- 8:34 am - Mon, Mar 11, 2013
- 89 notes
Amy Twigger Holroyd approaches fashion with sharing in mind. In one project, she created garments that could be shared by friends with different body types. By making clothes that don’t constrict in places where people vary the most, a size six could potentially share her sweater with a size 16.
But Holroyd’s projects go beyond one-size-fits-all couture. Her PhD research on “fashion as a commons” is an exploration of how to democratize and disrupt the clothing industry. “If you’re not able to make, you’re dependent on buying,” she says. “And if you’re dependent on buying, you’re dependent on what those people [in the fashion industry] have chosen — the quality of it, the design of it, the aesthetic of it.”
And so, under the umbrella label Keep & Share, she teaches folks how to fix and knit their own clothing, creates and sells long-lasting, sharable clothing, and hacks into cheap knitwear to send a message about the industry.
An interesting, slow-fashion, collaborative consumption-type of idea, for sure.
- 11:13 am - Sat, Jan 19, 2013
- 40 notes
We’ve certainly dealt with the “sharing economy” and collaborative consumption and similar ideas here in the past. But interesting to read this recent assessment in the Wall Street Journal:
What Internet companies and investors are dubbing the share economy: niche marketplaces for things that get cheaper when people use them together. Lately Internet startups have, in all earnestness, set up businesses to “share” pet care, wedding gowns, child rearing and more.
Got some lousy holiday presents? Re-gift them at Yerdle.com, which describes itself as “a magical place where people share things with friends.”
Like leftovers? MamaBake.com lets you cook and trade dishes with other moms. Need a new dress? Try 99dresses Inc., an online marketplace where people sell their old dresses for “buttons,” or virtual currency that allows them to buy more dresses from other users. It could be ridiculous—or the next big thing.
- 10:59 am - Sun, Jan 6, 2013
- 857 notes
The manifesto from Unstash, a new collaborative consumption site (in beta; sign up for an invite here).
From their About page:
Unstash is a peer-to-peer platform for collaborative consumption. In other words, we exist to facilitate and enhance the sharing experience. Every social circle has a huge overlap in consumer goods that don’t all need to be purchased, owned, and maintained by every individual. 62% of people state that they are interested in sharing consumer goods; they just haven’t had effective tools to do so, until now.
We believe in access over ownership. With a laser focused vision on making sharing easy, fun, and social, we believe sharing can be the new shopping – while helping you save money, deepen relationships, and create a more sustainable future together.
- 11:39 am - Sun, Jul 22, 2012
- 27 notes
So here’s a topic to mull over this weekend: new research on Zipcar drivers that questions whether users of that much-praised service are really motivated by the collaborative/sharing spirit … or something else.
“We really thought this would be very pro-social, pro-collaboration, pro-environment. We were starting with this theoretical baggage,” Bardhi says. And then she and Eckhardt conducted in-depth interviews with 40 Zipcar drivers in Boston. “And when we looked at the data, we were not finding any community,” she says. “People were very utilitarian, very individualistic.”
Some of these people were kind of jerks (our word, not Bardhi’s).
This Zipcar research suggests that what holds the whole thing together is self-interest, not community — and certainly not ideals about the environment, consumerism or sharing.
Granted, Bardhi and Eckhardt gathered their findings among young, urban professionals and students in Boston. And so maybe Zipcar drivers in Minnesota feel and behave differently (as might members of other “collaborative consumption” models like AirBnB). But by studying Zipcar’s target demographic, Bardhi and Eckhardt’s research offers a curious glimpse into the minds (and cars) of Millennials we may be misunderstanding.
Well! I guess my reaction to this is twofold. First, it sounds less than definitive.
But second: Maybe it’s valuable to bring this interpretation to the fore. Possibly it’s the case that beneficial/sharing/etc. services and alternatives need to appeal to self-interest in order to succeed.
I mean let’s be honest, self interest is a pretty major factor in human behavior. If a service figures out a way to channel it into a more good-for-society form, is that so bad?
- 2:02 pm - Wed, Jul 11, 2012
- 37 notes
Over the past couple of years, we’ve followed the rise of NeighborGoods, the site that enables neighbors to share stuff. (Why buy a new drill that you might use only twice a year; instead, borrow one from a neighbor, and perhaps get to know that neighbor!)
NeighborGoods is among the collaborative consumption services we’ve mentioned a couple of times. It’s with some surprise to learn this news from the company:
Our team has very big news that we want to share with you. After three amazing years, 25,000 incredible neighbors and over $4.5 million of inventory being shared, NeighborGoods.net will be shutting its doors. We would like to share what this means for you and your account.
Over the next three weeks we will be preparing for our shutdown which will be happening July 31st. We strongly encourage you to complete any open transactions by this date. After today we will no longer be accepting group subscriptions or account verifications.
Although this is goodbye for NeighborGoods we are excited to announce that members of our team have created a brand new sharing tool, Favortree. Favortree is a ‘play it forward’ trading game [favor-trading game/app] for universities, faith communities and local neighborhoods. Members can help each other by sharing goods and completing small favors. By helping your friends and neighbors, you earn rewards which you can exchange for help when you need it.
Read the rest: Goodbye NeighborGoods; Hello Favortree!
"Shutting its doors," with no explanation why? Anyone know?
Related: TheNextWeb post on the Favortree game/app.
- 9:07 am - Sat, Mar 17, 2012
- 53 notes
A counter covered in old yardsticks is a focal point in the Spool of Thread shop in Vancouver, British Columbia.
The shop — a “drop-in sewing lounge" that offers sewing classes, rents sewing machines, and sells fabric — serves area residents who don’t own sewing machines as well as those who do but who want join other like-minded makers in sewing in a community environment, instead of sewing at home alone.
See also: Previous Unconsumption posts on renting things vs. buying them, or collaborative consumption, as some of us refer to it.
If you like this counter, you probably will like the counters/desks made from books here and here, and earlier Unconsumption posts here on other yardstick, ruler, and tape measure uses.
(Photos: top via Poppytalk; bottom via Spool of Thread’s Flickr stream.)
- 11:09 am - Thu, Feb 23, 2012
- 29 notes
Got a road trip coming up? Why not use Ridejoy to save yourself the gas money and maybe make a new friend in the process? The site’s a lot like apartment/room-share site AirBnB. It leverages the power of the web to connect people so that they can use their resources more efficiently — and, of course, save money in the process.
Here’s how it works. You post an upcoming road trip on the site, name your price (sharing the cost of the gas, say) and see who’s interested. Like AirBnB, connections to your real Facebook profile and reviews by others who have met you through the site help establish that you’re not an ax murderer or whatever.
Let us know if you use the site.
Related: Earlier Unconsumption posts on sharing-oriented programs and services here.
- 1:16 pm - Wed, Sep 7, 2011
- 14 notes
A provocative line of thought from PSFK: Are current products good enough to live up to the promise of collaborative consumption?
Are Modern Products Good Enough To Allow For Collaborative Consumption? @PSFK:
PSFK‘s recent trip to Paris made us think about the trend of product sharing and caused us to wonder whether modern society really had the quality tools to hand to enable the movement. As we cycled through the streets on the French Capital’s Velib system we had to return our bikes three times to a depot because of faults – and on one occasion it took 45 minutes to find that location.
It seemed to us that some aspects of the bikes (namely the tires) simply weren’t up for the very regular use by Parisians and tourists like us. The idea behind it – that we could take a bike from one neighborhood and leave it in another – was wonderful, but in practice we found it frustrating as we had to return one bike with a broken chain and another two with flat tires (that happened after we left the rental stations). The issue, of course, us down to heavy use of the city sponsored collaborative consumption system – but it made us wonder how many other everyday products would stand up to the wear and tear of frequent use.
The rest is here.