Sharing Makes Us Wasteful: How Shared Products Drive Overuse

Journal of Marketing Research Scholarly Insights are produced in partnership with the AMA Doctoral Students SIG – a shared interest network for Marketing PhD students across the world.

Shared product consumption is becoming increasingly popular, with examples including communal amenities in hotels and the use of hand sanitizer in restaurants. This approach can help firms reduce costs, and in some cases, it aligns with sustainability policies. However, essential questions remain: How do consumers feel when using shared products, and does it matter with whom the product is shared?

A Journal of Marketing Research study explores shared product consumption from the consumer’s perspective. The research examines how sharing a product with distant others (sharing-out), compared to sharing with close others (sharing-in) or not sharing, influences consumers’ perceived product efficacy. Using a variety of products (hand sanitizer, shampoo, and a plant growth product), the authors consistently show that in the sharing-out condition, consumers perceived lower product efficacy and used more of the product compared to the sharing-in or no-sharing conditions. This adverse effect of sharing out is driven by a reduced sense of identification with the product in these contexts. However, the strength of the sharing-out effect on perceived product efficacy is not uniform across all consumers. The authors show that the adverse impact of sharing out is attenuated for consumers with low (vs. high) self–brand connection, as these consumers are less likely to use the self as a reference point when evaluating the product.

Striking the Right Balance in Shared Consumption

This research highlights a significant challenge in hospitality, restaurant, and related industries as the use of shared products becomes increasingly popular and, in some cases, mandated by policy. Although shared products have clear benefits, they also risk undermining consumers’ perceptions of product efficacy, leading to overconsumption and potentially diminishing the customer experience. How can firms strike the right balance?

According to the study, strengthening the customer–brand connection and fostering a sense of “in-group” belonging can help. For instance, to encourage acceptance of shared pump bottles for shampoo or body wash, Marriott Hotels could highlight the sense of community built through its Bonvoy membership program, echoing the inclusive spirit of Olive Garden’s former tagline, “When you’re here, you’re family.” Similarly, marketers can cultivate perceptions of in-group membership and closeness—whether rooted in geographic location, community, or workplace—so that sharing feels less like “sharing out” with strangers and more like “sharing in” with trusted others.

We were honored to have a chance to contact the authors to learn more about their study and gain additional insights.

Q: What motivated you to study how sharing products with strangers affects consumers’ perceptions of product efficacy? Why did this question feel important to explore in light of current industry practices or trends?

A: Several of the coauthors on the paper had worked together before on projects related to product efficacy and so were familiar with the literature. And, as happens when you are immersed in a domain, you begin to process phenomena around you through that lens. We had all started noticing a proliferation of shareable toiletries in hotel rooms, and then, of course, the shared hand sanitizer stations that seemingly sprang up overnight during COVID. We began brainstorming about these shared consumption experiences and how they might differ from experiences with individual containers of the same products.

Q: Were there any surprising findings about which consumers were most affected by sharing out? For example, did loyal or brand-connected customers respond differently from casual users?

A: We found that the negative effect of sharing with strangers on perceived efficacy is more pronounced for consumers with high self–brand connection, which is consistent with our theorizing. What we were surprised by was the extent of the heterogeneity in responses among the 77 managers surveyed. Almost all of them believed that the decision to offer a shared product was essential and would impact customers, but beyond that, they had no clear consensus on how it would affect customers. This reinforced our decision to tackle this research question.

Q: Do you believe these effects might extend beyond toiletries or hand sanitizers to other shared products (e.g., rental equipment, coworking tools)? How might businesses in those categories address similar challenges?

A: The focus of the work is on judgment of product efficacy. We test the theory in categories, like pain relievers and hand sanitizers, that are used specifically for their efficacious outcomes. There is already extensive literature on the sharing of other “non-efficacy” products, like rental cars, that shows that these products suffer from the potential contagion or disgust that arises from shared touch. By contrast, in our work, there is not necessarily a shared touch component, and therefore, the underlying process is entirely different. We do think that there is room for future work to extend our theory to other consumer contexts that lead to reduced product identification and lower efficacy. That would be a nice contribution to the literature.

Q: Your research suggests that shared product usage may lower perceived efficacy, potentially leading to overuse and declining brand loyalty. At the same time, providing single-use products (like toiletries in hotels) raises sustainability concerns. What advice would you offer hospitality businesses trying to balance guest experience with environmental goals?

A: It is crucial for companies to think of the environmental impact of their policies and products. Companies should consider investing in technologies and using materials that are consistent with both societal and environmental goals and individual customer experience. For example, most restaurants now only offer compostable paper straws in place of plastic ones.

Q: Do digital or virtual product-sharing experiences (e.g., co-watching, app demos) show similar psychological effects?

A: We focused our investigation on physical goods; however, it would be interesting for future research to explore whether the same effect holds for digital or virtual experiences.

Q: How can brands apply your findings in designing product sampling or trial experiences? For example, in stores like Sephora, where trial products are typically shared, what should marketers consider to preserve or enhance perceived product efficacy?

A: To address the negative effects of sharing, businesses might consider strengthening social bonds among users. For stores like Sephora, this could be achieved by organizing community events or by adopting messaging that fosters a sense of belonging, such as Olive Garden’s tagline: “We’re all family here.”

Source: Lama Lteif, Lauren Block, Thomas Kramer, and Mahima Hada (2024), “The Influence of Shared Consumption on Product Efficacy Perceptions: The Detrimental Effect of Sharing with Strangers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (3), 536–51. doi:10.1177/00222437231181137