White Dove Reviews Round 2 - Journal of Consumer Research

1 

WHITE DOVE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY 

REVIEWS (ROUND 2) 

Editor Decision Letter 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Consumer Research. The same team 

who read your previous version read this version as well. The reviewers provided thoughtful and 

consistent commentary and the AE did an excellent job integrating their comments. I have also 

read your reviewer notes, revised manuscript and the review team’s reports in coming to a 

decision on the manuscript. This letter provides my decision. 

We all agree that you are studying a fascinating topic. Moreover, we agree that the paper has 

improved significantly. Although relatively significant issues do remain, we find the potential in 

the paper sufficiently high to allow you one more opportunity to revise the paper. The AE 

provides a highly useful roadmap for the broad issues that require attention. Hence I recommend 

that you use his/her report as a basis for your revision. 

As I see it, many of the key issues revolve around Figures 1 and 2. Regarding Figure 1, you need 

to clarify to which entities in Figure 1 the term “access-based consumption” applies? Does it 

refer to everything in Figure 1 or only the phenomena noted in Q1? (See Reviewers A re 

construct refinement and B, comments 1a, 1b). If the latter, how would one characterize the 

remaining quadrants (see Reviewer B comment 1b)? Second, and more significantly, are the 

dimensions in Figure 1 the right dimensions and/or are they sufficient dimensions to characterize 

access-based consumption? (See Reviewers A re construct refinement, and B comment 1c). If 

these are the critical dimensions, one would expect that the other entities listed in Q1 would be 

similar to one another in fundamental ways and that the findings observed for (summarized in 

the middle and right hand side of Figure 2) would generalize to the other types of consumption 

noted in Q1. However, the reviews are not convinced that this is the case (see Reviewer A under 

internal inconsistencies and B comment 1c, 1d, 3b). Additional dimensions might be playing out 

that would enrich and clarify some of these problems. The review team provides some insight 

into potential dimensions, and your paper itself may provide some clues to what these 

dimensions might be. But it is up to you to determine what these dimensions are and to resolve 

the aforementioned issues. Figure 2 is nice, but I agree with Reviewer A that it doesn’t 

adequately represent the set of constructs that emanate from your analysis. Reviewer B’s point 

3c is interesting and also requires some thinking on your part. 

Additional (though to my mind, more doable) issues concern better situating the Zipcar 

phenomenon in its socio-cultural context (see the AE and Reviewer B, point 6), as well as 

making sure that your data clearly support your stated conclusions (Reviewer B, point 5). 

This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.

2 

Reviewers A and B disagree on the importance of collecting additional data outside the Zipcar 

context. Reviewer A favors the current treatment, while Reviewer B would recommend 

additional data collection. The AE and I continue to see value in the current treatment. Hence we 

would not advocate for data collection on a different phenomenon noted in Q1. 

If you choose to revise the paper (and I hope you do), I would ask the next editor to send the 

paper to the same review team. Their comments are quite consistent and both see good potential 

in your paper. As such, please submit an overview set of comments that indicate how you have 

addressed the AE's comments. If you wish, you may also submit a set of comments to each 

reviewer. Please keep these comments short. Since we are entering into our third round, I suspect 

that an up or out decision will be made on the next round. Hence it is imperative that you do an 

outstanding job in addressing the AE's comments. The inclusion of a seasoned colleague as a 

mentor and/or co-author might be well advised. 

Thank you for submitting your paper to JCR. I have enjoyed reading it and thinking about the 

phenomenon you are studying. I wish you the best of luck as you move forward with your work 

in this area. 

AE Report 

Comments to the Authors: 

Our two highly competent reviewers have been through your revised manuscript, and agree that 

there has been a progress in terms of addressing the problems and flaws pointed out in the first 

round of reviews. I agree that improvements have been significant. Reviewer A draws a slightly 

more positive conclusion from that progress, whereas reviewer B is somewhat more skeptical 

concerning your abilities to capitalize on the improvements made. In spite of this discrepancy, I 

think their concerns are quite similar – at least in the larger picture of things – and thus 

concordant in terms of remaining issues to deal with. The following provides my summary of 

these concerns as well as my own overall conclusions in terms of the path forward. 

I believe that it is fair to say, that the points of critique raised this time can be summarize din the 

following four points, that should guide your revision. Then I will conclude with some broader 

reflections. 

Conceptual refinement. Both reviewers agree that while your figure 1 does add overview and 

clarity to your argument, it still needs more elaboration. Most fundamentally, you apply the same 

label – “access based consumption” - to both the overall field that the figure is supposed to 

illustrate and to one of its quadrants. This obviously is a source of confusion. Secondly, a 

typology of this kind invites you to cover all the quadrants and not just one. Thirdly, and 

possibly more significantly, the characteristics of Zipcar consumption (as evoked in figure 2) that 

you use to characterize quadrant one are not in any convincing manner presented to be 

representative for all those access based consumption phenomena included in the quadrant. 

Complexity of data interpretation. Some of these issues might be due to an oversimplification of 

the whole field generated by a two-dimensional model. Reviewer B suggest a potential political 


3 

dimension, something which is also linked to this reviewer’s call for considering heterogeneities 

in your population (notably, maybe, between those who consider themselves smart and ashamed 

(a difference between a use value and a sign value logic of distinction?). Is the temporality 

reducible to a linear logic? For example, I guess usual rental cars tend to be held for longer, not 

shorter intervals than Zipcars. For Zipcar, you rely on joining a community that secures the 

access – in rental situations this access is secured through credit card. You might say that access 

is more longitudinal but frequently “dormant” and usage more fragmented through the Zipcar 

community. Rental cars are accessible mainly in hubs of transportation and in context away from 

one’s home compared to Zipcar. Is this merely a matter of temporality and community vs. 

anonymity? I am not convinced, nor are the reviewers. In other words, and drawing back to the 

first point, “access” is not just “access” but covers a range of contextually situated servicescapes. 

As pointed out by reviewer A, your universe of references remain shaky as comparison 

constructs shift. And as pointed out by reviewer B 8in points 3, 4 and 5), your oscillations 

between various kinds of value extracted from the Zipcar consumption adds confusion to your 

data analysis and underpins our reflections whether your sample is as homogeneous as you 

would like it to be (in order to prose a set of generally valid characteristics for Q1). Finally, is the 

distinction user/consumer really a fruitful one here? – I do not think so, at least not in the Zipcar 

case. Otherwise it implies that service users, e.g. hotel guests, are not consumers. Is that where 

you want to go? I don’t think so. 

The brand community conclusion. The development of this point is embraced by both reviewers, 

but the inconsistency between your reflections of the kind of community Zipcar might represent 

and the general conclusion that there is no such community does not go unnoticed (reviewer B). 

Reviewer A wonders whether that conclusion – as you at least intended to demonstrate for its 

antecedents in the model – can be extrapolated to be valid in general for Q1 in your figure 1? 

And the reviewer comes close to providing a negative answer him/herself. Another question – 

why this focus on the lacking brand community as the “outcome” of the processes described in 

figure 2? Based on the figure, is almost as if this becomes the pivotal finding of your paper, and I 

don’t think it is. It is an interesting finding, but not part of the central axis around which your 

contribution is made. 

Socio-cultural insights. As reviewer B points out in a letter to the editors, “new consumption 

modes do not exist or develop within a vacuum”. You do a better job this time, but one cannot 

help reflecting on the deep significance of some of the developments that give rise to the various 

elements in figure 1. Why this focus on sharing? For one thing, the emergence of the internet, 

(web 2.0 notably) that made the organization of such a system of sharing possible and viable on a 

daily basis in the first place. The re-urbanization of the upper-middle classes and the 

corresponding downfall of suburban life styles as the epitome of modern society is also a crucial 

part of the success of the Zipcar phenomenon. This kind of sharing services might not be so new 

as it seems from your paper, but the way it unfolds is highly dependent on these and other sociocultural 

changes. Such issues might be more useful in helping you to give shape to the 

conceptual universe in figure one. 

In short – you are on a good track by providing insights into the consumption logics that 

dominate a new kind of, in lack of a better term until next revision, access-based consumption. 

What you still need to do is to make sure that you eliminate inconsistencies in your conceptual 

framework and that you allow for it to take into consideration the complexities of the “sharing”- 


4 

logics of the various servicescapes, that you use in your exemplifications – both those that 

emanate from your empirical findings and those related consumptive phenomena that you use to 

encircle your focal interest. I also think you need to make better use of the socio-cultural 

contextualization in order to analyze your data – do not get caught in a phenomenological 

reductionism but try to provide what is the great promise of this paper: A terminology to think 

“sharing” and “access” in a conceptually linked way that may very well be a strong point of 

departure not just for your own but for our colleagues efforts to throw further light on these 

(emerging?) consumption patterns. If you find problems and inconsistencies in your logic, maybe 

you should neither conceal them (which you inadvertently did this time), nor back down in 

despair. But presently them openly, since such issues are to be expected when one deals with 

new theorizing. As an AE, I give you my word that a sound reflection on the limitations and 

possible inconsistencies in a conceptual framework will not in and by itself impede publication. 

After all, a good researcher is not the one who finds the right answers but the one, who provides 

the right questions. 

Good luck with the revision. 

Reviewer A 


Overall Assessment 

General strengths 

I continue to find this paper interesting and think it makes important contributions. In this 

revision, the authors addressed my concerns about conceptual boundaries by more clearly 

defining the new construct and distinguishing it from other types of non-ownership consumption. 

In addition, the dimensions of the construct are more clearly articulated, supported with 

evidence, and situated in broader discourses. Importantly, the revised paper provides a basis for 

thinking and theorizing about access versus ownership, with a clearer position in the literature. It 

moves the discussion of the field forward and provides sufficient complexity to spur future 

investigations. 

General weaknesses 

I have two basic concerns, both of which are correctable in my opinion. First, the construct needs 

further refinement. I commend the authors for the substantial progress they have made on this 

front, but would challenge them to go just a bit further. The conceptualization is still somewhat 

fuzzy in areas, which is to be expected as new constructs are established and contemplated. 

However, for the paper to have an impact and for others to build on this conceptualization, 

careful attention to detail and precision in language makes a difference. Second, the paper 

requires better organization to eliminate internal inconsistencies and reveal the complexities of 

the authors’ arguments. 

In the next section, I expand using specific examples and suggest potential solutions. 


5 

Detailed Comments 

Construct refinement 

The authors provide much clearer conceptual distinctions among access based consumption, 

sharing, and ownership throughout the manuscript. I agree with the authors’ decision to narrow 

the construct definition rather than collect data in other contexts. The car sharing context 

provides sufficient depth and new insight to develop a new construct, and I believe the authors 

have demonstrated that their dimensions would generalize theoretically to a broad range of other, 

similar contexts (e.g. hotels, bike sharing, online borrowing programs, etc.). Figure 1 is helpful 

in distinguishing the boundaries of your construct from other types of non-ownership 

consumption and provides examples of phenomena that would fit into each of the conceptual 

categories. 

Having stated this, I still have a few concerns about the presentation, terminology and labels 

chosen. Labelling the quadrants in Figure 1 (beyond 1, 2, 3, and 4) and identifying where your 

comparison constructs fit within the visual would help make clear that these dimensions allow 

you to distinguish among previous work in the area. 

I remain unconvinced that “access based consumption” is the best label for the authors’ 

construct. Although the authors now provide a clearer and narrower definition that adequately 

describes the construct investigated and differentiate it from previous constructs, the authors still 

use the label more broadly in some areas of the paper (e.g. p. 11). In other areas of the paper, the 

label is used only to describe quadrant 1. 

More specifically, the authors invite confusion early on by giving examples of “access models” 

that are outside of the purview of the focal phenomenon (e.g. time share real estate; public 

libraries). In general, I think it’s a good idea to get readers thinking about models of access 

versus ownership with a broad range of examples, but then instead of stating that the authors are 

examining a certain type of access based consumption and providing the definition and a label 

for this construct, it seems they just re-define what constitutes access based consumption and 

keep the broad label. The confusion continues in the Conceptual Foundations section, as the 

authors again apply the “access based consumption” label to the broader context to discuss 

public based consumption: “…access based consumption may take on the properties of sharing 

as identified by Belk (2010) in these quadrants” (p. 11). I would recommend changing the label 

of quadrant 1 from “access based consumption” to something that fits with your more narrow 

definition. If the authors wish to hold onto their original label for some reason, they might 

consider using the “non-ownership models” label in place of access based consumption in the 

introduction and in all areas where they are referring to the broad category (e.g. sharing, 

experiential access, etc.) and not actually referring to quadrant 1 or the new construct. From a 

practical standpoint, the more common use of the label “access based consumption” may still 

drive readers to generate examples of other non-ownership consumption categories mentioned 

(e.g. sharing through toy libraries, gym memberships, etc), so I fear that future scholars who 

attempt to build on this work will continually struggle with the broad label for the narrower 

phenomenon. 


6 

Organization and internal inconsistencies 

I think the paper needs better organization to present its complex ideas in a succinct way. My 

concern about organization is mostly limited to the first 16 pages and to the Figures. In general, 

the sections that delineate the characteristics of access (“avoiding identification,” etc.) are clear 

and well supported with evidence from the data (p. 17-32). 

Figure 2 nicely overviews conditions, characteristics and outcomes, but it also minimizes some 

of the complexity drawn out in the new draft. For example, in addition to these basic 

relationships, the authors also distinguish the central construct based on different motivations 

(sharing as altruistic, experiential as excitement, and access as self-interest/utilitarian—p. 39) 

and on whether the access is market-mediated or peer-mediated. Later, the paper brings in the 

idea of contagion and person-object relationships. Yet, these complexities, which elaborate on 

some of the most intriguing contributions, are under-represented and it is sometimes difficult to 

grasp how they are connected. 

In addition to the issue of how complexities are represented, the paper also suffers from some 

internal inconsistencies that make it difficult to follow the authors’ arguments and treatment of 

the literature. 

Comparison constructs seem to vary throughout the paper. In the introduction (p. 3), the authors 

limit their discussion of alternate consumption modes to sharing (Belk) and experiential access 

(Chen). In the findings, the authors also include comparisons to the gift economy (p. 23, 34). In 

the Discussion (p. 38), the authors compare to sharing, experiential access, services, and 

collaborative consumption. Finally, in the summary paragraph, the authors again limit 

comparison to sharing (Belk), collaborative consumption (Giesler—now labeled this instead of 

as gift giving), and experiential access (Chen). Perhaps this can be attributed to remnants of the 

initial paper that no longer apply. In any case, the authors should choose comparison constructs 

up front, argue for why these are most relevant (acknowledging other non-ownership constructs 

and explaining why these are not compared), and then outline the dimensions that distinguish 

among the focal and comparison constructs. Ensuring that these are consistent throughout the 

paper will help eliminate confusion. 

When I think deeply about the dimensions that engender a lack of brand community (Figure 2), I 

have a hard time reconciling this with how it relates to Figure 1. For instance, should I conclude 

that other access-based contexts in the first quadrant would not generate a brand community, 

while those of a more social and long-term nature (quadrant 3) would generate a brand 

community? Do people who share the same gym membership (quadrant 3) form communities 

around the brand? Should access-based contexts in quadrant 1 that are unlikely to experience 

disgust from contagion effects (e.g. e-book rental or sharing of digital music files) still be 

expected to resist brand communities? The authors’ references to previous literature actually 

suggest that brand communities are possible in music-sharing contexts and that these are 

governed by reciprocity (e.g. Giesler 2006), so it seems odd that music sharing is represented in 

the same quadrant as car sharing if these are the contexts closest to the new construct. Perhaps 

music sharing is actually more collaborative/social (as presented in the discussion section), and 

simply belongs in quadrant 2? In any case, a more nuanced representation of the relationships 


7 

proposed in Figure 2 and careful attention to where the examples fall in Figure 1 would help 

clarify some of the inconsistencies. 

Thank you for your revision! I found it fascinating to read, which may reflect the nuanced nature 

of my comments as I tried to think through its implications for the field. 

Reviewer B 


I still like what you are doing and I still believe that there is an important paper in here. So please 

read the following review as helpful and enthusiastic if you are wondering about tone. I am still 

optimistic, but I am a little frustrated too. I think the sources of my frustration are from sincere 

attempts to do what was asked of you last time rather than authorial stubbornness. So I am still 

hopeful. Please read my thoroughness as intended to help. 

1) I am a little uneasy with some of your conceptualizations. 

a) I am not sure that ‘access based consumption’ is the best term to describe what is happening in 

Quadrant 1. The term still seems more broad than anonymous, temporally limited, nonownership 

consumption. As an example of this broadness, the term ‘access based consumption’ 

seems applicable to things in other quadrants, most notably gym memberships in Quadrant 3 and 

time shares in Quadrant 4. 

I can completely understand becoming infatuated with a nomenclature. ‘Access based 

consumption” does have a nice ring to it. But, I bet you could coin a term equally poetic (maybe 

more so) to describe quadrant 1. 

b) This brings up a related question: do you have proposed names for the other three quadrants 

and the non-ownership consumption mode examples they contain? If you are going to propose a 

typology, you should also propose names for all four parts of it. Perhaps you could coin four new 

terms for the quadrants and then situate your data and insights into one quadrant. As a bonus, 

you would then have some nice ‘future research’ suggestions. 

c) Moving on to the nature of access based consumption (and Figure 2), there are some 

conceptual holes here. For starters, I’m not sure how many of the four characteristics of ‘access 

based consumption’ would hold for other the other examples contained in Q1. 

I suspect that there would indeed be some form of identification within bike sharing, particularly 

since it exists it often exists in relation to (sometimes in opposition to) the dominant car culture 

(read up on the proposals, many are quite progressively politically minded). This identification 

might be with a particular bike, but since I am assuming the bikes in a bike sharing fleet are all 

identical, identification is more likely with the model used in general (I would become a symbol 

of the program) or the program. 


8 

‘Fine, you might argue, ‘bike sharing is different since the politics surrounding it are different.’ 

OK, if that is true, where would it go? This suggests a need to revisit the axes used in Figure 1 

(the dimensions on which non-ownership consumption varies). Does your 2 x 2 need a more 

political component/axis? 

Similarly, cannot a movie viewed via Netflix or RedBox engender identification? (“We watched 

it ten times and kept it for a month before sending it back!”) I would think with a digital good the 

physical good (here, the DVD) does not matter much for sense of ownership and, hence, 

identification. Again, this suggests a need to revisit the axes used in Figure 1 (the dimensions on 

which non-ownership consumption varies). If the argument is that there is no identification with 

service/Netflix brand, anecdotal evidence suggests that is not true. Netflix users are quite 

evangelical. 

d) As it is, I am not sure that the four properties you’ve identified as characteristics of ‘access 

based consumption’ can be extended to all of the instances of non-ownership consumption 

depicted in Q1. These four properties seem like they might be particular to Zipcar rather than to 

Quadrant 1. If you are going to claim to be explicating the entire quadrant, then you need to 

spend more time making the case for intra-quadrant homogeneity. 

2) Noting the lack of brand community makes much more sense and is more compelling in this 

version. I really like this aspect of it and I like the idea of a consequence. There is an interesting 

tension here namely between a context that seems as if it would facilitate community and the 

lack of community evident. However, you do make some curious claims here. For one, your 

description of Zipcar’s rather uninspired marketing efforts to instill brand community as 

representing “widely accepted managerial methods of community building” (p, 22) seems a bit 

of a stretch. Similarly, I am not sure, as you claim on page 33, that the company is following 

“best practices” for building community. Zipcar’s efforts to this end seem pretty lackluster. You 

can make a decent case for why you expected to find communal affiliation here independent of 

Zipcar’s efforts. (Doesn’t that literature stress the organic and independent of the marketer nature 

of the strongest brand communities?) 

I would also humbly dispute your characterization of Zipcar users being an example of a hub 

community. You note that a hub community is one in which “consumers have a strong tie to the 

central figure (in this case, the Zipcar company) but weak ties to one another.” Doesn’t the 

embarrassment over the Zipcar logo and brand you described earlier preclude this? 

3) Your interpretation of your data has improved considerably but there is still much to be done 

here, too. 

a) I can almost accept the absence of sign value, but the lack hedonic value from the cars (as is 

claimed on the middle of page 23) seems pretty far-fetched. I could envision having fun and 

deriving pleasure from driving all kinds of cars that I don’t own. Initially, I suspected there must 

be more going on in with your informants. Something had to explain the lack of hedonic value 

that you claimed. (I mean, they rent Mini Coopers, how could those not be fun to drive to some 

segment of their user base?). But then I kept reading. The quotes on page 26 kind of contradict 

your claim about hedonic value. It looks like there is plenty of hedonic value there, particularly 


9 

when described as a “flexible lifestyle accessory.” That sounds like some semblance of both 

hedonic and sign values. 

b) I am not sure that negative reciprocity would hold in all of the other instances in Q1. Again, 

bike sharing might be the odd one out owing to the politics involved. This might tell us 

something important. 

c) I also have a problem with your inclusion of “big brother model of governance” as one of the 

characteristics of access based consumption. Don’t get me wrong. I think the point you develop 

here is a valid one (and is explained quite nicely). My problem is that it is not so much a 

characteristic as it as a recommendation. It is prescriptive rather than descriptive. It is describing 

a fix for the characteristic before it (negative reciprocity). Hence, it is not really a property. 

4) I think you need to revisit the homogeneity of your informants more closely. I think there is 

something there, lurking beneath the surface. Here is what leads me to this conclusion. On page 

35 you write: 

“It is interesting to contrast Joe and Priscilla‘s narratives surrounding feeling cheap and 

embarrassed when identified with the Zipcar brand to earlier narratives we saw, such as 

Adam‘s, where our informants were proud to participate in a car sharing program as a more 

thrifty, flexible and free alternative to ownership. The difference is, they are proud to be 

associated with Zipcar when the point of reference is to the act of accessing cars, but when it 

comes down to individual cars, the sign value is lost.” 

It still seems to me that the differences you see here owe more to differences between your 

informants and the mindset they bring to using this service than differences between accessing 

cars and individual cars. Adam seems quite different from Joe and Priscilla. I want to make a big 

suggestion here. Could there be two distinct groups of people attracted to Zipcars, attracted to the 

brand for different reasons? 

5) Some of your data do not support well the point they are supposed to. For example, on page 

36 you use the following quote to illustrate rejection of the green claims made by Zipcar: “I‘ll 

keep on using Zipcar until I get a real – my own car. Hopefully that‘ll be sooner rather than 

later. (Meissner)” This quote does not really support the rejection of the green claim. Is there 

more to the quote (that maybe you trimmed) that makes rejection of the green claim more 

apparent? Certainly a rejection of green claims is implied when one makes it clear that using 

Zipcars is a temporary thing (and not indicative of a political stance), but that also assumes that 

the informant was aware of the green claims and was responding to them in the quote. 

6) Nice job accommodating the suggestion to incorporate more socio-cultural insights. It is 

obvious you took these suggestions to heart (the content on the lower half of the middle of page 

18 is nicely illustrative of your efforts). However, I think you need to strive to do more on this 

front. 

7) Some specific things: 


10 

a) I like that you heeded the AE’s advice to use Baudrillard to explain some of the issues 

surrounding sign value. Your diligence is noted and appreciated. Could you try to explain the 

connections a bit more? There are a couple of places where I can only partially grasp what is 

being suggested. I doubt I will be the only one. 

b) Could you please explain this quote on page 24 more clearly? 

“That is, ―far from the individual expressing his needs in the economic system, it is the 

economic system that induces the individual function and the parallel function of objects and 

needs‖ (Baudrillard 1981, 133).” 

I am having a hard time understanding this quote out of context. The sentence following it does 

not adequately explain it. 

c) Similarly, on page 26 you write: 

“The meanings associated here with access based consumption are illustrations of 

Baudrillard‘s (1981) conceptualization of use value being turned into sign value, and how that 

sign value is played out in the marketplace.” 

I think you need a sentence explaining how before moving on to detailing how the sign value 

here counters ingrained cultural values.

White Dove Reviews Round 2 - Journal of Consumer Research

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?