Dissecting sustainability myths in the market through the history of books and video rental

ABSTRACT

This study examines the notion of substitutionalism, which assumes that the introduction of sustainable alternatives will inherently displace unsustainable production and consumption systems. By studying the emergence of two historical examples of sustainable consumption, book and video rental, this study offers a unique opportunity to understand the effects of sharing from a distance and as a dominant consumption practice. The findings show that commercial lending did not displace new sales; instead, it transformed these subjects into mass-consumer products. Rental offered a lower price, greater supply, established new branches, and turned reading books and watching movies at home into consumer cultures. Producers initially resisted rental, but seized shares of the income as rental grew, and controlled the rental market so that cannibalization of the conventional consumption practices was avoided. This research challenges the core assumption of substitutionalism and highlights the need for a deeper understanding of market dynamics.

KEYWORDS:

• Cannibalization
• sustainable consumption
• sharing economy
• substitutionalism
• video
• libraries

1. Introduction

Substitutionalism¹ is the idea that the central solution to sustainability problems is to replace the existing unsustainable production and consumption systems with more sustainable alternatives. For example, to address the energy crisis, renewable energy should eclipse fossil fuels; the food crisis can be tackled by plant-based proteins replacing meat; the plastic crisis can be alleviated by biomass displacing fossil materials, and for the resource crisis, circulated and shared resources should substitute resources extracted from the planet. In this way, we can continue as before.

Substitutionalism rests on the assumption that the development of sustainable alternatives possesses a political agency to halt, avoid, and phase out unsustainable alternatives. The market may thereby solve the problems it has created (Nicoletta and Carpentier 2022). However, if there is no displacement, the sustainable alternatives will end up on top of the prevailing unsustainable production and consumption systems. This means that the sustainable alternatives will add, rather than reduce, emissions to the ongoing production and consumption systems (Zink and Geyer 2017). Hence, if the sustainable alternatives do not replace the unsustainable ones, the environmental legitimacy of substitutionalism is lost. The aim of this study is, therefore, to examine if the development of alternative consumption models can effectively avoid, phase out, disrupt, and shrink the conventional systems.

To analyze and delimit the aim, a specific form of ethical and sustainable consumption will be closely scrutinized: sharing. The logic and challenges of substitutionalism differ depending on what is to be substituted. However, sharing serves as an illuminating example of the fundamental assumption that supports substitutionalism. This is because the environmental benefits of sharing primarily rely on the assumption that sharing an underutilized product increases the utilization rate of each item, thus supposedly displacing the need for new product production (Belk 2014; Botsman and Rogers 2011).

Sharing products, like other circular practices, comes with an environmental impact through actually handling the product, and such necessary pre-consumption preparations as cleaning, maintenance and transportation (Skjelvik, Erlandsen, and Haavardsholm 2017). However, since sharing a product is assumed to supersede the production of one or more new products, which have comparatively larger environmental impacts than handling and preparations for sharing, emissions are also avoided. As sharing's environmental impact is comparatively lower than new production, this consumption practice results in positive environmental effects (Heinrichs 2013; Mi and Coffman 2019; Prothero et al. 2011). Thereby, sharing becomes an ecologically sustainable consumption form.

Empirically, clarifying the market impact of sharing on new purchases and production has proven challenging. Intuitively, we might assume that proximity, to an event, time, or phenomenon, provide clarity and understanding. However, studies on the present impact of sharing are as accurate in their smallest detail as they are unusable. Some studies show that sharing reduces new sales (Tyrowicz, Krawczyk and Hardy 2020; Zervas, Proserpio and Byers 2017; Martin, Shaheen and Lidicker 2010), while others show that it does not (Zhang and Zhang 2018; Heo, Blal and Choi 2019; Oberholzer and Strumpf 2007). The result depends on the choice of models, indicators, assumptions, consumer groups, and practices.

The uncertain state of knowledge that comes from focusing on snapshots of the present opens up space for commercial and powerful agents to colonize and dominate knowledge and define our culture. The detailed studies on how the emerging sharing economy affects the market demonstrate how proximity can obscure the understanding of a phenomenon. Often, clarity and comprehension emerge only in retrospect, from a distance, once events have concluded, rather than during its development. This is why history is important in uncertain times.

To increase the knowledge about how sharing affects established production and consumption systems and whether it actually displaces new purchases and production, the emergence of two historical forms of commercial sharing will be examined and compared: libraries and video rentals. The purpose of this study is to investigate what history can teach us about how the emergence of video and book rental affected contemporary consumption systems and cultures. More directly expressed, this article focuses on how sharing constructed consumption of books and videos through marketing strategies that influenced behaviors, habits and attitudes.

As we will see, commercial sharing of books and videos did not displace new production; on the contrary, sharing developed in symbiosis with the sale of new books and films and even transformed these markets from expensive rare products into mass-consumer products. In fact, by offering an ephemeral, exchangeable, flexible and accessible form of consumption and disposal, the video stores, and particularly the circulating libraries 200 years earlier, constitute early manifestations of consumerism (Bauman 2007, 31).

This study shows that seemingly ethical and sustainable consumption practices like sharing do not necessarily displace, avoid, disrupt or reduce unsustainable consumption and production practices. In individual cases, a person may choose to share a product instead of buying it. However, this individualized logic cannot directly translate to how the market is affected by seemingly sustainable consumption practices like sharing. The benefits created for consumers and producers through sharing can, as this study shows, rather stimulate and induce consumption and production. This inverted impact of sharing is the main contribution of this study, as lessons from history thus raise important questions about fundamental assumptions within the current environmental policy's focus on substitutionalism, where investments in sustainable alternatives are assumed to automatically outcompete unsustainable alternatives (Johansson 2021; MacBride 2019; Stowell and Corvellec 2023). Hence, by intertwining the present with the past, this study challenges prevailing sustainability myths in the market, underscoring the political potential of consumer culture history.

Compared to previous studies on sharing, which are almost all ahistorically forward-leaning, this study focuses on two forms of sharing that have previously received remarkably limited attention in relation to contemporary issues and debates: libraries and video rental, even though they are the roots of sharing and thus inspired its semantics and business models (Acquier, Daudigeos, and Pinkse 2017; Belk 2010). By studying sharing practices that developed in different countries with a 200-year interval, this article contributes to deepening the understanding of commercial sharing as nothing new but rather a continuation of a long-standing practice (Wooliscroft 2008).

Previous studies, primarily quantitative, have examined the impact of sharing on the market by studying how the individual act of sharing has influenced the act of purchase (Klein et al. 2022; Martin, Shaheen, and Lidicker 2010; Rob and Waldfogel 2006; Smith and Telang 2009; Tyrowicz, Krawczyk, and Hardy 2020; Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers 2017). In contrast to previous studies, this study is interested not only in how sharing affects new purchases but also consumers and producers.² The study's emphasis on the relationships between sharing, consumers, and producers enables an explanation of how and why sharing results in a positive impact on consumption and production. A final contribution is the conceptualization, definition, and problematization of substitutionalism.

2. Theory

Sharing as a consumption practice is characterized by the temporary absence of ownership (Lessig 2008), allowing more people to benefit from the same product or service. Recent advances in digitalization through smartphones, and apps have facilitated “connections between users and businesses’ (Schor and Vallas 2021, 371) and sharing with strangers (Schor 2014), but do not really relate to the essence of sharing as a practice (Eckhardt and Bardhi 2015).

The absence of user ownership is central to sharing as a consumption practice (Lessig 2008). For a product to be shared, however, someone, an individual or organization, must own or at least be responsible for providing the product (cf. Kathan, Matzler, and Veider 2016). Therefore, the organization of sharing typically involves hierarchies, and the access to the shared product is usually temporary. Sharing is rarely completely open since it involves various limitations and some form of agreement, relationship, or contact.

However, Belk (2014) argues that sharing cannot involve money, as such sharing should rather be considered as a traditional economic exchange. Belk's exclusion of commercial sharing has, however, been criticized for reinforcing “modernist dichotomies’ (Arnould and Rose 2016) by, for example, overlooking the role of money in informal sharing (cf. Benkler 2004). Regardless of definitions, examining commercial sharing is important given its dominance in the emerging sharing economy (Eckhardt et al. 2019).

So far, the critical analysis of commercial sharing has primarily focused on the social and labor-related problems with the sharing platforms (Arcidiacono, Gandini, and Pais 2018; Dubal 2017). Sharing is understood as a form of hyper-capitalism, a gig economy, an intensification of neoliberalism that reinforces social injustices (Martin 2016; Murillo, Buckland, and Val 2017) and increases surveillance (Wood and Monahan 2019). This study will expand the discussion about the dark sides of commercial sharing, by questioning the perception of sharing as an ethical and sustainable practice. This is important to better understand because environmental motives are a central reason for people to engage in sharing and the background to why sharing is considered ethically, the right thing to do (Akbar and Hoffmann 2018; Hartl, Kamleitner, and Holub 2020; Lamberton and Rose 2012). The study critically analyzes whether commercial sharing is an environmentally friendly consumption form, a new pathway to sustainability (Heinrichs 2013), a critique of hyper-consumption (Botsman and Rogers 2011), an anti-consumption culture (Ozanne and Ballantine 2010) that reduces new purchases, consumption, and production (Botsman and Rogers 2011). In other words, the foundation that provides meaning to sharing as a sustainable practice will be examined.

2.1. Market cannibalization

To study how commercial sharing affects purchases, consumption, and production, this study uses the marketing concept of cannibalization (Copulsky 1976; Drezner 2011). Cannibalization refers to the risk that launching a new product or service may disrupt the sales volumes, revenue, or market shares of an existing product or service. For example, when a refurbished cellphone is purchased instead of a new phone, sales are cannibalized (Guide and Li 2010). In marketing and for individual companies, cannibalization is typically perceived as negative (Atasu, Guide, and Van Wassenhove 2010). However, from a sustainability perspective, cannibalization is positive if a product or service displaces a ditto with a greater environmental impact.

Regardless of whether cannibalization is seen as something positive or negative, market research fails to furnish a definitive response regarding whether sharing cannibalizes new purchases. Some studies indicate that sharing reduces the need for new products. For example, each car offered through car-sharing has been estimated to displace between 4–13 cars (Martin, Shaheen, and Lidicker 2010; Ryden and Morin 2005). On the other hand, there are also studies pointing in the opposite direction, suggesting that sharing does not cannibalize but rather has a positive impact on new purchases and consumption. For example, the low price of car-sharing and ride-hailing services, increases the availability of cars also for car-free households, who previously relied on other means of transport (Schaller 2021; Amatuni et al. 2020; Gehrke, Felix, and Reardon 2019; Le Vine et al. 2014). Clewlow and Mishra (2017) found that up to 61% of ride-hailing trips replaced public transport, walking, cycling, or not making a trip.

Similarly, there are studies showing how room sharing has negatively affected the hotel industry (Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers 2017), thus replacing traditional accommodation. However, there are also studies showing that room sharing has created a new market segment of tourism that demands cheap and local authentic experiences (Ioannides, Röslmaier, and Van Der Zee 2019). For example, around 50% of Airbnb users in the US would never have booked a hotel in the absence of sharing platforms (Farronato and Fradkin 2018). Thus, room sharing has increased tourism activity, air travel, and travel frequency (Tussyadiah and Pesonen 2016).

Quantitative studies of another type of sharing, illegal file-sharing of music and films, show that sharing 100 pirate copies displaces between 20–40 legitimate products (Hui and Png 2003; Rob and Waldfogel 2006; Tyrowicz, Krawczyk, and Hardy 2020; Zentner 2006). However, others argue that piracy has no influence on legitimate sales (Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf 2007: Smith and Telang 2009). This is because piracy may speed up diffusion (Prasad and Mahajan 2003), increase product awareness (Peitz and Waelbroeck 2004), and offer a sample (Gopal, Bhattacharjee, and Sanders 2006), which increases interest in buying the physical product with higher quality and additional material.

Thus, the quantitative studies on whether sharing practices cannibalize new sales are ambiguous, depending on sharing practices, indicators, and assumptions. However, the studies nonetheless show that the effects are complex. For example, sharing may displace other activities than new purchases and even encourage new purchases. So even if a consumer in need of a product chooses to borrow it instead of buying it, various stimulating and catalyzing market effects may lead to an increase in new purchases, rather than a decrease.

3. Method

To critically examine how commercial sharing cannibalizes purchases, consumption, and production of new products, this study investigates the historical emergence of two forms of sharing: circulating libraries and video rental stores. Both circulating libraries and video rental stores represent examples of commercial sharing, in that patrons pay for temporary access to physical products, which they do not own.

Both cases developed in the Global North into the dominant consumption practices for their respective products. For example, renting video films was so dominant that the name video store became synonymous with video rental during the 1980s. So, unlike contemporary sharing platforms that mainly engage a limited and conscious part of the middle class (Kathan, Matzler, and Veider 2016; Ozcan, Möhlmann, and Krishnamoorthy 2018; Schor and Attwood-Charles 2017), studying the rental of books and videos opens up possibilities to examine the market effects of sharing as a dominant consumption practice.

The main reason for focusing on video and book rental is the possibility to study the effects of sharing from a distance and over a longer time period. Previous studies on the impact of sharing on consumption have primarily provided quantitative snapshots of sharing activities that are still under development, leading to significant uncertainties and contradictory results. On the other hand, a historical perspective may discern long-term trends, time-series, patterns, and relationships that may be difficult to capture in more short-lived and fragmented studies (cf. Fagan 2000). Historical studies enable cultural changes and earlier events that seemed insignificant during development to be studied in a new light (cf. Perez 2019). By offering lessons from the past, history poses important questions about the present (Didi-Huberman 2018). By delving into past events and contexts, history evokes memories, prompts thoughts, and invites the reader to reflect on the implications and lessons derived. The historical lens thereby provides a more accessible and relatable pathway for the general reader, than theoretical consumer culture studies (Brown 2011), or quantitative models of the cannibalization effect of sharing. Furthermore, the forms of sharing offered through circulating libraries and video rental are still relevant today, albeit limited in scale, for example, through bookstores (e.g. ValoreBooks) that offer rental.

By studying and contrasting two different examples of sharing, this study can capture overarching patterns and causalities about sharing's impact on consumption and production. The study of sharing books and videos shall thus be seen as comparative historical cases (Mahoney and Rueschemeyer 2003). It is an inductive method commonly used in sociology, political science, political economy, marketing, and anthropology to understand and explain complexities, development, and the impact of social phenomena (Lange 2013). The method is often used to test theories and hypotheses across different historical contexts, time periods, and cases, with the goal of identifying causation, how different factors, and underlying processes interact and influence outcomes across cases (Burr 2012; Dobbin 2005; Mahoney and Rueschemeyer 2003). However, the downside of a method that focuses on causation is that differences may be overshadowed, which the reader should be aware of.

There are significant differences between video and book rental. Book and video rental developed in two different countries during two different time periods. Circulating libraries emerged in the Great Britain during the 1730s (McKillop 1934), while video stores emerged in the US from the late 1970s (Greenberg 2008). It is no coincidence that these two regions played a central role in the development of book and film rental, respectively. When video stores emerged during the 1970s and 1980s, the American film industry was globally dominant (Biskind 1999), while the British book industry was globally dominant during the development of circulating libraries in the 1730s (Raven 2007). By focusing on these countries, the study can thus examine in-depth the conflicts and relationships between emerging sharing practices and dominant producers. However, this also means that the study is primarily delimited to the Anglo-Saxon cultures, even though circulating libraries and video stores spread internationally, pushed by colonialism, to the Global South (Larkin 2000; Wade and Fermanis 2023).

Historical comparative analysis uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative data (Lange 2013). Hence, this study is based on historical documents as well as statistical data. Furthermore, information for analyzing the development of the two case studies has been collected from both historical primary and secondary sources (Tosh 2015). The sources used thus encompass materials from the time period of the rental business as well as subsequent analyses.

To explore the literature on the evolution of commercial libraries in the Great Britain and video rental in the US, various search methods were employed, including Google Scholar and Google News Archives. Relevant search terms such as “video stores,” “video rental,” “libraries,” and “circulating libraries’ were utilized. However, since circulating libraries emerged further back in history, there is less primary material preserved, so information for this form was collected to a greater extent from secondary sources.

Initially, broad search terms were deliberately selected to gain a comprehensive understanding of the emergence of video and book rental as dominant consumption practices. The inclusion of articles was primarily based on their relevance to each country in focus and how these forms of sharing evolved into dominant consumption practices for books and videos. Subsequently, more specific searches were conducted to explore how these practices affected aspects such as new purchases, production, and consumption. This involved using combined search terms such as “video rental” + “sales,” “video rental” + “film studios,” and “circulating libraries’ + “publishers.” In some cases, sources emerged by chance, such as the images of the first video store (Figure 1), while reading about the film studios’ protests against video rental (US Congress 1982).

Figure 1. Pictures from the first video rental stores in the US, including the Video Station (US Congress 1982).

To analyze the impact of video rental in the US and circulating libraries in the Great Britain, two complementary approaches were undertaken. First, a descriptive analysis was conducted to examine how producers’ attitudes towards commercial sharing changed over time, specifically focusing on how they perceived the impact of rental on traditional consumption and production systems. This exploration of producers’ attitudes provided valuable insights into the dynamics of the emerging sharing practices, the complexity of predicting market development and the difference between what is logically assumed when alternative activities are emerging compared to when they are dominating the market.

Subsequently, a comparative analysis of the cases was performed based on different themes (Herzog, Handke, and Hitters 2019) that could explain the changing attitudes over time. This information was inductively derived from the collected information, uncovering the causal mechanisms, driving forces, and processes by which video and book lending influenced and shaped consumption and production during that time. By employing such a comparative historical method, the study aimed to capture the broader patterns and causalities of how commercial sharing impacted the consumption and production of books and videos, allowing for a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between sharing practices and consumption systems and cultures. The validity of the information was ensured by comparing data from different sources whenever possible, with sensitivity to internal contradictions, purposes, and biases (Rampolla 2012, 9).

4. Findings

To contextualize the impact of commercial sharing on conventional consumption and production systems, this study first presents the producers’ attitudes towards sharing. Subsequently, a comparative analysis identifies the mechanisms and dynamics of sharing that have influenced these attitudes.

4.1. Producers’ changing attitudes

Initially, when the lending business emerged, producers, sellers, and other stakeholders operating within the established book and film consumption and production systems were negative about the emergence of lending practices in Britain in the 1730s and in the US in the late 1970s (Roehl and Varian 2001).

James Lackington (1794:, 247), owner of one of the largest bookstores in eighteenth-century Great Britain, described in his memoirs how many booksellers viewed libraries as direct competitors:

When circulating libraries were first opened, the booksellers were much alarmed, and their rapid increase, added to their fears, had led them to think that the sale of books would be much diminished by such libraries.

From the publishers’ perspective, there was a concern that increased lending would lead to reduced total sales, resulting in income loss per each reading. For instance, Thomas Wilson, operating a circulating library in Bromley, Kent, highlighted this issue in his hyperbolic promotion of lending by stating that “the annual subscriber may read as many books for one guinea, which, to purchase, would cost one hundred” (Wilson 1797, 10). Even successful writers like Jane Austen (1814:, 419) expressed reluctance to reprint their books in new editions as “People are more ready to borrow […] than to buy.”

Similarly, the first video rental stores in the US faced even stronger resistance than the first book lenders, primarily due to the film industry's organized efforts to protect their interests through industry associations (cf. Rollings 2023). Shortly after George Atkinson opened the first video rental store, Video Station, in Los Angeles in 1977 (Sullivan 2009, 332), Figure 1, he was threatened with a lawsuit by the film studios (Opri 1986, 331). They feared that growing rentals would further reduce cinema visits, exacerbating the decline that started with the introduction of television (Liebowitz 2004, 13), and excluding them from the home video market's revenues (Atley 1985, 12).

However, first-sale doctrine granted buyers the legal right to rent out products without paying royalties (Opri 1986, 331). Consequently, the film industry shifted its focus to lobbying for the repeal of first-sale doctrine in the early 1980s (Greenberg 2008, 119). In a dramatic statement to the US Congress (1982:, 8), the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti, stated that the Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) was to producers what “the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone,” elaborating that a customer could rent a film hundreds of times without “pay[ing] the producer a dime”. Two major film studios, Universal and Disney, viewed the VCR as such a significant threat – due to its capacity for recording, bypassing advertisements, and facilitating pirate sharing – that they sued Sony, the VCR manufacturer, in the famous Betamax case, which they eventually lost (Lardner 1987).

This turned out to be a stroke of luck. As commercial sharing expanded across the US during the 1980s and Great Britain in the 1700s, it became clear to producers that rental positively impacted their interests, leading to a shift in their attitudes. For instance, Jack Valenti, once a vocal opponent of video rental, expressed a change in a speech at the sixth annual convention of the Video Software Dealers Association in 1987, stating, “We are allies for the simplest and grandest of reasons. As your business grows, so does ours’ (Mathews 1987). Similarly, the English bookseller James Lackington (1794:, 247) came to argue in favor of book lending, stating that “the sale of books, so far from being diminished by them [circulating libraries], has been greatly promoted.”

4.2. The symbiotic relationships

So why did the producers’ attitude change? The factors described below explain the symbiotic relationships that developed between commercial book and film rental, on the one hand, and established consumption and production systems on the other.

4.2.1. The price

One significant concern for sellers was that the rental companies could offer access to the same products at a lower cost, potentially undercutting their sales. For example in the 1700s, an annual all-inclusive membership in a British circulating library cost approximately twice as much as buying one novel (Kasten 2006, 6). Similarly, in 1977, George Atkinson, a pioneer of the video industry, provided film rentals at a fifth of the price of purchasing the same film in the US (Mclellan 2005).

However, renting did not primarily transform customers from buyers to renters; instead, it attracted formerly untapped consumer segments that previously did not have access to the products. During their respective eras, books and home movies represented luxury items, predominantly accessible to the affluent segments of society. For instance, a popular film like Star Wars: A New Hope cost about $120 (Greenberg 2008, 85), while noteworthy biographies could cost over £2 towards the late 1700s (Altick 1957, 52). These prices equate to $380 and $330, respectively, in 2023s monetary value³ (Bank of England 2023; Williamson 2023).

Renting was certainly cheaper than buying books and films, but initially, it was still relatively expensive. For example, an annual membership in a circulating library in 1750 was equivalent to half a month's salary for a worker at the time (Curtler 1909; Kasten 2006, 6). The video pioneer George Atkinson rented out films for $10 each, equivalent to $50 in 2023 (Williamson 2023). However, over time, lending models were developed to meet various economic means and demand. Circulating libraries started offering lending per day. For example, James Woollen's Circulating Library in Sheffield offered individual volumes for two nights for a mere penny in 1806 (Grenby 2002), corresponding to $1.50 per book in 2023 (Bank of England 2023). Films were rented out for under a dollar at the end of the 1980s (Figure 2), equating to less than $2.50 per movie in 2023 (Williamson 2023).

Figure 2. Ad from the video franchise Phar-Mor, published in the Ocala StarBanner, 8 December, 1989, p. 24.

As a result, the lower rental price allowed the wider population, who previously could not afford to buy home movies and books, to consume these products. The products became affordable (Roehl and Varian 2001). Thus, renting made the products accessible to consumer segments that were previously excluded. As Richardson aptly wrote (1935, 196):

the majority of its [circulating libraries] borrowers are people who would never pay seven shillings and six pence for a new novel, who would very rarely buy books in any case, and who would simply read far fewer books, instead of buying more, if the libraries were swept out of existence.

4.2.2. Diversification

New customer segments were also attracted by the transformation of literature and movies through the lending system, which led to the flourishing of certain, often less respectable but highly popular genres. As suggested by Roehl and Varian (2001), prior to the emergence of circulating libraries; there wasn't much to read that was interesting. The few books people owned, if any at all, served primarily for rereading purposes and consisted of non-fiction works such as encyclopedias, manuals, and religious texts. Early libraries, such as those in ancient Greece or medieval monasteries, revolved around the advancement of knowledge, focusing on subjects like history, politics, theology, and philosophy (Loomis 1994, 608).

Before circulating libraries, books were not only expensive; they primarily served practical, spiritual, or knowledge-oriented functions. However, since the priority of commercial libraries was to meet demand, they focused mainly on fiction, especially novels. Hence, the concept of books as entertainment in the form of novels grew with the rise of circulating libraries in the 1730s (Altick 1957, 50; Erickson 1996; Simons 2001), as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The number of novels released per decade in the Great Britain between the years 1600–1799 (Simons 2001).

In contrast to the previous knowledge-oriented libraries, the commercial libraries welcomed anyone who could afford them. The emphasis on fiction attracted women who, before, had limited access to libraries, as they were excluded from scholarly circles. For instance, Rowntree and Lavers (1951, 307) estimated that about 70% of visitors to one of the largest circulating library chains in Britain were women, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The circulating library, drawing by John Raphael Smith, 1781, from The British Museum.

Likewise, video rental and the opportunity to watch movies at home with increased privacy encouraged the development of genres that involved “intriguing, yet socially unacceptable material” (Levy 1989, 31), such as erotic films (Coopersmith 1998, 103) and horror movies (Pratt 2015, 332). In the early 1980s, the annual release of pornographic films increased by 400% compared to the late 1970s (Greenberg 2008, 95), constituting 20-25% of revenues for many video stores (Herbert 2014, 64). As exemplified by the adverts for the bare-breasted horror movies Breeders, Dreamaniac (Figure 5), and Headless Eyes (Wizard 1986):

No movie theatre could possibly exhibit these nightmarish tales […] designed exclusively for enjoyment in the privacy of your own home, where the light switch is only a step away, and the pause button can give you a chance to recover from some of the most terrifying horror scenes ever produced.

By diversifying the supply and developing the art of books and films, the rental services attracted new consumers. Moreover, the popularization of new genres through rentals contributed to the establishment of specialized producers, adapted to the most lucrative rental sectors (Coopersmith 1998, 104; Wilson 2014).

Figure 5. Front cover of the film Dreamaniac with the warning “too gory for the silver screen.” Used under CC BY-SA from Headhunter’s Horror House.⁸

4.2.3. Adoption

The lower price offered by rentals played a particularly central role in the development of home video. In the late 1970s, most people in the US had a TV, but when movies started to be rented out, a VCR cost around $1,000 (Roehl and Varian 2001), equivalent to approximately $5,200 in 2023 (Williamson 2023). Consequently, very few could afford a VCR. A few years after the introduction of video rentals, in the early 1980s, only 1% of the US population owned a VCR (Lin 2001), as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. The percentage of American households that owned a VCR between the years 1981–2000 (Thierer 2008).

Thus, video stores began to rent out the playback devices along with video films. This combined rental option became so popular that video devices were specifically developed and adapted for rental purposes. For instance, in early 1982, the RentaBeta was introduced, which was rented out with an optional, but sealed, video cassette (Greenberg 2008, 89).

The lower prices established by rental thus became a prerequisite for democratizing video technology, making it available to a broader audience. Furthermore, the video stores’ large selection of films at affordable prices made it attractive for many people to invest in their own VCRs, as depicted in Figure 6, especially as the device prices fell during the 1980s (Harvey and Rothe 1986). As a result, video rental played a central role in popularizing video technology⁴, making home videos a common feature in most families’ living rooms in the Global North.

The rental of films thus drove the acquisition of equipment, which was crucial for the long-term growth of the market (Roehl and Varian 2001). Similarly, circulating libraries also contributed to the long-term growth of the book market, albeit in a different way. By popularizing books as a form of entertainment, through the novel, the libraries fostered an interest in reading, which, in turn, promoted literacy (Altick 1957, 63). Alongside educational reforms and improved printing technology at the turn of the nineteenth century, libraries and fiction collectively played a role in increasing literacy rates in England (Altick 1957). According to Charles Knight's (1854:, 131) optimistic estimates, the number of frequent readers in England rose from 80,000 in 1800 to 5 million in 1850. Hence, both the rental of books and the rental of films, two centuries later, contributed to the cultivation of the necessary skills for engaging with these products effectively.

4.2.4. The renting model

The rental model for books and films encouraged a culture of ephemeral consumption characterized by rapid turnover and exchangeability. For book rentals, customers typically subscribed to a yearly, quarterly, or monthly payment scheme (Skelton-Foord 2002, 139), which allowed store owners to build up an inventory. However, this model also incentivized patrons to optimize their rental period by borrowing as many books, for as short a time per book, as possible. To manage this, limitations were introduced on the number of titles that could be borrowed simultaneously, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Subscription fees to Mudie’s Select Library in 1860 (Mudie 1860, 2), presented in relation to the number of volumes, months the membership covered and its price.

Initially, video rental also required annual membership fees to bolster inventory (Greenberg 2008, 65). Yet, the primary rental model for video films was based on a pay-per-use system, akin to the structure developed for book rentals in the nineteenth century (as mentioned under the price headline). Charging for short rental periods of one or two days did not overtly encourage consumption; instead, it led to concentrating the consumption practices of video films due to the limited available viewing time.

Both rental models promoted intensive and extensive consumption patterns. The first model encouraged such behavior within the stipulated paid period, while the latter pushed for intense consumption due to constrained timeframes, alongside extensive consumption due to the low cost per loan. Consequently, books and films were typically utilized once and then returned, with customers expecting to discover something new on their next visit (Marks 1999).

To maintain a loyal customer base, rental stores needed a continual influx of new titles, fostering a substantial demand for new releases. The emergence of circulating libraries in the 1730s contributed, along with, for example, lower printing costs, to the increase in the number of book titles released annually in the Great Britain (Simons 2001), as shown in Figure 8. Additionally, the lower production and distribution costs of video films compared to theatrical films (Coopersmith 1998, 104) resulted in a rise in the number of film titles released annually in the US, with the growth of video rental. For example, in 1980, 209 films were released in the US, compared to 515 in 1986 (McWilliams 1992, 103).

Figure 8. Number of book titles released annually in the Great Britain between the years 1600–1799 (Simons 2001).

The membership programs offered by rental businesses allowed them to build customer relationships, provide tailored recommendations, and sustain interest in consumption. Circulating libraries, as shown in Figure 4, became a meeting place for women, who previously lacked, compared to men, clubs that offered an escape from daily chores (Erickson 1996, 129). These libraries provided, through their designated reading rooms (Erickson 1990, 109), a space for books to be discussed and recommended, bolstered by the clerks who organized author talks, events and other activities. Similarly, the newsletters from the video stores communicated information to members about new releases, exclusive events, loyalty rewards, and special offers (Greenberg 2008, 101), promoting further interest in the products.

4.2.5. Reciprocity

Even though books and films in many cases were certainly rented instead of purchased, rental as an activity did not primarily substitute the established forms of consumption and production, as initially feared by the producers. Instead, rental displaced entirely different activities. To exemplify, book lending primarily displaced physical activities, prompting harsh criticism for diverting individuals from reality, real-life matters and duties (Vogorinčić 2008). For example, in the play The Rivals by Richard Sheridan (1775, 28) circulating libraries are satirically referred to “as an evergreen tree, of diabolical knowledge”.

Furthermore, video film rental did not culminate in the predicted decline in cinema attendance. In fact, during the video rental boom, from 1977 to 1997, the annual US box office revenue increased 13 times⁵ (IMDB 2023). Video rental viewing was generally perceived by the public as a separate activity from going to the movies, according to Krugman and Johnson (1991). Therefore, video rentals were primarily displacing other activities such as traditional television viewing (Lee and Lumpkin 1992).

Rather than cannibalizing, rental benefited established forms of consumption and production. Notably, heavy videocassette renters were the group that visited cinemas most often (Nmungwun 2012, 217) since “renting movies every day encourages [people] to go see them” (Thompson 1987, 29). Furthermore, as the price of video films decreased during the 1990s, when the video market saturated, customers increasingly turned to buying VHS films⁶ (Roehl and Varian 2001) to cultivate their personal home video collections. This echoes Lackington’s sentiment 200 years earlier (1794, 248):

Thousands of books are purchased each year by such as have first borrowed them at those libraries, and after reading, approving of them, have become purchaser.

Contemporary research has also confirmed that library visitors tend to buy more books than those who do not visit libraries (BookNet Canada 2019). Engaging in rental activities enriches customers’ familiarity with the product, augmenting their inclination towards ownership (cf. Durgee and Colarelli 1995, 94). Circulating libraries, as well as video rental stores, were often combined with the sale of books and movies (Wilson 2014, 430), respectively, making it easier to purchase products that were previously hard to find.⁷

4.2.6. Protectionism

The fact that rental did not cannibalize but rather benefited traditional forms of production and consumption was significantly shaped by corporate strategies. As the rental market grew, producers sought to secure a share of the revenues from lending through various forced agreements, such as the Public Lending Right (Stave 1981) and revenue-sharing models (Dana and Spier 2001). Such arrangements made it more profitable for rental stores to invest in titles from major producers, at the expense of supply diversity.

Once the producers were involved, they aimed to control the sharing practices to intentionally favor prevailing and traditional forms of consumption. For instance, by implementing a smart model where films were released on video 6–30 months after their cinema premiere (Owen and Wildman 1992, 30), film studios effectively created an after-market for their products. This strategic maneuver extended the lifespan of films, generating income even after they would usually disappear from the public eye (Chiou 2008), thereby avoiding cannibalization.

By offering circulating libraries novels at half the price compared to in-store purchases (Skelton-Foord 1998, 351), publishers prompted libraries to mainly acquire and rent out fiction, relegating knowledge-oriented books to a secondary position. Furthermore, the rental models promoted quick turnover, which were less suitable for knowledge-oriented and other non-fictional books that served a rereading function. Hence, Hamlyn (1946:, 218) and Wilson (1797:, 27) observed that the typical proportion of fiction in a circulating library was close to 80%. This skewed distribution meant that knowledge-oriented books, encyclopedias, and religious texts, which fulfilled a rereading function, continued to be primarily purchased to be accessed, even after the rise of circulating libraries.

5. Concluding discussion

The comparative examination of circulating libraries’ and video stores’ historical trajectories provides an innovative and unique vantage point to scrutinize the fallacies of substitutionalism. By intertwining the present with the past, this historical study raises questions about the contemporary assumption regarding the transformative and disruptive potential of sharing (Eckhardt et al. 2019) to displace unsustainable consumption and production practices.

Neither books nor movie rentals were marketed as sustainable modes of consumption. Nonetheless, with 200 years between them, they represent sharing as a practice. This historical retrospective highlights the enduring effects of sharing as the dominant consumption practice when examined over an extended period, which may be challenging to uncover through momentary studies (cf. Martin, Shaheen, and Lidicker 2010; Tyrowicz, Krawczyk, and Hardy 2020; Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers 2017). The study of book and video rental, for example, elucidated how the attitude toward sharing changed over time.

In the initial stages of sharing books and films, there was a prevalent belief, just as today (Cramer and Krueger 2016; Guide and Li 2010 ; Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers 2017), that sharing would cannibalize new purchases and that sharing thereby posed a serious threat to traditional firms; signaling a radical transformative potential of sharing. However, due to symbiotic relationships that emerged between sharing and conventional forms of consumption and production, this practice not only developed in tandem with new sales, but orchestrated the metamorphosis of films and books from expensive and rare commodities into mass-consumer goods.

The retrospective study of renting at a distance demonstrates that sharing over time created such accessibility and dissemination of products that it significantly contributed to the emergence of new cultures, such as leisure reading (Erickson 1996; 1990) and watching movies at home (Greenberg 2008). Thanks to the affordability of book rentals that developed over time and a growing focus on books as entertainment, circulating libraries strongly contributed to making reading a hobby accessible to the broader public during the Georgian era (Altick 1957, 50). Similarly, video rentals during the 1980s transformed films into culturally individualized commodities, just like books (Butsch 2000). Renting a video on the weekend became as common as watching TV, listening to music, or reading a book.

The video stores and circulating libraries provided also a vast and affordable supply, which offered customers the freedom to choose, hinting at the “age of infinite choice” (Anderson 2006, 200). The accessible and diverse supply, combined with the low price and limited loan period of each product, drove the emergence of an exchangeable, ephemeral (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017), disposable, and intensive consumption of books and films. This led to the creation of rapid socio-material relationships between people and the products, mirroring contemporary consumption patterns seen in fashion, food, and disposable goods (Joy et al. 2012). Books and films became, through the sharing model, products that were swiftly consumed, often just once, before being replaced with something new.

To retain customer interest in rentals, it became crucial to offer a large number of the most popular books and films. Yet, demand for the latest products diminished rapidly. For example, Mortimer (2008:, 175) estimated that “After 20 weeks […] nearly 98% of all [video] rentals have occurred.” Consequently, rental stores constantly faced an oversupply, an abundance of previously popular products that could not reasonably continue taking up space, leading to their second-hand sale or disposal (Hamlyn 1946), to accommodate new releases (Skelton-Foord 2002, 147). These rentable products easily fell out of fashion, became obsolete, outdated and redundant. Such ephemeral, exchangeable, and flexible consumption and disposal of products, in which consumer desires are destabilized, are key characteristics of consumerism, according to Bauman (2007, 31). This suggests that the sharing model, through the circulating libraries, constitutes an early pre-industrial example of consumerism.

The commercial lending models for books and videos faltered as more efficient sharing models were introduced, encouraging and amplifying consumption and disposal practices even more. For example, commercial libraries survived into the twentieth century when they faced competition from public libraries, which offered free loans, a greater supply, and locational advantages (Rassuli and Hollander 2001). Video films were phased out in the early 2000s when DVDs provided a better complement to cinema with improved quality and additional material such as interviews and cut scenes (Brookey and Westerfelhaus 2002). By the 2010s, streaming services outcompeted video stores by offering on-demand accessibility, improved control, simplicity, and bespoke curation (Herbert 2014). Streaming increased the production and consumption of TV-series and expanded binge-watching as a form of consumption (Schweidel and Moe 2016).

The historical focus on video stores and circulating libraries furnishes nevertheless valuable insights for contemporary sharing platforms. Sharing creates conditions for market expansion, benefiting both customers and producers (Eckhardt et al. 2019). The ease of exchanging products and the restricted lending time allow consumers affordable access to new products, avoiding long-term commitment, care, and lock-ins with untrendy products. Thus, lending enables customers to consume products as quickly exchangeable experiences; epitomizing a volatile consumption. In the business sphere, sharing permits multiple rounds of income generation and value creation from the same product. Producers can also reach new customer demographics, such as environmentally-conscious consumers who see sharing as a sustainable practice, as well as economically constrained individuals.

Hence, commercial sharing represents a highly effective form of capitalism (Eckhardt and Bardhi 2015; Martin 2016; Murillo, Buckland, and Val 2017). By benefiting both consumers and producers, sharing runs the risk of, rather than reducing, increasing consumption, and stimulating the production of goods. Sharing products doesn't inherently disrupt new product sales or shrink established forms of consumption and production. Therefore, sharing itself does not avoid or reduce environmental impacts. If any market agency is at play, it lies in the strategies employed by the incumbent actors to integrate sharing, which conforms sharing with prevailing consumption and production structures (cf. Martin 2016; Stål and Corvellec 2018; Wallenstein and Shelat 2017).

Incorporating sharing into business models can validate commitment to a sustainable circular economy. Nevertheless, in practice, sharing is a symbolic act (Darmody and Zwick 2020), a distraction that enables the core activities of a company, i.e. the conventional production and sale of new goods, not only to continue, but also to benefit, as a result of the emerging symbiotic relationships. Rather than reducing emissions as assumed, sharing can thereby increase emissions. This paradox, debunked thanks to history, sheds light on an often overlooked “dark side” of sharing and sustainable consumption.

This study underscores a significant gap between the assumption that sustainable alternatives displace unsustainable ones and the historical realities of such practices. While consumers may individually choose to share instead of buying, such an assumption overlooks macro-economic dynamics and strategic interventions by established actors to guide market evolution.

The idea of sharing as a radical agent and ethically the right thing to do seems just to be another imaginary market myth that effectively keeps production and natural exploitation going. This historical study is thus not a passive retrospective; it is a political act of resistance across time and space that challenges prevailing narratives of sustainable consumption. History safeguards thereby the integrity of our past while challenging contemporary trends. To move forward, a deeper understanding is required of the absent and unconscious effects, such as the symbiotic effects highlighted in this paper, which transcend individual choices, that induce consumption and production.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to anonymous reviewers and the journal editors for their helpful and constructive comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development, FORMAS, under Grant number 2023-01187.

Notes on contributors

Nils Johansson

Nils Johansson researches the intersection of sustainability, politics and circular economies. He also enjoys spending time with his kids, listing to Swedish punk rock, and playing video games.

Notes

1 Substitutionalism shall here be understood as a socio-material concept, rather than as a political concept, manifested for example by Trotsky’s (1904) critique of Leninism.

2 For a sustainable alternative to replace an unsustainable practice, it is not enough to avoid the purchase; production also needs to be prevented, as the largest environmental impact occurs during production, rather than at the point of purchase (Skjelvik, Erlandsen, and Haavardsholm 2017).

3 The monetary value for the year 2023 has been calculated by using the Consumer Price Index (Williamson 2023), which adjusts the historical prices for inflation. To convert the historical British prices into the present American value, British inflation was first taken into account (Bank of England 2023). Subsequently, the current value of the British pound was converted into US dollars. Hence, the stated prices for the year 2023 are estimations.

8 The picture is taken from https://headhuntershorrorhouse.fandom.com/wiki/Dreamaniac

4 In fact, the rental of videotapes changed the very function of the Video Cassette Recorder. From being initially marketed as a time-shifting device to record programs and films, to a machine for watching pre-recorded films (Sims 1989; Roehl & Varian, 2001).

5 The increased box office during this period was not solely driven by the emerging home video market. For example, technological advancements such as special effects, played a role, as did the popularity of sequel series and the emergence of loyal followers (youth cultures), new distribution strategies, and increased diversity (Biskind, 1999).

6 In 1992, US consumers spent $9 billion on rentals and $4 billion on purchases (Roehl & Varian, 2001). In 1996, $9.2 billion was spent on rentals and $7.3 billion on video purchases (Orwall, 1997). By 1999, the trend shifted with $8.1 billion spent on rentals and $9.2 billion on purchases (Dana & Spier 2001:226).

7 For example, “shops in which to browse [books] and people to give advice both were hard for the common reader to find” (Altick, 1957: 40). Before video rental, pre-recorded movies were primarily offered on demand in the Super 8mm film format, which often required professional connections to access (Greenberg, 2008:18-20).