One of the recent triumphs of branding has been the acceptance of the word “share” for what is, in reality, a straight rental transaction. Except for the enabling technology, which allows a share car to live for free on the public street rather than returning each day to a privately-owned, taxed compound (à la Hertz), why is a Car2Go four-wheeler different from an Avis rental?
Are any of the sharing companies really sharers, as in co-ops?
•ZipCar is a subsidiary of car-rental giant Avis
•Car2Go is a subsidiary of Daimler
•Mobi, Vancouver’s new “bike share” a.k.a short-term rental, is owned by Shaw and CycleHop
…but
•Evo is owned by BCAA, which is a non-profit federation, better fitting the sense of the word “share”
•Modo is a co-operative.
The word “share,” as it is now used, has such a positive, Millennial connotation – no wonder highly profitable companies have jumped to it. Even Airbnb “shares” accommodation, which is a very different thing from a few friends pooling their money to share an apartment. And Uber is a “ride share,” somehow different from me sharing a taxi with its driver.
I want to make a list. Are there other brave new words (or brave new meanings to simple old words) to add?
I’d like to add the expression “reach out” to the list, as in “I will reach out to my people and see who could help you with that.” Now ubiquitous in tech and millennial business circles, it almost universally means “contact” but it adds a calculated veneer of personal warmth — almost beneficence — in order to suggest that the people on the receiving hold the sender in high esteem and will respond positively.
I like this: I will reach out to strangers to share my Uber ride.
Interesting points. For me, car share and bike share differ from rental in that for bike share and many car shares, one way trips can be easily made. For bike share, this is highly encouraged through the fee structure. Also, there is a limited range for one way trips – quite small now for bike share but pretty much all of Vancouver and part of north shore for Car2Go. Not sure about Evo, but Modo has fixed locations for each car so is closer to the rental model.
With regard to ownership, Mobi is owned by Cyclehop, however my guess is that Shaw has only purchased advertsing rights.for a certain time period.
Not sure that all car share parking locations are free as I suspect that downtown dedicated street parking locations are rented from the city. If not, then they certainly should be. I believe that Mobi locations are provided by the city in order to make this important mobility option more viable.
Airbnb could be an individual sharing their accommodation (for a fee) while property is not in use, but this is more likely to be a property used full time for hotel style rental.
I’d add “for fee sharing” vs “free sharing”. Sharing has a “free” component to it, although of course sharing a Car2Go at 41 cents a minute or a room via AirBnB at $50/day is anything but free.
It is mere clever marketing.
Renting is so old school (evil) capitalistic. Sharing is so much more 2016, new, hip, modern .. when of course in reality IT IS THE SAME THING.
Rent by the minute, or share by the minute (or day) – same thing.
You’re triggering me Michael.
I would add the term “post-truth” as in the post above from the landlord Thomas Beyer;
Renting is so old school (evil) capitalistic. Sharing is so much more 2016, new, hip, modern .. when of course in reality IT IS THE SAME THING.
That “same thing” actually being the enslavement of the poor by the wealthy.
How are the “poor” enslaved when they receive
– free education to grade 12
– free healthcare regardless of life style choices
– no GST nor PST of most food items
– no GST nor PST on rent
– OAS and/or CPP in retirement
– highly subsidized public transit, public pool, community centres or rec areas
yet pay almost nothing in income taxes ?
All the while the top 20% income earners pay almost 75% of all income taxes ? http://o.canada.com/news/national/canadas-wealthy-responsible-for-a-big-chunk-of-tax-revenue
How is renting different than sharing using AirBnB, besides one is legal and one is illegal ?
Sharing is essentially renting by the hour or minute and renting usually longer, although when I rent a steam carpet cleaner that too is called a rental. It is the same thing, just a different more hip, more socially correct, more modern less capitalist sounding word in my humble opinion.
AirBnB is just a law breaking commercial property tax ( and possibly quite often income tax) avoiding commercial hotel operation and that is why the City of Vancouver is now taking select AirBnB hosts to court.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/airbnb-rental-lawsuit-1.3808555
In addition, are you suggesting landlording is somehow not a worthwhile or unethical business as we provide affordable housing. Is this not a very noble – and of course profitable – business to be in ? How is this different than being in the profitable restaurant, car sharing, cell phone or hotel business ?
Food, clothing & shelter are considered the three necessities of life.
There is nothing noble about renting shelter to poor people,
it is called poverty exploitation.
If you want to be noble than you need to help poor people to escape this type of enslavement.
Sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, volunteer 24 7 at Union Gospel Mission, stop telling the rest of us how to think and what to read. That would be very helpful.
Bakers should sell bread at a loss too, or apple growers, or coat manufacturers ?
Where did you learn this garbage ? At university ? or at home ?
Why don’t you move to Cuba or N-Korea or live there for a while to see how “excellent” profit-less societies look like ?
A business without profits has a name: it is called bankruptcy ! Awesome base for job creation, for the environment or as a tax base for hospitals, education or police ! Just awesome !!
More bull coming from Thomas Beyer. You can get a loaf of bread and an apple for free at the Food Bank. You can get a coat for $5 bucks at Value Village. You will probably have to if you are enslaved by the landlord because apartments are not free, they rent for “all the market can bear” in the business for profits, poor me I am taxed too much world of Thomas Beyer the Landlord.
Sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, volunteer 24 7 at the Food Bank, stop telling the rest of us what to think and what to read on every topic that comes up. That would be one tiny step towards nobility.
Why would someone rent an apartment that is valued anywhere from $125,000 to $400,000 in MetroVan for free ?
What is the difference between a for-profit baker, apple grower, shoe maker, dairy maker and landlord as they all provide life’s necessities, all try to make a living, all have to invest into equipment, all have to hire and pay employees and all try to get as much as the market bears for their goods ?
“A business without profits has a name”
Yes. Not-for-profit.
“try to get as much as the market bears for their goods”
One pricing strategy among many.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2015/10/30/big-companies-without-profits-amazon-twitter-uber-and-other-big-names-that-dont.html
A business is in business to make goods or provide services that consumer wants or needs, PROFITABLY for the owner(s). Amazon, Facebook, Google, Uber, Twitter etc while initially not profitable in time become very profitable after a certain size. if you don’t have a profit the business dies. Many do. How does that help employees, shareholders (such as RRSP holders or pensioners that own shares, even CPP does) or the tax collecting government ?
There is also a triple bottom line: environmentally, socially AND FINANCIALLY. The latter is often conveniently swept under the green carpet by environmentalists.
Not for profit organizations exist usually in areas where most businesses chose not to go, or can’t go profitably, say third world relief, or other social causes, or where governments chose to not go enough or at all.
“”Amazon: Nearly 20 Years In Business And It Still Doesn’t Make Money, But Investors Don’t Seem To Care””
http://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-business-it-still-doesnt-make-money-investors-dont-seem-care-1513368
How did ‘pushback’ replace ‘opposition’.
Any certainty regarding what will be in the future is considered silly and can only be conjecture. So, why do we now call someone who is uncertain as to wether they agree with an estimate of a future geological, climatic or topographical condition, a ‘denier’? Did this come from southern Baptists, or the Inquisition, as in “he denies the existence of god”? Wasn’t a denier simply an atheist like Stephen Hawking?
That is silly, but I suspect you know that. Deniers of science use rhetorical tricks to try and create doubt and confusion where there isn’t any. It isn’t enough that they don’t get it, they have to try and convince the world than no one gets it.
The one you employ here is the false dilemma, or black and white fallacy. You claim that any certainty is silly, and suggest that therefore nothing can be known. We know lots about the future, with varying degrees of certainty. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t mean it isn’t highly probable, as determined by those who do understand the science and can present or review the evidence. Show us your evidence, or embrace your denial.
See, the parishioners demand factual calibrated and proven evidence of the level of the sea, or the daily temperature or volume rainfall, of sometime in the future. Anyone unable to travel forward in time, then come back with concrete evidence and provide future statistics is labeled a ‘denier’.
It’s Orwellian.
You described deniers as uncertain: as though they are sceptics. They are not. A sceptic does not believe, but is open to being convinced. He is uneasy with certainty and uncertainty alike. A denier is comfortable with the certainty of his denial: more, he identifies with his belief and takes pride in it. A denier is a true believer. A sceptic is an empiricist. A denier is not.
Share washing is the new green washing which was the new white washing. There’s also pink washing; all related to social cause marketing and spin doctors and pr flacks.
Corporations are by definition psychopaths. Marketers try to give a desirable personality to these entities; whether it’s fun, gravitas, or sincerity. Sincerity is a choice trait to fake.
There’s big bucks in marketing. Telus World of Science sounds so much better than Door to Door Jackasses Flogging Product.
The rich who cream off profits should quietly donate what they want to whomever they want and not stick it to their customers. Please let’s see an end to charity mugging at cash registers. The owners of these businesses have piles of cash – let them donate and leave us alone and not have you donate our cash on your behalf to raise your social profile and bottom line.
Customers are free to switch banks, cars, cell phone providers, food, drink clothing manufacturers or choices of energy they consume.
Consumers vote with their $s.
Of course, anyone offering services or products tries to influence their brain and tells them that their stuff is the better bank, car, cell phone, food, drink or coat !
The rich i.e. the top 20% income earners pay almost 75% of all income taxes. That is not enough? http://o.canada.com/news/national/canadas-wealthy-responsible-for-a-big-chunk-of-tax-revenue
“Canadians overwhelmingly believe corporations and the wealthy should pay more tax,”
Sounds like our democracy is kinda working.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3229282
Until it doesn’t and investors go elsewhere.
Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!
Beyer has no point.
He never has a point.
He just likes to appear in print.
He likes all the attention that he gets.
The more thumbs down the better.
Debunking does not matter.
All education efforts fail.
Ban him forever.
I respect your right to your opinion in an open blog on complicated issues.
Any complicated issue, such as taxation, street design, construction, density or traffic patterns deserve views from MULTIPLE angles, do they not ?
“I respect your right to your opinion”
Debatable. When challenged you often use derisive and off-topic comments to deflect from the weaknesses of your own argument.
The problem with Beyer and his ilk is that they clamour for our understanding of the three pillars or sustainability: economic, social and environmental; as if the latter two get all the traction and we don’t understand the former.
But he deludes himself.
If a company fails economically it fails. Period.
If a company profits at the expense of slave labour if can flourish.
If a company profits by damaging the environment it can flourish.
The pillars are are not equivalent in our current system. In fact, the latter two are not pillars at all – yet. Only Beyer types want us to believe they are so that they can mouth off about how the economic pillar is being forgotten. Until the latter two lead to corporate failure in the same way that economic failure does, he has nothing to add to this conversation.
Chris: we differ in our worldview. Just accept that. It is tough to convince single minded folks that there are multiple views that can all be right, or certainly have to be heard, on any controversial topic, be it climate change, taxation, city design or road tolls. Please accept that.
When I was young, say in my 20’s I had NO CLUE (either, like many young academic folks here on this blog) about the world, i.e. taxation, politics, parties, raising kids, energy policy, city design or money. As such, forgive me if I sound a little harsh sometimes at the ignorance or naivete of many commenters here on this blog. Just because you took a course in urban design, bike to work or university and are of voting age does not make you an expert in all topics discussed here. Neither do I assert to be an expert, merely an educated guy with an opinion that runs counter to many that believe “bigger government or bigger taxes or more rules are better”. Abandoning carbon based fuels has tremendous costs and as such, allow me to repeatedly to point this out.
In the sustainability triangle / triple bottom line of social issues, environmental issues and financial issues different emphasis on each of the three items will result in different policy responses and opinions !
Thomas:
So, to paraphrase your last post, you find it tough to convince people who are just “wrong”; when you were young you had no clue but now you do; if you sound harsh it is just because others are “wrong”; you are not an expert but you are “educated”. Your posts on climate change disprove that.
You then slip in that abandoning carbon fuels could be expensive, with no mention of the business opportunity, or the costs of not acting. For someone who speaks about a bottom line, you sure like to ignore both the investment opportunity, and the cost side of the equation.
The bottom line Beyer is that the path to having your opinion valued, lies in having valuable opinions. The resounding rejection of your ‘worldview’ is not a case of groupthink. It’s an instance of bad ideas being given their due. I sense you can’t accept this. It requires questioning much you take for granted. A task too difficult for most.
If you were to look harder you might note something. Your ideas are what earn you criticism. You respond with red herrings and remarks about education, age, etc. ie criticizing the person, rather than their ideas. The classic ad hominem attack.
We won’t be bamboozled or bullied into silence. Best get used to it.
@Ron: I note your opinion. The oppression of others’ opinions is a hallmark of the autocrats that think only their worldview matters. Please tone down your inflammatory language “.. and the ilk ..” .. is this really necessary ??
When you post “please tone down your inflammatory language” after posting “Where do you get this garbage” in the very same thread, it makes a mockery of your appeal for civility.
You are not being called out because your opinions differ. You are being called out for ignoring facts and logic in your posts. Deal with it.
Well, Beyer if you are actually educated then how come you’re always acting like an idiot? For example, how do you know anything about commenters? You don’t know, you assume that you know, but you don’t actually know anything about commenters on this blog. You know nothing! You have no right to peddle your paternalistic bullsh*t. You know nothing about the age, level of education, marital status, family status, political views, etc., of commentators on this blog. Why should you be forgiven for calling others ignorant? You will not be forgiven. You and your offensive thoughts need to be banned from this blog. You need to be gone. Go away Beyer. Go far away and don’t come back.
Sorry to spoil the party. I didn’t know only one sided arguments are allowed in this blog. Much debate about trajectory of global warming, for example by experts such as Judith Curry or hundreds of others. Much debate about options or pathways, for example on city design, AVs, density or taxation policies. Little debate about costs. There is no free lunch. Someone always pays. You can always chose to not read my allegedly poor arguments. I am not here to prove my academic prowess. I am here to inject valuable viewpoints as a father, a husband, a tax payer, a business owner, a walker, a car driver, an escapee of socialism, an immigrant, a BC resident, and a world traveller with decades of experience. Deal with it, as I will differ in my worldview from yours on occasion. That is how the world works, my ( young ?) friend !
Merry Christmas.
Thomas, don’t forget more of your virtues: as a narrow, condescending ideologue who finds experts under rocks and ignores science, the need for a healthy environment and equitable social policy.
I was about to call out Jolson for being too extreme but I think you proved his point (old ?) man.
It’s all marketing spin.
“Share” has a connotation of “ownership” – like having a share in a company (i.e. stock), so I agree that using it in reference to a business would/should be more closely connected to co-ops.
However, the terminology is more complex than that.
In the corporate world, a “shareholder” (owner of stock) is often called a “member”.
But there is also a blurring of the lines between “members” and “owners”.
At MEC and other co-ops, a “member” is also an “owner” (i.e. shareholder).
For other ventures, a “member” is just a “customer” who pays an annual fee (i.e. Costco, Fitness World, etc.).
With car shares, customers are “members” who pay an annual fee (as well as usage fees) – but there are not “shareholders” in the business.
The word “share”, in the ownership sense, also implies the holder takes benefits and obligations (profits and losses) – not just the upside. If 2 people share a car and the car needs repairs, both pay for the repairs in proportion to their “share” of ownership.
But with a car share, while rental rates may go up, a customer would not be obligated to “prop up” the business if it loses money during the year.
It’s all feel good fuzzy marketing.
Next thing you know people will demand that they have a “right” to their “share”.
You beat me to this point … multiple definitions of the word share.
A carshare organization can be a cooperative (e.g. Modo) and in this case customers are also member-owners.
Unless a business is sharing ownership and risk (profit/loss) with its customers it does not below in the sharing economy.
Most people (and policy makers) confuse sharing economy and access economy.
To anyone interested in the matter, I recommend this good article from the Harvard Business Review : https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all
Those who don’t want a sharing economy are what Pierre Burton called the Smug Minority, in the book by the same name; or what elocutionary wizard Russell Brand calls – those born of a lucky vagina. These privileged scions think everyone should just pull up their socks and become rich. It’s rubbish of course.
No one comes into this world on a level playing field. The robber barons, royals, banksters, and other species of dictatorship have stacked the deck. Anthony Bourdain, on a London show, stated that the royal heads should be impaled on sticks while the populace threw feces at them. This should also be done to billionaires. That would go a long way in creating a sharing economy.
Poverty, starvation, war – these could be eliminated in a heartbeat, but the billionaires aren’t interested. How much of the world have the British royal pirates stolen? Their greed is a horror story.
We need wealth share – that means pitchforks and guillotines to get the billionaires on board.
We need work share. It’s no feather in your cap to be working 40 hours/week at an idiot job. If someone wants a job, it should be available to them – unless it’s making land mines.
People are so greedy about work, that even dogooder feelgoods want to do everything to prepare food and feed the indigent. If there’s one thing the impoverished need – it’s something to do. Time hangs heavy when you have neither cash, nor prospects. They’re deprived of even the dignity of cooking. Instead they have to line up and be grateful while the charitable-minded pat themselves on the back.
We need toy share – like the library model. That would raise the spirits of children and keep crap out of the landfill.
Can’t believe I misspelt Pierre Berton. Apologies to a great Canadian.
It is ironic how much animosity the idea of “sharing” can create. Let me add a true parable:
A friend of mine is an expert in ancient Chinese art. For the past 30 years he has been accompanying tours of very wealthy people around China. On one recent occasion he joined an extended American family on their private jet. Day after day they saw everything from the great sights to the hidden treasures with my friend as their guide and interpreter. Towards the end of their trip they found themselves in a once-great but now impoverished village far in the countryside, and the poverty weighed on them. Back on the jet the patriarch engaged the three generations in a discussion about the causes of the poverty and the possible solutions, emphasizing the importance of giving back. Ideas of all sorts were floated: construction projects they could finance, businesses they could help the village start, markets they could help the village find. Finally, exasperated, one of the sons who had been pampered all his life and was now in his 50’s said “all those things are inefficient. We should just find one family in the village and give them a million dollars so everyone will envy them and strive to be like them — like us.” True story. As we find on this thread, sharing is in the eyes of the beholder.