eliminating shopping hassle including store visit and “It helped me not waste my time because instead of spending my time looking on
product return stores, I would know that I would have a box coming… I didn't spend all my time
looking trying to find a shirt that I liked because I knew that I was already going to
get three different options that month… It took me 5 min to approve the clothing
before they sent it. I would say that it was a very good use of time.”
RS Saving shopping/selling time For buyers: Saves shopping time by searching online rather than sorting through Buyer: “It saves a lot of time in that regard that you can just do it on the app and not
secondhand assortment in stores; For sellers: more efficient distribution of goods have to travel to be able to get it, and you know it possibly not being there; you

47
for sellers, preferable to local consignment/resale stores; can sell at own pace having to dig through racks or whatever it is that you're looking for.”
Seller: “Time is money so people like efficiency and that's why I picked it because,
honestly, if it wasn't for the efficiency, I probably wouldn't even do this.”
Finding desirable product RN Styling (expertise) Receive styling service offered by the CC retailer “I didn't have to pick things out, they picked them out for me, so that was really
assortment appealing to me… just someone picks out the clothes for me and me not have to go
shop for them, and me not have really to think about it. I guess, I'm kind of
indecisive, so if I'm in a store looking for something, I get nervous about ‘would
other people like that?’ Having them pick out for me made me know at least one
other person who would like it.”
Size assurance Access to more variety of sizes (e.g., plus size, petite size) “I have found that, honestly, you can find more things within your size easier
because you can just go specifically to what size you're looking for and all that good
stuff instead of just searching for forever in the store or versus other stores.”
RS Size/assortment variety, For buyers: Access to wider assortment of secondhand goods online when local Buyer: “I think online has more variety and sometimes better quality, or you can
reach broader audience outlets are limited or not desirable; For sellers: Access to broader audience online more specifically look for whatever you're looking for. Whereas the store is very hit
compared to local outlets or miss.”
Seller: “We have one consignment shop in our town, and we have quite a few
closets … sometimes our consignment shop gets too many items and shut down for
a little while and say, ‘we're not going to accept items for a month.’”
“For Poshmark, I liked being able to expand the audience, where you can ship it all
over the U.S⋯ I really like Poshmark the best I think because you have such a wider
audience, so you can sell too.”
(continued on next page)
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50
 Table 3 (continued)

Motive CC Theme Definition Participant comments

Utility RN Ease of use The website as well as the service is easy to use. Website is easy to navigate “I think they are very comparable to other online retailers. All you have to do is just
without requiring much learning and provides additional features that facilitate take the one you want, put your card information in and they ship it to you… I
efficient shopping. Service provides features that facilitate easy shopping (e.g., mentioned very convenient, very quick just like online shopping. There's not any
consumer reviews subscription). huge differences.”
“I think it's the subscription side of it where it's just it automatically comes to you…
I wouldn't even think about it and I'd open my Mailwatch and there would be a box.
I'm just a little surprised… You didn't have to think about purchasing again. It
H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong

already just came out of your account.”

RS Ease of use App is easy to navigate, interact with buyers and sellers, distribute products, and “With the online ones, it's easier to search and find specific items, versus if you were
get paid; preferable to local consignment/resale stores to go to a store in person and you have to look around and find your size in
something.”
“It's very user-friendly. You can do it at home, you just snap pictures of your
clothes, type in some information … you can set your own price and you can
negotiate with people. They can offer and you can decline that offer or not … it's
really easy for me to ship stuff out because they can give you the prepaid label and
everything, and I just bring it with me to work and throw it in the mail bin.”
RS Disposal Method An ideal method to dispose of unwanted products that still have value; also, may “Mainly, it was a way for me to get rid of clothes in my closet while also recycling
include downsizing, replacing for fit reasons the funds to get new stuff. It wasn't like, I was just donating, giving money away
every year by buying these clothes then throwing them away. I was able to sell
them for a little bit and then use that money to either buy on those websites or you
use it for buying new clothes at a store.”
No burden of ownership RN Product trial Do not have to commit to buy the goods; Be able to try products before purchasing “I feel like renting, you don't have to actually buy the clothes in either, so if you
don't like what you get, you can just send it back and try something new. I really
like the whole- just the whole idea of that and you don't have to actually buy this.
You're renting it, you're trying it and if you like it then you can buy it.”
Never wear same dress twice Switch out the clothes with a different, new item without repeating the same dress “I am really fascinated when I see new things. I don't like wearing the same thing

48
Special occasion
Fashion leadership
Do not have to buy the clothes that will be worn only once for special occasion
(e.g., a fancy dress)
Try trendy fashion items without having to purchase and keep them for good
again and again. That motivates me to go online and do all these things because I'm
not rich.”
“I was happy to have worn it once. I didn't feel it was something that I needed to
wear multiple times since it was fancy. It wasn't like I had another occasion that I
wanted to wear it or wanted to keep it.”
“I want to adopt a trend that I don't know will be around next year to help me to be
fashion-forward and not have it hanging in my closet next year when it's not cool
when I would just have to donate it or give it away.”

RN = Renting; RS = Resale.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50
H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong
consumers regularly rent “everyday” clothing. Thus, rental websites
carrying high-end designer bags and fancy dresses meet the needs of
those consumers who do not want to spend several hundred dollars for
special occasion items. Participants also comment that renting provides
an opportunity for product trial before purchasing, without having to
commit to buying. The renting retailer's policy to reduce the customer's
burden of keeping the item, such as no need to clean after use, likely
makes the product trial even easier. Further, having a reasonable
amount of time for product trial (e.g., 30 days free trial) seems to lib-
erate many online shoppers in a sense that consumers have much more
flexibility to shop online and freely return. Lastly, we found some
consumer segments who simply do not like to purchase and keep ap-
parel products because they prefer to frequently switch out their
clothing with new items to reduce repetition (i.e., “never wear same
dress twice”) or to keep up with fashion trends (i.e., “fashion leader-
ship”). While slightly different in their inner motivations, both seg-
ments of consumers agree that the option of renting clothes has made
their frequent consumption of apparel products financially bearable.
5. Discussion and implications
What drives consumers to engage in CAC? Despite previous re-
searchers’ efforts to examine consumer motivations for CAC, the answer
to this question has been elusive. This study contributes to literature in
two important ways. First, by uncovering the inner motivations in-
formed by actual users of CAC platforms, it offers insights into why
consumers engage in this new, emerging online consumption mode for
apparel. The qualitative interview method used in the study addresses
some limitations of previous studies that tested a research model using
a general consumer sample, resulting in shallow insights. Second, by
clearly distinguishing two modes of CAC including online renting and
resale, it provides a clear, holistic picture for the phenomenon of CAC,
which was not clearly addressed in previous research. A number of
insights can be drawn from these motivations that have important
theoretical and practical implications.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Consistent with the literature on CC in several other sectors such as
travel and tourism and car sharing (Tussyadiah, 2015; Hwang and
Griffiths, 2017), saving money was clearly the biggest driver of CC for
apparel too. While perceived economic value in consumer literature is
generally viewed as the utilitarian shopping motive that helps con-
sumers accomplish tasks (i.e., “save more earn more”) (Babin et al.,
1994), in this study, it was also related to the hedonic motive that re-
sults in the pleasure of accessing luxury brand name products one
cannot ordinarily afford (i.e., “affordable access”) (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982). Indeed, some renting websites like Rent the Runway
carry high-end, designer brand products that are easily over several
hundred dollars. To the users of these platforms, “affordable” may hold
a different meaning than for other CC users who seek second-hand
goods at resale platforms like Tradesy. This suggests that CAC especially
with regard to the economic motive is a highly a complex form of
consumer behavior, both theoretically and in practice.
This study also uncovers two other major drivers of CC for both
renting and resale: time-saving and the ease of use of an app/website.
To be sure, all three major motives including saving money, saving
time, and ease of use point to technological features that have reduced
the financial cost and increased the ease with which CC is conducted
(Barnes and Mattsson, 2017; Hamari et al., 2015; Tsui, 2016). This
finding is also consistent with Technology Acceptance Model, theo-
rizing that the two major drivers of consumer acceptance of e-com-
merce transaction are perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis,
1989). Our findings clearly corroborate this contention since saving
money and time (i.e., usefulness) and ease of use were identified as the
major drivers of both types of CAC.
49
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50
This study also demonstrates that the two modes of CC, which have
often not been clearly distinguished in previous studies, are distinct
phenomenon since consumers were motivated to engage in each mode
for different reasons, and typically, users were generally engaged in one
mode or another. Notably, our participants were largely either rental or
resale users, and not both. Even for the participants that completed the
pre-screening survey who did not complete an interview, also fell into
only one user category, indicating that the audience for various CC
modes is distinct. By differentiating between the two CAC modes, this
study also responds to Park and Joyner Armstrong (2017) call for
academic research to increase understanding about CC and empirically
validates their theoretical argument that CAC involves two forms: uti-
lity-based non ownership (i.e., renting) and redistributed ownership
(i.e., resale).
Another noteworthy theoretical finding is that the environmental
motive that has been frequently theorized as a major driver of CC in-
tention (e.g., Becker-Leifhold and Iran, 2018; Hamari et al., 2015; Lang
and Joyner Armstrong, 2018; Parguel et al., 2017) did not emerge in
our data. Neither apparel renting nor resale users affirm the notion that
people engage in CC to support the environment or to practice sus-
tainable consumption. Though a couple participants mentioned their
desire to simplify and “cut back” on consumption, most were utilizing
resale as way to make room for more new things. Materialism, a mo-
tivation previously identified in the literature (Parguel et al., 2017), is
certainly at play here. Therefore, this study suggests that potential re-
bound effects of CC that previous researchers were concerned about
(e.g., Becker-Leifhold and Iran, 2018; Iran and Schrader, 2017; Joyner
Armstrong and Park, 2017) should be further investigated. The ex-
ploration of potential mediators or moderators would better explain the
linkage between environmentally-oriented motives and CAC. For in-
stance, Parguel et al. (2017) indicated that the environmentally con-
scious consumers were more tempted to engage in CC because their
tendency to reduce consumption-related cognitive dissonance increased
impulse buying on CC platforms. More studies to theoretically elaborate
on this complex issue are necessary.
5.2. Practical implications
From a practical point of view, this study suggests that the biggest
driver of CAC, money-saving, should be clearly emphasized in both
renting and resale sites. Current platforms for CAC are positioned to
appeal to variety of values of CC, ranging from buying less stuff (Rent
the Runway), keeping the latest fashion (Tradesy), creating an un-
limited closet (GwynnieBee), to building a community to share fashion
(Poshmark), while few CC platforms bring the economic value of CC to
the forefront in their marketing communication. The current study
clearly indicates that consumers are motivated to engage in CAC to
access trendy and inaccessible high-end fashion or save money.
Therefore, a clear, straightforward message about how the platform can
help achieve these money-saving goals (vs. vague claims such as the
environmental or social value of CC) will have greater appeal to the
majority of consumers. Also, retailers wishing to enter the CC business
are wise to emphasize the features of the platform that are designed to
easily facilitate time-savings (e.g., services that facilitate product se-
lection, advanced search engines with multiple filters, product pre-
sentation assistance for sellers, messaging features, and payment pro-
cedures) and ease of use (e.g., clear instructions on “How it works”).
Also, this study provides straightforward implications for CAC
marketers to design their marketing messages based on the specific
motivations identified in this study. For instance, this study identified
four specific themes for “no burden of ownership” motive for renters
including product trial, never wear same dress, special occasion, and
fashion leadership, providing clear elucidation of what it means for
consumers to prefer non-ownership (vs. traditional ownership) (Park
and Joyner Armstrong, 2019). Renting retailers may appeal to these
specific values to their customers, and also tailor marketing messages to
H. Park and C.M. Joyner Armstrong
customers with different needs. Clearly, those who would rent only for
a special occasion and those who continuously want to switch out
clothes with new items may prefer non-ownership (i.e., renting) for
different reasons. Understanding the differences of these motives,
which were not clearly identified in previous research (e.g., Moeller and
Wittkowski, 2010) or only one of which was investigated (e.g., fashion
leadership) (Lang and Joyner Armstrong, 2018), will help marketers as
well as researchers better understand their customers.
6. Limitations and future research directions
This study has several limitations that suggest further research.
First, though making generalization of findings is not the purpose of
qualitative research, the narrow geographic and culture range of par-
ticipants in the current study might have developed only limited CAC
experiences and thus theme categories. Most participants lived in a
small town, and renting has been shown to have far less patronage in
rural areas (Bashin, 2017). Adding participants from a wider geo-
graphic and cultural area could provide more themes to expand the
theory. Second, based on the findings in this study, researchers may
further investigate the motives for each CAC mode with other guiding
theories. For example, researchers may conceptualize the motivations
for each CAC mode using a well-established classification of hedonic
and utilitarian motives (Arnold and Reynolds, 2012; Babin et al., 1994)
and examine how each aspect of motives influence shopping outcomes,
such as satisfaction and loyalty. In addition, depending on the theore-
tical framework used, several motives explored in this study may be
conceptualized as second-order factors. For instance, in the theoretical
lens of Technology Acceptance model, ‘saving money’ and ‘saving time’
can be combined as a higher-order factor named ‘usefulness’ (Davis,
1989). In this framework, other motives such as ‘finding desirable
product assortment’ and ‘no burden of ownership’ may serve as other
external variables that influence usefulness and ease of use for CAC. In
conclusion, this study offers a rich understanding of why consumers are
engaged in CAC and suggests a number of theoretical directions that
can be further taken in future research. Empirical investigation with a
different, larger sample in the broader nomological network of con-
sumer behavior will certainly advance theories in retail consumer be-
havior.
References
Amed, I., Sherman, L., 2018, August 31. Live event debrief: what the end of ownership
means for fashion. Intelligence, BoF Professional. https://www.businessoffashion.com/
articles/professional/live-event-debrief-what-the-end-of-ownership-means-for-
fashion.
Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2012. Approach and avoidance motivation. Investigating
hedonic consumption in a retail setting. J. Retail. 88 (3), 399–411.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656.
Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G.M., 2012. Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. J.
Consum. Res. 39, 881–898.
Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., 2017. Understanding collaborative consumption: test of a
theoretical model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 118, 281–292.
Bashin, K., 2017. Soon You May Be Renting Your Work Clothes. Bloomberg.com. Access
at. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/soon-you-may-be-
renting-your-work-clothes.
Becker-Leifhold, C., Iran, S., 2018. Collaborative fashion consumption: drivers, barriers
and future pathways. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 22 (2), 189–208.
Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption
online. J. Bus. Res. 67, 1595–1600.
Benoit, S., Baker, T.L., Bolton, R.N., Gruber, T., Kandampully, J., 2017. A triadic fra-
mework for collaborative consumption: motives, activities and resources & cap-
abilities of actors. J. Bus. Res. 79, 219–227.
Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2010. What's Mine Is Yours: the Rise of Collaborative
Consumption. Harper Collins, New York.
Chen, C., 2018, October 5. Mall Brands Are Entering the Rental Market. Can the Model
Work? Intelligence, BoF Professional. https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/
50
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 42–50
professional/mall-brands-are-entering-the-rental-market-but-could-the-model-work?
utm_campaign=ce89245bd4-saks-an%E2%80%A6.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., Carson, S., 2001. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations
for online retailing shopping behavior. J. Retail. 77, 511–535.
Chua, J.M., 2018. ThredUp launches first clothing line created with resale in mind.
Sourcing Journal. https://sourcingjournal.com/topics/sustainability/thredup-
remade-resale-clothing-127070/.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Q. 13 (3), 319–339.
Denzin, N.K., 1978. Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fernandez, C., 2018. Eileen Fisher makes strides towards circularity with ‘tiny factory’.
Intelligence, BoF Professional. https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/
intelligence/eileen-fisher-makes-strides-towards-circularity-with-tiny-factory.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago.
Hamari, J., Sjӧklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2015. The sharing economy: why people participate
in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science &
Technology 67 (9), 2047–2059.
Hirschman, E., 1986. Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method and
criteria. J. Mark. Res. 23 (3), 237–249.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption: con-
sumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9 (2), 132–140.
Hwang, J., Griffiths, M.A., 2017. Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception and
behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. J. Consum. Mark. 34
(2), 132–146.
Iran, S., Schrader, U., 2017. Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental
effects. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 21 (4), 468–482.
Johnson, K.K.P., Mun, J.M., Chae, Y., 2016. Antecedents to internet use to collaboratively
consume apparel. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 20 (4), 370–382.
Joy, A., Sherry, J.F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., Chen, R., 2012. Fast fashion, sustainability,
and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fash. Theory 16 (3), 274–296.
Joyner Armstrong, C.M., Park, H., 2017. Sustainability and CAC: putting the digital
‘sharing’ economy under the microscope. International Journal of Fashion Design,
Technology and Education 10 (3), 276–286.
Lang, C., Joyner Armstrong, C.M., 2018. Collaborative consumption: the influence of
fashion leadership, need for uniqueness, and materialism on female consumers'
adoption of clothing renting and swapping. Sustainable Production & Consumption
13, 37–47.
Moeller, S., Wittkowski, K., 2010. The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring
renting. Manag. Serv. Qual.: Int. J. 20 (2), 176–191.
Mӧhlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the
likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 14, 193–207.
Parguel, B., Lunardo, R., Benoit-Moreau, F., 2017. Sustainability of the sharing economy
in question: when second-hand peer-to-peer platforms stimulate indulgent con-
sumption. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 48–57.
Park, H., Joyner Armstrong, C.M., 2017. Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital
sharing economy: an agenda for academic inquiry. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 41 (5),
465–474.
Park, H., Joyner Armstrong, C.M., 2019. Will “no-ownership” work for apparel?: im-
plications for apparel retailers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 66–73.
Patton, M.Q., 1999. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health
Serv. Res. 34 (5), 1189–1208.
Reim, W., Parida, V., Örtqvist, D., 2014. Product–service systems (PSS) business models
and tactics – a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 61–75.
Sherman, L., 2018 July 23. The end of ownership. Intelligence, BoF Professional. https://
www.businessoffashion.com/articles/professional/the-end-of ownership?utm_
campaign=6d62ab20cf-the-end-of ownership&utm_medium=email&utm_source%
E2%80%A6.
Spiggle, S., 1994. Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. J.
Consum. Res. 21 (3), 491–503.
Strauss, A., 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Sage, London.
Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R., 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A
Guidebook and Resource. Wiley, New York.
Tsui, K.K., 2016. Economic explanation: from sharecropping to the sharing economy. Man
and the Economy 3 (1), 77–96.
Tussyadiah, I., 2015. An exploratory on drivers and deterrents of collaborative con-
sumption in travel. In: Tussyadiah, I., Inversini, A. (Eds.), Information &
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015. Springer International Publishing,
Switzerland.
WARC, 2017. The sharing economy threatens fast fashion. https://www.warc.com/
newsandopinion/news/the_sharing_economy_threatens_fast_fashion/39451.
Weinswig, D., 2017. Deep dive: fashion re-commerce evolution. The fung group. http://
www.deborahweinswig.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fashion-Re-Commerce-
Update%E2%80%9412-Catalysts-for-Apparel-Resale-Growth-June-29-2017.pdf.
Westbrook, R.A., Black, W.C., 1985. A motivation-based shopper typology. J. Retail. 61
(1), 78–103.
Woo, H., Ramkumar, B., 2018. Who seems a surprise box? Predictors of consumers' use of
fashion and beauty subscription-based online services (SOS). J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
41, 121–130.