Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine peer-to-peer sharing platform business models, their sources of competitive advantage, and the roles, motivations and behaviors of key actors in their ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a conceptual approach that is rooted in the service, tourism and hospitality, and strategy literature. Findings First, this paper defines key types of platform business models in the sharing economy anddescribes their characteristics. In particular, the authors propose the differentiation between sharing platforms of capacity-constrained vs capacity-unconstrained assets and advance five core properties of the former. Second, the authors contrast platform business models with their pipeline business model counterparts to understand the fundamental differences between them. One important conclusion is that platforms cater to vastly more heterogeneous assets and consumer needs and, therefore, require liquidity and analytics for high-quality matching. Third, the authors examine the competitive position of platforms and conclude that their widely taken “winner takes it all” assumption is not valid. Primary network effects are less important once a critical level of liquidity has been reached and may even turn negative if increased listings raise friction in the form of search costs. Once a critical level of liquidity has been reached, a platform’s competitive position depends on stakeholder trust and service provider and user loyalty. Fourth, the authors integrate and synthesize the literature on key platform stakeholders of platform businesses (i.e. users, service providers, and regulators) and their roles and motivations. Finally, directions for further research are advanced. Practical implications This paper helps platform owners, service providers and users understand better the implications of sharing platform business models and how to position themselves in such ecosystems. Originality/value This paper integrates the extant literature on sharing platforms, takes a novel approach in delineating their key properties and dimensions, and provides insights into the evolving and dynamic forms of sharing platforms including converging business models.

In Study 1, the authors find that people are more satisfied with a service experience when they choose to participate in the provider's voluntary green program (e.g., recycling)—an effect mediated by the “warm glow” of participation. The downside, however, is that this same mechanism decreases satisfaction among people who choose not to participate. In Study 2, analysis of data from the J.D. Power Guest Satisfaction Index suggests that incentivizing the program (i.e., compensating the program participants) paradoxically increases satisfaction for those who do not participate but decreases satisfaction among those who do. Studies 3 and 4 explore how manipulating incentive characteristics might enable managers to maximize satisfaction for both groups. Study 3 indicates that, compared with no incentive, an “other-benefiting” incentive increases warm glow and satisfaction for green program participants but decreases them among nonparticipants. Study 4, however, suggests that mixed incentive bundles (i.e., providing both self-benefiting and other-benefiting options) maximize warm glow and satisfaction for both groups—the ideal outcome for managers.

The mindset framework and its downstream effects provide exciting new opportunities to explore one of the powerful drivers of consumer and organizational behavior. To advance discussions on the concept and applications of mindsets in consumer research and in the marketplace, we (1) provide conceptual and contextual clarity into the signaling mechanism and the process/outcome focus by identifying relevant and meaningful consumer contexts, (2) consider the unique theoretical contributions implicit theory may make to the field of consumer psychology, and (3) suggest potential solutions for important methodological challenges researchers and practitioners may face when implementing the mindsets framework. Finally, we (4) highlight the managerial and organizational relevance of mindsets.

Brand extensions have the potential to both enhance liking of the brand extension and induce positive spillover effects on the parent brand. Such dual outcomes enhance the brand's growth potential. We propose and empirically demonstrate that three variables endemic to any brand extension decision (brand reputation, brand extension fit, brand extension benefit innovativeness) jointly impact these positive outcomes. For strong reputation brands, these dual outcomes are maximized when the brand extension is low in fit and offers innovative benefits because low fit motivates consumers to process innovative brand extension information more deeply. For weak reputation brands, these effects are maximized when the brand extension is high in fit and offers innovative benefits because high fit strengthens consumers' trust in the weak brand's ability to deliver promoted benefits. The results suggest two distinct brand growth strategies for strong and weak reputation brands respectively.