P2p platform services and business models

• Author: Pierre Hausemer - Julia Rzepecka - Marius Dragulin - Simone Vitiello - Lison Rabuel - Madalina Nunu - Adriana Rodriguez Diaz - Emma Psaila - Sara Fiorentini - Sara Gysen - Tim Meeusen - Simon Quaschning - Allison Dunne - Vadim Grinevich - Franz Huber - Linda Baines
• Pages: 43-77

Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform markets –

Task 1 Report

43

3 P2P platform services and business models

This section builds on the academic and policy review of section 3 and provides an

empirical mapping of P2P platform services, including their main economic features

and potential consumer policy issues. A focus is placed on platform services and

how they are used to extract commercial value, i.e. business models.

This section starts by defining the methodology for selecting the 48 5 platforms

reviewed in this study (sub-section 4.1), and then analyses them based on a

transaction-oriented typology (sub-section 4.2). The analysis moves on to examine

how platforms “sell” these services (sub-section 4.3), how data is protected (sub-

section 4.4) and how the platforms can be classified according to a business model

typology (sub-section 4.5). In this study, the results of this section feed into the

development of the business model classification in the final report of this study.

3.1 Methodology for platform selection

The empirical analysis in this section is carried out within the overall study scope

indicated in sub-section 2.4, and according to the report’s objectives indicated in

sub-section 2.3. The results are based on an analysis of 485 European P2P

platforms operating in the EU including four non-EU born platforms such as eBay,

AirBnB, Uber and Taskrabbit). The platforms were selected by considering the

study’s scope as well as a number of additional criteria indicated in sub-section

4.1.1. This sub-section describes the selection criteria, the methodology for

categorising platform services, as well as the limitations of this analysis. The full list

of platforms is in Annex 1.4 of this report.

3.1.1 Platform selection criteria

The aim of the platform screening is not to provide a complete inventory of

P2P platforms, but to have a sample that includes platforms in the relevant

markets. Initially, the selection aimed to identify five platforms per P2P market per

country, leading to up to 25 platforms per country. This was not always possible,

given the different market sizes. Large markets like France, the UK or Germany are

represented by 25 or more platforms, while small markets such as Latvia, Croatia

or Slovakia are represented by up to six platforms. In countries with over 25

platforms, the selection was limited to the most popular platforms in terms of da ily

unique visitors and to those of specific interest to the study due to the nature of

their offer.

Platforms were selected using local experts as well as desk research (e.g. grey

literature, websites of consumer associations, consumer blogs and forums, media).

Desk research was combined with the survey data from Task 2 to identify the most

commonly-used online P2P platforms in each country for each of the five P2P

markets indicated above. Of the 485 platforms identified in Task 1, 10 were

selected for a more in-depth analysis as part of the Task 4 case studies.

Of the 485 platforms in the sample, only four (AirBnB, Uber, TaskRabbit and eBay)

were established outside of the EU or Norway. These platforms were included,

however, given their popularity and because they have a registered office in an EU

Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform markets –

Task 1 Report

44

country (Ireland for AirBnB, UK for Uber and TaskRabbit, and Luxembourg for

eBay).

The platform selection, based on the limitations indicated in sub-section 2.4,

resulted in a database of 485 platforms across the five P2P markets under study,

and across the 28 EU Member States plus Norway. Detailed indications of the types

of platforms identified in each country are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Number of platforms per country and P2P market

122

(Re)sale

goods

Sharing/r

enting

goods

Sharin

g/hirin

g rides

Sharing/

renting

accommod

ation

Odd

jobs

Total -

collaborative

platforms123

Total all

platforms

Austria

6

3

1

6

4

14

20

Belgium

6

4

6

6

7

23

29

Bulgaria

10

1

8

0

2

11

21

Cyprus

8

0

2

3

1

6

14

Czech

Republic

6

4

1

1

0

6

12

Germany

5

5

7

4

5

21

26

Denmark

5

6

4

2

5

17

22

Estonia

5

3

4

0

1

8

13

Spain

5

5

5

4

4

18

23

Finland

5

2

3

1

1

7

12

France

5

5

5

5

5

20

25

Greece

5

1

2

0

2

5

10

Croatia

5

0

1

0

0

1

6

Hungary

8

1

4

3

1

9

17

Ireland

1

4

0

4

4

12

13

Italy

5

6

5

0

4

15

20

Lithuania

9

3

0

4

4

11

20

Luxembo

urg

4

1

1

7

0

9

13

Latvia

2

0

1

0

0

1

3

Malta

5

3

1

2

0

6

11

Netherla

nds

9

3

5

4

7

19

28

Norway

5

1

2

1

3

7

12

Poland

5

5

7

3

5

20

25

Portugal

5

2

3

3

2

10

15

122 Internatioal platforms (i.e. Uber, Airbnb, BlaBlaCar) are considered only in the countries where they have their EU

headquarters.

123 Excluding (re)sale platforms, according to the European Commission (2016) definition of “collaborative economy” reported in s ub-

section 2.1.

Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform markets –

Task 1 Report

45

(Re)sale

goods

Sharing/r

enting

goods

Sharin

g/hirin

g rides

Sharing/

renting

accommod

ation

Odd

jobs

Total -

collaborative

platforms123

Total all

platforms

Romania

6

4

2

1

1

8

14

Sweden

6

4

0

2

1

7

13

Slovenia

5

2

3

3

1

9

14

Slovakia

4

0

0

2

0

2

6

UK

7

4

6

5

6

21

28

Total

162

82

89

76

76

323

485

Source: VVA analysis of 485 P2P platforms

As the table indicates, the most represented P2P market in our research is (re)sale

goods, where we identified 162 platforms (33% of the total sample)

124. The other

four P2P markets are represented as such:

 Sharing/renting goods: 17% of the total sample;

 Sharing/hiring rides: 18% of the total sample;

 Sharing/renting accommodation: 16% of the total sample;

 Odd jobs: 16% of the total sample.

There are several reasons why (re)sale platforms are most represented in our

sample. First of all, the online infrastructure (e.g. e-shops) and customer

community created for B2C transactions could be easily applied to P2P (re)sales –

in fact many of the platforms operating in P2P market facilitate both types of

transactions: B2C and P2P (i.e. MarktPlaats, OLX). Second, most (re)sale platforms

were set up before 2010 (see sub-section 4.2.1), whereas collaborative platforms

are more recent and have so far been set up in fewer countries. Finally, (re)sale

transactions are not location-bound or less location bound than other P2P markets

under study: while peers need to be in the same geographical area to share a car

or accommodation, for instance, they can mail items they have transacted, thus

expanding the (re)sale market’s peer base125.

3.1.2 Service categorisation

Section 4 of this study categorises P2P platform services according to their

relevance to P2P transactions. In this study, platform services a re classified into

three categories: pre-transaction, transaction and post-transaction services.

The classification is partly based on academic literature, partly on consumer policy

concerns and partly on empirical results. Broadly, the sources of the service

categorisation system used in this study are the following:

124 Note that the market representativeness of this sample could affect the data reliability and the results of this section.

125 On a side note, the main exponents of other four sectors were created due to local inefficiencies and then they scaled up (see case

studies in Task 4), suggesting they tend to expand more slowly than (re)sale platforms.