Final Report Online Exchange Potential Impact

Transcription

Final Report
Online Exchange Potential Impact
A study to develop an understanding of the benefits of online exchange,
which in this report refers to the transfer of any items that are not new,
through internet exchange sites.
Project code: RES144
Research date: July 2010-May 2011
Date: November 2011
WRAP’s vision is a world without waste,
where resources are used sustainably.
We work with businesses, individuals and
communities to help them reap the
benefits of reducing waste, developing
sustainable products and using resources
in an efficient way.
Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Written by: James Batley, Resource Futures
Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]
Front cover photography: Computer keyboard
WRAP and Resource Futures believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and
regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken
in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).
The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to
ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being
inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain
whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by
WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the
material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must
not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its
web site: www.wrap.org.uk
Executive summary
This research was commissioned by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme to find out if it is
possible to measure the amount of second hand goods being exchanged online and to develop an
understanding of the benefits of online exchange of second hand items. The research has been
conducted to coincide with new evidence to prioritise actions that offer the greatest environmental
and economic benefits. Exchange of items online has grown rapidly in popularity in recent years and
market information has shown an increased diversification of the online exchange market, including
websites providing auction facilities, classified ads and forums for offering free exchange. The internet
can offer convenience for finding someone to exchange with and a wide audience when trying to sell
or exchange goods.
This method of exchange, free or otherwise, has become an essential piece in the jigsaw to
understand how people pass on items they no longer need but which can still have a useful life. This
study therefore addresses the goal of discovering to what extent reuse facilitated via online exchange
can be measured in quantity of goods exchanged.
The project involved two research stages, the first to monitor online exchange websites and the
second comprising a consumer survey. Specific websites were chosen for monitoring, including eBay,
Freecycle, Freegle, Preloved and Gumtree as well as business-to-business (b2b) exchange websites
Salvo MIE and Materials Exchange UK. Each of these works with a different type of audience in mind
and/or different goals in operating the website. While eBay is a multinational business, is well known
and has engaged in well recognised advertising campaigns, Freecycle and Freegle are almost entirely
run by volunteers and exist to serve local communities and create opportunities for reuse. The two
b2b sites included clearly cater for business audiences, while Gumtree and Preloved also operate at a
local level but are run in a more commercial way, aiming to make money from their sites while also
giving users the opportunity to make money by selling items through classified advertisements.
Twelve priority items were selected for monitoring:
Sofa
Dining table
Desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phones
Computers
Other IT, e.g. peripherals, printers & laptops
Washing machines
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Key conclusions from the monitoring

Complete monitoring was possible for eBay, where greater resources on the website and UKwide coverage, together with a clear record of whether a sale completes, made an
assessment of the final outcome of an auction possible.

An estimate of the amount of exchange taking place via free exchange sites was also made.
These sites provide final statuses of ‘received’ or ‘taken’ for many items. It is possible that,
having been listed as taken or received, some exchanges do not go through. It is also likely
that some users of the sites do not record whether or not they have found a new home for an
item and so this information is likely to be partial. The complete data provided by Freegle was
particularly helpful for measuring the total volumes being exchanged.

It was possible to make an assessment of the amount of exchange occurring via business-tobusiness sites, with some limitations. In some cases listings on these sites seem to be
permanent offers with a constant flow of some materials, such as pallets. This meant it was
not possible to tell how much was exchanged successfully since the frequency of such
exchanges could not be discerned.

Volumes of items being exchanged could be estimated (most successfully for eBay, but also
with some success for Freegle and the b2b sites) and, using demographic profiling where local
information was all that was available, scaled up to the UK. Usage of other sites was
1
monitored, including classified ad websites and Freecycle, but converting this information to
actual exchanges and scaling up to the whole of the UK was not possible.

It was also possible to estimate from these the overall weight being exchanged, using
standard conversion rates, but limited information on some of the items listed meant that
confidence in the volume of items is higher than in the weight-based information derived from
them.

The websites could improve usability and the potential to quantify this valuable information
significantly by encouraging information on whether or not a successful exchange has taken
place to be completed, and by increasing the detail in listings. The additional detail on the
items listed would make weight conversions more accurate and improve the searching and
categorising of items when monitoring is being carried out.
Factors affecting ability to measure online exchange

The methods used for the monitoring differed for each website. This was necessary because
of the way the sites were organised. Geographical coverage made a very real difference when
it came to gathering data to scale up to provide UK estimates. Most of the websites monitored
have a decentralised structure with local areas covered separately and a lack of centrally held
data. This made comprehensive monitoring more difficult for some sites than for others.

With respect to online monitoring it is difficult to obtain data, particularly in terms of
confirming whether advertised items end up being sold or exchanged. Without this data it is
difficult to measure the amount of goods being exchanged online and to develop an
understanding of the benefits of online exchange.

The research would have benefitted from the ability to follow up with some of the users of the
websites being monitored. This would have been particularly useful to find out what
proportion of exchanges had been completed for free exchange sites and for sites containing
classified ads. A follow-up opportunity would also offer an opportunity to capture
displacement (i.e. what would have happened to an item had it not been exchanged online?)
Consumer survey

A consumer survey was undertaken which resulted in 1,092 responses and the data analysed
by ACORN category


Web users overall tend to be occasional rather than regular users of online exchange websites
Small electrical and ‘other IT’ items were the most offered and accepted items from
respondents who use the websites; a more eclectic range of items listed under ‘other’ in the
survey were also commonly exchanged

A wide range of alternative methods of exchange (other than online) were described, with
some variation for different items; for example electrical items were more likely to go to a
recycling centre whereas textiles would likely be donated to charity or second hand shops.
Conclusions

This research has offered some useful insight into which types of items seem to exchange
successfully online and which have less potential. Generally, electrical and electronic items
were successful, with second hand mobile phones showing very high levels of successful
sales. Locally organised sites seem to show relatively high success rates with furniture and
some of the other large items.


Clothing did not seem to sell or exchange as well online as the other types of item looked at.
Consumers who are familiar with the internet were generally in favour of online exchange,
mentioning convenience and environmental benefits as key reasons for looking for and
advertising items online.
2

It is clear that online exchange is contributing to both waste prevention and reuse. There is
an opportunity for local organisations and local authorities in particular to promote the use of
online exchange websites. This support might be as simple as providing links to exchange
websites from their own web pages.

Whilst it is unlikely that it is possible for local authorities to quantify the benefits of the
exchanges in terms of performance monitoring (i.e. adding to a reuse rate), the local authority
will benefit from the exchange if items are prevented from entering the waste stream, through
a reduction in overall arisings per household and therefore the cost of collection and disposal.
Indeed, if local authorities can encourage online exchange or other non-council routes for
unwanted items ‘waste’, bulky items in particular can be displaced from household waste
recycling centres and bulky waste collections and prevented from entering the household
waste stream.
3
Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6
Definition of Reuse ..................................................................................................................... 7
Data Gathering............................................................................................................................ 7
3.1
Background ........................................................................................................................7
3.2
Geographical Distance for Online Monitoring ..........................................................................8
3.3
Items and products of interest..............................................................................................9
Website Specific Research........................................................................................................ 11
4.1
eBay ................................................................................................................................ 12
4.1.1
Website throughput .............................................................................................. 12
4.1.2
Proportion sold ..................................................................................................... 12
4.2
Free exchange websites ..................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1
Freecycle ............................................................................................................. 13
4.2.2
Freegle ................................................................................................................ 13
4.2.3
Quantifying exchanges on Freegle and Freecycle ..................................................... 14
4.3
Gumtree ........................................................................................................................... 15
4.3.1
Quantifying sales on Gumtree ................................................................................ 16
4.4
Preloved ........................................................................................................................... 16
4.4.1
Quantifying sales on Preloved ................................................................................ 16
4.5
Business to Business (b2b) ................................................................................................. 16
4.5.1
Quantifying b2b exchanges .................................................................................... 17
Consumer Survey ...................................................................................................................... 18
5.1
Confidence Intervals .......................................................................................................... 19
5.2
Bias and Error ................................................................................................................... 20
Monitoring Results.................................................................................................................... 20
6.1
eBay Monitoring Results ..................................................................................................... 20
6.1.1
Priority items added per week ................................................................................ 20
6.1.2
Proportions of items sold ....................................................................................... 22
6.2
Freegle Monitoring Results ................................................................................................. 27
6.3
Gumtree ........................................................................................................................... 32
6.4
Preloved ........................................................................................................................... 34
6.5
Business to Business.......................................................................................................... 36
Consumer Survey Outputs ........................................................................................................ 40
7.1
Users of Online Exchange Websites .................................................................................... 41
7.1.1
Which online exchange websites are used? ............................................................. 41
7.1.2
How have the online exchange sites been used? ...................................................... 42
7.1.3
Reasons for using online exchange sites ................................................................. 43
7.1.4
What items have been exchanged or would be considered for exchange? .................. 43
7.1.5
Offline alternatives to dispose (or recycle/reuse) items ............................................. 45
7.2
Non-users of online exchange websites ............................................................................... 49
7.2.1
Awareness of online exchange sites ........................................................................ 49
7.2.2
Reason for not using online websites ...................................................................... 50
7.2.3
Willingness to use online exchange sites for non-users ............................................. 50
7.2.4
Offline alternatives to exchange or dispose (or recycling/reuse) items for non-users of
online exchanges .............................................................................................................. 51
7.3
Comparison of users and non-users .................................................................................... 55
7.4
Additional analysis of alternative disposal routes .................................................................. 57
Opportunities for market development ................................................................................... 62
Observations and conclusions .................................................................................................. 63
9.1
Observations..................................................................................................................... 63
9.1.1
eBay .................................................................................................................... 63
9.1.2
Gumtree .............................................................................................................. 64
9.1.3
Preloved............................................................................................................... 64
9.1.4
Freegle/Freecycle .................................................................................................. 64
9.1.5
Consumer Survey .................................................................................................. 65
9.2
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 65
4
Appendix 1: Weight estimates of items ............................................................................................... 67
Ebay
68
Preloved ....................................................................................................................................... 70
Gumtree ....................................................................................................................................... 71
Freegle 72
Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 73
Appendix 2: Customer Survey Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 78
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Kat Fletcher and Edward Hibbert (both from Freegle) for providing data for this
project.
5
1.0
Introduction
This research was commissioned by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme to explore the
possibilities for measuring the quantities of goods being exchanged online and to develop an
understanding of the benefits of online exchange. Online exchange in this instance refers to the
transfer of any items that are not new, such as second hand goods, through internet exchange sites.
The definition of reuse in the context of trading raises some interesting questions about how far
‘reuse’ occurs in online exchange of second hand goods. The headline definition of waste is presented
in the Waste Framework Directive and the report discusses the definition of reuse in Section 2.0
below.
The online community is continuing to grow and there are a number of competing websites offering
exchange services. Many user-driven exchange websites operate in the UK, often serving a particular
niche group, market or geography. This study focuses on general exchange sites, gathering
information on reuse and second hand exchange through a number of national and local websites
such as eBay and Freegle.
The context to this study is set by an increase in internet-driven sales and awareness that the market
share of online sales is continuing to grow and diversify. Recent reports have indicated strong
competition to eBay’s market dominance from Amazon (though Amazon is not included in this study),
and have charted the rising use of eBay by charity shops. The Charity Retail Sector’s own report
showed 47% of charity shops reporting they were using online trading mechanisms in 2006, rising to
66% of respondents in 2010.1 Free exchange sites are also showing concerted growth in use. A
report on Freecycle by the University of Northampton (2007) reported just under 1 million registered
users of Freecycle at the time. Freecycle itself reported 2.5 million registered users in 2011,2 although
it is not clear whether these are unique accounts or whether more than one account may be held by
the same person or household. Freegle has fewer registered users and has not been set up as long,
but the organisation is also growing; it reports a current membership of 1.2 million.3 Classified ad
websites, being structured differently, do not require people to register to use their sites to buy
goods. Preloved claims to be the market leader for second hand goods in the UK and reports 3 million
unique visitors to its site monthly, with 359,000 listed items recorded in June 2011.4 Many or most of
these items would be outside the scope of this report but this gives an indication of the size of the
website. Many smaller websites not covered by this report operate within more restricted geographic
areas and may receive fewer visitors or have fewer people registered to use them.
Overall findings from Verdict Research indicate that online shopping is a much stronger growth area
than store-based retail, and that tendency continued through 2009 and 2010. They report that while
larger retailers setting up online have partly drive this growth, growth among smaller retailers has
been high. It is not clear from their reports whether these trends are reflected through second hand
goods as well as for purchases of new items, but the overall trend towards use of online sites for
buying, selling and exchanging is clear.
The websites included in this study have been monitored and the volume of specific items has been
recorded. This monitoring has been aligned to other work investigating reuse being undertaken by
WRAP. The volumes have been scaled up, where possible, to estimate the annual throughputs of the
websites.
1
Charity Finance, Charity Shops Survey, 2010
2
http://uk.freecycle.org/ last accessed 22nd September 2011
3
http://www.ilovefreegle.org/ last accessed 22nd September 2011
4
http://www.preloved.co.uk/ last accessed 22nd September 2011
6
This report also describes the outputs of a consumer survey on reuse and online activity (Section
5.0). The survey was carried out on a representative sample of UK households. The aim of the survey
was to help investigate the usage of online exchange portals, as well as identifying what offline
alternatives are predominantly used.
2.0
Definition of Reuse
Reuse can occur within the scope of municipal waste management or outside of it, and this can lead
to confusion regarding what does and does not constitute reuse. For reuse to occur within the scope
of waste legislation, the item must first meet the definition of waste, i.e. ‘Any substance or object the
holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard’.5 Subsequently, ‘once a substance or
object has become waste, it will remain waste until it has been fully recovered and no longer poses a
potential threat to the environment or to human health’.6
For items that have entered the waste stream and are therefore defined as waste the main applicable
legislation is drawn from the Waste Framework Directive:
Reuse means any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for
the same purpose for which they were conceived.7
Preparing for reuse means checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which
products or components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be
reused without any other pre-processing.
Draft Defra guidance8 clarifies this further, by stating that it is the intention that is important. Where
‘the substance or object is being transferred with the intention that it should continue to be used for
its original purpose’, it is not waste, even if it needs some cleaning, checking or repair. Where the
item has been discarded as waste (e.g. at a Civic Amenity (CA) Site), it ‘will … remain waste until [it
has] been subject to a recovery operation’. This means that preparation for reuse only applies to
items which have been discarded.
Within this methodology reuse is used to mean reuse and preparation for reuse in line with Defra’s
guidance. For clarity, this means that the reuse that will be modelled will be its direct form, e.g.
through eBay; its mediated form, e.g. through a charity shop or its waste form, e.g. at a CA site. It
includes products from consumers as well as businesses (with particular reference to office furniture).
3.0
Data Gathering
3.1
Background
This study focuses on internet-driven exchange and so most of the information it contains has been
obtained from online sources; either indirectly by actively monitoring website activity or directly from
a service provider. Data have been gathered from the following exchange websites by the following
means:
5
WASTE under the Waste Framework Directive (European Directive (WFD) 2006/12/EC), as amended by the new WFD
(Directive 2008/98/EC, in force from December 2010).
6
WRAP website http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/waste_management_regulations/background/definition_of.html
7
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament
8
Defra (2010) Draft Guidance On The Legal Definition Of Waste And Its Application,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-definition/100118-waste-condoc.pdf
7








eBay (Online Monitoring)
Freegle (Service Provider)
Freecycle (Online Monitoring)
Gumtree (Online Monitoring)
Preloved (Online Monitoring)
EastEx (Online Monitoring)
Waste Exchange UK (Online Monitoring)
Salvo MIE (Online Monitoring)
The exchange sites investigated in this study were selected on the basis of assumed prevalence in the
market place. For example, it is acknowledged that eBay is a widely used commercial portal and that
Freecycle and Freegle (which used to be a single operation) are websites with increasing web
footprints designed specifically for free exchanges. It should be noted that there are a significant
number of websites offering exchange services. The majority are expected to be commercially
operated, i.e. items are exchanged in return for payment, and free exchange sites are very much in
the minority.
eBay could be classified as a household name, with mainstream advertising on television. On the
other hand, sites such as Freegle and Freecycle have grown through word of mouth in the context of
an increasingly frugal and environmentally aware society. The efficiency of service and the financial
capital behind each website is also significantly different; eBay is owned by Google, which is one of
the largest brands in the world, whereas Freegle and Freecycle are operated largely by volunteers.
Classified adverts on sites such as Gumtree (a subsidiary of eBay) and Preloved also play a significant
part in the volume of items exchanged and follow a more traditional pattern of trading displaying
small ads. With the important exception of eBay, all of the consumer sites have a local presence,
either as a result of their environmental and social credentials (for example, Freegle sites aim to give
items to others within their immediate community) or because their posting rules state that offers
must be local. Some sites require users to pay a fee to post the advert, and others are free or have a
free listings section.
3.2
Geographical distance for online monitoring
All of the websites listed above have varying coverage of the UK. eBay is an international organisation
with full coverage of the UK, whereas Freegle and Gumtree operate through myriad local groups, with
items exchanged in locally based, geographically defined groups. A number of the local groups of
each exchange site were monitored as part of this research.
Ideally a standard methodology would be used when monitoring each exchange site. However, due to
the nature of the sites (i.e. national or geographically specific) and the availability of suitable data,
the monitoring methodology differed for each site. For eBay all of the priority items (see Section 3.3)
were monitored throughout the UK and the location of the seller was not a factor. For the other
exchange sites it was not possible to monitor all of them throughout the UK and therefore the
research attempted to investigate a range of area types; thus a number of groups were selected
based on their socio-economic profile.
As a basis for identifying locations in the UK in which to monitor sites that subdivide into regional or
local groups, i.e. Freegle and Gumtree, the social grade of households within UK local authorities
(from 2001 Census data) was used.
The areas chosen along with related information about the population of the area, average household
size and position on the Index of Multiple Deprivation are shown in Table 3.1 (though Indices of
Multiple Deprivation for Cardiff County Council and Highland Council are not included, since the
indices for each nation in the United Kingdom are not comparable). Authorities were selected based
8
on the distribution of social grade densities across the UK. The selected authorities are a broadly
representative cross-section of the UK, based on a socio-demographic gradient.
Table 3.1 Selected local authority areas and statistics
Local Authority
No. of
households
Average
Household
Size
Total
Population
IMD
2007
%
population
social grade
D or E
South
Northamptonshire
Council
Chichester District
Council
35,729
2.45
87,402
6.46
24.4%
Percentile of
proportion of
population
that is social
grade D or E
10%
53,328
2.25
119,771
12.08
29.0%
30%
Cardiff County
Council
145,266
2.42
352,160
31.2%
50%
Highland Council
108,606
2.20
238,948
36.0%
70%
Doncaster MBC
130,465
2.33
304,349
41.5%
90%
30.84
Where possible, exchange groups located within these local authority areas have been used.
However, as described in the site-specific elements of Section 4.0, this was not always possible
because local groups do not conform to local authority area boundaries. For example, the aim of
Freegle is for items to be exchanged in the immediate community so groups are geographically quite
small and there may be several groups in different parts of one city. Other sites such as Gumtree are
more regional, and have one group for a whole county or a large urban area such as Manchester.
Where possible, for this research groups from each site share a geographic base; for instance, a
Milton Keynes group has been selected for three of the exchange sites. Where this has not been
possible an alternative location was identified. The groups were therefore chosen based on the
number of members, closeness of match to the desired socio-economic profile and the number of
items listed. For example, Towcester has been chosen to represent South Northamptonshire District
Council, and the Highland Council area is substituted by Aberdeenshire West and Central Fife.
Whilst the socio-demographic profile of the areas monitored was controlled through selecting a
suitable cross-section of area types, the social profile of the site users selling or buying and offering
or taking items on the sites monitored is unknown. The socio-economic characteristics of site users
were addressed through the consumer survey (see Section 5.0).
3.3
Items and products of interest
Online trade and exchange has been increasing steadily over the last decade in line with internet
access, and the demand and range of articles traded online is only limited by individual
entrepreneurship. Anecdotally, for every item of wide potential use available on the web there are
numerous other items which are more difficult to find new homes for, such as a large range of socalled collectibles.
The huge variety of items presented for exchange obviously contributes to any benefit of online
trading (environmental or commercial) and, although occasionally interesting, they represent noise
that must be filtered to permit a focus on specific items or item groups. Therefore the research
focused on monitoring a number of priority items, which are also being investigated in other research
projects currently being undertaken on behalf of WRAP. The priority items are listed in Table 3.2. The
9
item list also represents common household items that are all classified as consumable. It should be
noted that ‘Computers’ only includes desktop computers and excludes laptops.
Table 3.2 WRAP list of priority products for reuse
Categories
Specific products
Domestic furniture
Sofa
Dining table
Desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phones
Computers
Other IT, e.g. peripherals, printers & laptops
Washing machines
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Office furniture
Electrical
Textiles
For each of the exchange websites, the same priority items were monitored. Monitoring the priority
items involved a search for key words, e.g. ‘television’ to provide a list of all televisions listed. The
search was not more specific, i.e. for a particular size or brand of item. Some refining was undertaken
if it was obvious from the picture or the description that the search result was not the actual priority
item. This method allowed the monitoring to include results from all of the different categories; for
example, a search for ‘cotton shirt’ would result in a list of items from all categories – including
men’s, women’s and children’s clothing. For eBay, due to the size of the site and number of listings
per day, further refining of the search criteria was required in some instances; for example, for ‘other
IT’ or office furniture.
For Freegle, two additional categories were introduced: small and large electrical items, at the
expense of washing machines. Small electrical items include products such as toasters, food
processors and hair dryers and large electrical items include washing machines, fridges and
dishwashers. This change facilitated more detailed analysis of the Freegle data, but as the change
arose after the monitoring of eBay was completed, it does cause a minor inconsistency in how the
results of the monitoring are reported. If small and large electrical item categories had been used for
eBay, Gumtree and Preloved, a large number of items would have been reported; however the
impact of this in terms of this study’s findings is minimal due to the relative scale of each website’s
operation. For example, eBay handles an estimated 1,282 washing machine listings per week versus
an estimated one per week on Freegle.
10
Table 3.3 eBay search criteria for priority items
WRAP category
Search terms
Sofa
‘sofa’ (all eBay categories)
Dining table
‘dining table’ (all eBay categories)
Office desk
‘office desk’ in business, office and industrial then office equipment and supplies
Office chair
‘chair’ in business, office and industrial then office equipment and supplies
TV
‘television’, refine to ‘televisions’ category (to avoid accessories)
Mobile phone
refine to ‘mobile and smart phone’ category
Computers
refine to ‘desktop PCs and monitors’, then ‘desktop PCs’ (to avoid laptops)
Other IT
no search term, all items under ‘computing’ (including laptops) then ‘PC accessories’ category
Washing machine
‘washing machine’ (all eBay categories)
Leather jacket
‘leather jacket’ (all eBay categories)
Cotton shirt
‘cotton shirt’ (all eBay categories)
Jumper
‘jumper’ (all eBay categories)
4.0
Website-Specific Research
For each of the sites, the exchange of the prioritised items listed in Table 3.2 was monitored as
comprehensively as possible, taking into account the restrictions in information available on each site.
eBay was the most comprehensively monitored, as the site allows a user to see if an item sells; and
so it was possible to quantify the number of priority items that were listed and subsequently the
items sold. For Preloved and Gumtree, items listed are not necessarily removed when sold. For these
sites the numbers of items offered at any one time were quantified. Comprehensive data were
provided to the research team by Freegle, allowing more in-depth analysis of the exchanges that took
place through this site. Freecycle operates using the same model as Freegle, so to supplement the
Freegle findings, the number of offers, wanted and received adverts on Freecycle were recorded.
Business-to-business sites exchange different materials from the sites mentioned above, with fewer
listings of items in the priority areas (if any), because items are commercial in nature (e.g. building
rubble, steel, etc). For these sites, the total numbers of all items listed (regardless of category) on a
number of sites were recorded during the monitoring exercise.
The monitoring and assessment of items exchanged differs between the websites. Therefore the
method used to monitor site activity and exchanges has been adjusted on a case-by-case basis. For
example, eBay has strict use of some very descriptive and useful categories which facilitates less
onerous monitoring than (for example) Freegle, which is much less structured and to a certain extent
an information ‘free-for-all’. Proof of exchange is also easier to find/monitor on eBay. For other sites
the item offered could be in place for up to 120 days irrespective of a successful exchange; within
120 days, an item may have exchanged and no proof would be evident on the website and ultimately
the item could be relisted if no exchange took place.
This section describes the details of each website and how this study has attempted to reconcile
these difficulties within the overall aims of the research.
11
4.1
eBay
eBay is an international website where users can sell, bid for and buy both new and used items.
Searches can be refined to used items in the UK. Monitoring was carried out on the priority items to
gain an understanding of the turnover of items – both how many are added per week, and how many
of these end up being sold. eBay monitoring took place between 21 July and 4 August, including
weekend days.
4.1.1 Website throughput
eBay is clearly an incredibly large exchange portal: in total, there were 38,789,947 items advertised
on eBay when the monitoring took place on 21 July 2010. This is based on the total number of items
listed in 25 of the 30 predetermined eBay categories. The five categories excluded (‘Local Services’,
‘Event Tickets’, ‘Holidays and Travel’, ‘Wholesale and Job Lots’ and ‘Everything Else’) were reviewed
and the majority of items listed in each were either not actual items (for example, personal services)
or bulk items aimed at the business sector.
In order to gain an understanding of the turnover of items on the site, the number of each of the
priority items added to the site was monitored over one week. A search was conducted for each item
and results were then sorted by ‘newly added items’ first. This allowed for the number of items added
in the previous 24 hours to be counted. Items can be listed for 1, 3, 5, 7 or 10 days; more if an item
is listed as ‘buy it now’. Monitoring was therefore carried out daily so any items listed for just one day
would be captured. It should be noted that using this method of monitoring, WRAP classifiable items
within the excluded eBay categories are included in the monitoring outputs. This is because,
irrespective of eBay category, the eBay search engine is not limited to specific categories.
As eBay activity varies from day to day, with certain points in the week being busier than others,
carrying this monitoring out for the full week ensured that results were not affected by these
changeable levels of activity. The results of this monitoring exercise can then be extrapolated to give
general estimates of the number of products listed on eBay per year, although with just one week of
monitoring it is not possible to make realistic adjustments for annual variations in throughput.
Variations such as spring cleaning and the post-Christmas clear out have not been accounted for in
this research and neither have other religious festivals involving gifts, the impacts of house
clearances, deaths, or bankruptcy. Monitoring the websites during the summer months (when
individuals and families are often on holiday) may also have an impact on the volume of exchanges.
These omissions may lead to some degree of underestimation of the total volumes offered and
exchanged in a year. However, it has been assumed that any seasonal or event-related fluctuations
balance out over a year, and that therefore a full-year estimate can be based on a single week of
monitoring.
4.1.2 Proportion sold
To estimate the proportion of listed items that actually result in a sale, further monitoring was carried
out. This monitoring was done for priority items listed for auction only. A search for each item was
conducted and results were sorted by ‘ending soonest’. This meant that items were effectively sorted
randomly, and factors such as starting price and item description did not influence the items selected
for monitoring. There is some agreement that items sell best at certain times, in particular on
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday evenings,9 with fewer items sold on Friday and Saturday
nights when people are more often out, and during the day when many people are at work. To take
account of peak and non-peak times, 100 items in each priority category were monitored; half of
them were monitored during peak times (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evening) and half were
monitored during non-peak times, i.e. weekday afternoons. The aim of this was to ensure that neither
peak nor non-peak activity periods would dominate the results. For some categories there were not
9
http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/When-is-the-best-time-to-list-on-ebay_W0QQugidZ10000000012295127
12
enough items listed during either the busy or quiet periods and therefore monitoring took place over
a longer time period until results for 100 items were obtained.
It should be noted that ‘buy it now’ items were not included in this monitoring exercise. ‘Buy it now’
items can be sold at any time and cannot be randomised by sorting ‘ending soonest’, so could not be
monitored in the same way as auction items.
4.2
Free exchange websites
These sites facilitate exchange without compensation (payment). It has been assumed that all items
on such sites are being exchanged for reuse when they are exchanged. The free exchange sites
present an opportunity to benevolently seek an alternative outlet for unwanted items. The two sites
to which this applies and are included in this study are Freecycle and Freegle. Other websites offering
items on the basis of free exchange are not unusual but tend to serve niche groups with particular
interests or have been developed by local authorities as an alternative to national sites such as
Freecycle and Freegle.
For these exchange sites it has been possible to monitor activity from specific areas, as the sites are
organised into groups which are based on geographical location. These groups are not the same for
each site and not all geographic locations are represented on each site. However, groups have been
chosen that broadly cover the same overall location.
4.2.1 Freecycle
Freecycle is the umbrella name for a network of local groups which users can join through Yahoo!
Members of the groups can then offer items to other members or advertise for items that they would
like to receive. Other members can then reply to these adverts. No money changes hands and all
activity is moderated.
Five Freecycle groups were monitored over the course of a week. The chosen Freecycle groups were
in Cardiff, Chichester, Doncaster, Inverness and Towcester. Resource Futures became a member of
each group and signed up for ‘daily digest’ emails containing details of all items offered, taken and
wanted in the group. These posts were recorded over the week for each group in an Excel
spreadsheet.
The data from Freecycle were obtained for seven days from 11 August 2010.
4.2.2 Freegle
Freegle is effectively a competitor of Freecycle and runs the same model by which members of local
groups advertise items as offered or wanted. Data have been made available to this study, which has
reduced the need to actively monitor selected Freegle groups. These data cover a total of 30 days of
listings from the groups specified in Table 4.1.
The data supplied cover a period in July and August 2010, which for the purposes of this research has
been assumed to be indicative of a typical month. As the research involves estimating a full year’s
worth of offers and exchanges from a relatively small dataset, this approximation has been assumed
to have no impact on the overall results.
13
Table 4.1 Freegle groups assessed
Group
Geographic region
Aberdeenshire West
Central Fife
Edinburgh
Flintshire
Caerphilly
Welshpool, Newtown and Montgomery
Bognor
Greencycle (Brighton)
Havant
Rotherham
Towcester
Scotland
Wales
England
4.2.3 Quantifying exchanges on Freegle and Freecycle
Neither of these sites offer any sort of categorisation with listings and the entire process is driven by
the use of four key ‘Listing Status’ terms: offered, received, wanted and taken. These terms, along
with a basic item description and the location of the item, should appear in the subject of the listings
which are held in a forum-style webpage. This makes monitoring for the purposes of this report
difficult, as the only way of categorising items is to read each line, identify the item, derive the
classification (offered, taken, etc.) and then try and locate a matching pair which would suggest that
an exchange has occurred. For example, an ‘offered’ item is commonly followed up by a ‘taken’ entry
which contains most of the same text in the subject field.
As described in Section 3.3, the item categories used for the Freegle analysis were expanded beyond
the WRAP categories and took the form of a series of item-specific subcategories. The most
significant of these subcategories fall under the small and large electrical item groups specified by
WRAP and these are included in Table 4.2.
14
Table 4.2 Electrical item subcategories
Large electrical items
Small electrical items
Fridge/Fridge-Freezer/Freezer
Lighting
Large electrical garden tools
Video/DVD, Games, Consoles, Digital
receivers
Hi-fi separates
Washing machines/Washer drier
Musical instruments (keyboards,
organs)
Sunbed
Microwave ovens
Air conditioning/dehumidifying
equipment
Dishwasher
Small electrical garden equipment
Fan
Cooking equipment
Toaster, kettles, food processing
equipment
Sewing machine
Vacuum cleaners
Irons
Beauty electricals
The process of matching pairs of listing statuses relies heavily on the user-supplied information,
which rarely conforms to the rules set out for the site. Each listing has a listing status as described
above, but how these are paired, i.e. which status listing is the opposite of another, has been
assumed based on provisional monitoring of obvious matched pairs. There are four matched pairs:




Offered/Taken
Wanted/Received
Offered/Received
Wanted/Taken
Although the total number of listings falling under each listing status has been recorded, confirmation
of a link between the matched pair combination and successful exchange has not been made. It is
possible that a matched pair does not always indicate a successful exchange as an online agreement
to make the exchange may prove more difficult to arrange in reality. It is also quite probable that
some exchanges take place without either a ‘taken’ or ‘received’ notice being posted. Existing
information does not make it possible to establish with greater certainty than this whether exchanges
have taken place.
4.3
Gumtree
Gumtree is a classified ads website that operates in 60 cities across six countries. Gumtree is the UK’s
biggest website for local community advertising 10 and is part of the eBay family. Users can post
adverts for a huge range of items and services within their local area. ‘For Sale’ adverts appear on the
site for 45 days in London and 120 days elsewhere before expiring. Adverts can be deleted prior to
this at any time, or can be renewed using ‘bump up’, which will reset the advert and return it to the
top of the advert listings.
10
http://sheffield.gumtree.com/about_us.html
15
4.3.1 Quantifying sales on Gumtree
Items are advertised locally, so the numbers of each priority item listed for sale in each of the five
chosen areas were recorded. As Towcester, Chichester and Doncaster are not on Gumtree, the
closest available areas were used instead, these being Milton Keynes, Portsmouth and Sheffield
respectively. There are demographic differences between, for example, Towcester (a small market
town in an affluent rural area) and Milton Keynes (a large town with a mixed population). However
the Gumtree groups are generally regional or city-wide and therefore it has been necessary to use
these alternative locations. The chosen areas of Towcester, Chichester and Doncaster are assumed to
fall within the Gumtree groups of Milton Keynes, Portsmouth and Sheffield. We acknowledge that the
Gumtree groups may not have the demographic profile of the local authorities listed in Table 3.1, but
due to the nature of the website it is not possible to identify a specific socio-economic profile.
Other issues associated with monitoring Gumtree listings include the variability of group usage and
geographic anomalies of group boundaries. It has not been possible to review the level of usage and
socio-demographic profile of users of every group in the UK and so the groups used may not be
representative of the UK as a whole. Future research on website usage could incorporate an
assessment of site users but this would either have to focus on a relatively small sample and be
locally representative, or be a significantly larger research project in order to be representative of the
UK. The research that has been conducted is therefore likely to be indicative of website usage rather
than representative of usage.
The priority item monitoring shows the scale that Gumtree operates on, relative to other sites
monitored for this project. It does not, however, show how many items are actually sold through
Gumtree. There is no straightforward way to determine if an item has been sold or not; many adverts
are left online even after the item has sold and others may be removed early.
Gumtree adverts were sampled on 8 September 2010. Gumtree was only monitored for one day
because items remain advertised for 30 days; therefore one month of advertised items can be
monitored in one day.
4.4
Preloved
Preloved is a classified ads website, where users can advertise items for sale. Searches for a specific
item will bring up local adverts first, followed by regional ones and then national ones.
4.4.1 Quantifying sales on Preloved
Towcester and Chichester are not areas listed on Preloved (the same problem that arose for
Gumtree); so Milton Keynes and Portsmouth were used instead as these groups on Preloved
appeared to cover Towcester and Chichester. The numbers of each priority item advertised in each of
these areas were recorded, but again this is not indicative of how many items were actually sold.
Preloved was monitored on 9 September 2010. One day’s monitoring was taken to be sufficient
because items remain advertised for 30 days, and therefore one month of advertised items can be
monitored in one day.
4.5
Business-to-business (b2b)
Business-to-business exchange sites are similar in function to all of the above portals (except eBay),
but they serve only the commercial sector. There are a number of providers but the total number of
listings available for exchange is much smaller than from the non-commercial sites. This difference is
attributable to two core factors: (outsourced) procurement and the need to recoup expenditure.
16
Outsourced procurement refers to the purchasing habits of organisations. Many businesses use a
third party to procure particular items such as IT equipment and therefore neither they, nor the
company procuring on their behalf, are likely to buy or sell though an online exchange (even if they
do source second hand items elsewhere). IT equipment is unlikely to be listed on a b2b free
exchange site, as the equipment is often owned on a limited-term contract at the end of which the
equipment is returned. One site monitored for this study was the South Yorkshire EastEx portal
(www.eastex.org.uk/south) and only 106 items were listed in six months: an average of less than 18
listings per month. This can be compared to Freegle Rotherham, a similar but smaller geographic
location, where 18 listings are added every two days and the difference in scale is clearly apparent.
Despite the difference in operating area which may have a limited impact on item turnover, the key
difference arises from the sheer volume of potential users from the residential sector over those from
a commercial background. Furthermore, the larger range of items derived from exchanges within the
household sector compared with b2b also has a significant impact on overall volumes and types of
items listed.
B2b listings tend to be classified-type adverts under a range of categories. Most of the adverts are
brief and include contact details which are visible if you are a member of the site.
4.5.1 Quantifying b2b exchanges
Due to the overall volume of listings, monitoring of b2b sites was relatively simple. Additionally the
majority of listings appeared to be semi-permanent, consisting of repeat listings or regular byproducts from different commercial/ industrial processes.
The types of items listed on the b2b sites are very different from those listed on the public sites, and
rarely if ever include listing for the priority items to be monitored for this research (see Table 3.2).
Many of the items appear to be materials relating to overstock or process by-products, for example
quantities of Premix concrete or metallic sludge (Waste Exchange had a listing for hydroxide sludge).
Nevertheless, website monitoring for b2b took place between 9 and 20 September 2010. The data
collected for b2b covers a much larger geographic area and a much higher proportion of total
exchanges than the other sites monitored because of the lower quantities of items changing hands.
In some cases, all content on the site has been monitored.
Table 4.3 illustrates the different nature of b2b materials compared with WRAP’s list of priority items.
The categories listed in italic bold are those which concur to some degree with the WRAP item
categories (see Table 3.2); the prevalence of other types of items suggests that b2b waste exchange
can apply to a much wider range of commonly classifiable materials and items than would apply to
householders and the items they would exchange. The categories also suggest that some of the
waste items being exchanged may go on for recycling or another treatment rather than for reuse. For
example oils go for re-refining; food waste could go to food banks or otherwise to composting or
anaerobic digestion. The categories suggest that there is a basic distinction between potential ‘inputs’
to production/ processes (reagents, chemical liquids) and products (vehicle parts) and ancillary
materials (packaging, pallets). To fully understand this very different research area (compared to the
household sector) would require a separate exercise to effectively differentiate the categories and the
elements that relate to genuine reuse.
17
Table 4.3 Material categories on b2b websites
EastEx
Waste Exchange UK
SalvoMIE
Batteries
Acids
Ash crushed concrete aggregate
Building materials
Alkalis
Hoardings
Chemical liquids
Construction material / aggregates
Metals
Drums and containers
Container and pallet
Paints
Electricals and electronics
Electronic
Plasterboard
Furniture and fittings
Food waste
Plastics
Glass and ceramics
Glass
Soils, Recycled soils and Compost
Metals
Green waste
Various and mixed
Oils
Metal and metal sludge
Pallets
Miscellaneous
Paper and card
Oil and wax
Plant and equipment
Other chemicals
Plastic and rubber
Packaging materials
Putrescibles
Paint and coating
Textiles and clothing
Paper and cardboard
Vehicle parts
Plastic and rubber
Wood and timber
Solvent
Miscellaneous
Textile and leather
Wood
5.0
Consumer Survey
A consumer survey was compiled with the aim of gaining further insight into the reasons why
consumers do or do not use online exchange portals, as well as the types of items that are being
exchanged online. The survey was designed in a multiple choice, easy-to-complete format, and aimed
to understand the activity of:



Consumers with an online presence that use online exchanges.
Those with an online presence who do not use online exchanges.
Those who do not have an online presence.
The survey was compiled with input from WRAP, covering the themes described in Table 5.1.
The questionnaire is included in this report as Appendix 2. A hard copy of the survey was mailed to
43,000 households over three separate mail shots, using data supplied by CACI and including a
weblink for respondents to complete the survey online if they preferred. The 43,000 households were
stratified according to ACORN, eTypes, age and geographical area in order to be a representative
sample of the UK.
18
The survey respondents were firstly asked if they had ever used any of the online exchange sites that
were being monitored for this project (eBay, Freecycle, Freegle, Gumtree, Preloved) or any other
online exchange sites. This established which of the above types of consumer they were, i.e. whether
they had an online presence or not. The survey respondents were then asked about their awareness
and frequency of use of each of the sites – i.e. whether they had heard of a site or not, and whether
they were an occasional or regular user. Next, respondents who do use online exchanges were asked
what they use them for. This question aimed to understand whether people accept, offer or request
items. This question was also designed to show whether there were some users who only buy /
accept items and some who only sell / offer items; if some people only request items (for example
through Freegle and Freecycle); and what proportion will both accept and offer items.
Table 5.1 Broad themes of the survey
Consumers with online presence
Consumers with no online
presence
Use of sites
Awareness of activity
Which sites know of / use
Which sites
Past items offered
Reason for no online presence
Past items taken
Would consider using
Frequency of use
What types of items
Types of items considered
The next questions aimed to understand the reasons why consumers use online exchanges, and the
reasons why they do not. Respondents were presented with a range of options that they could apply
positively or negatively to each site. Aspects that encouraged use included ease of use, personal
security, environmental benevolence and bargain hunting, considered alongside reasons that impaired
use: the site being difficult to understand, and concern about poor item quality. For future surveys it
may be beneficial to include an option to score websites rather than select predetermined reasons for
use. For example: on a scale of 1 to 5, how does a website score in terms of personal security? This
information could then be used to identify user priorities when choosing which websites to use.
To gauge the types of items that consumers are exchanging, the survey respondents were next asked
which of the priority items they have either offered, accepted or would consider exchanging online.
Finally respondents were asked what offline alternatives they would use to get rid of each of these
types of items, for example at the household waste and recycling centre, car boot sale, refuse
collection or donated elsewhere.
Over 1,253 completed responses were received, with the vast majority being returned by post (rather
than via the online portal).
5.1
Confidence intervals
From the 1,253 responses and following quality checking of the data, a total of 1,092 valid responses
were achieved. This is a reasonable sample size from which to draw generalisations about the target
population, as the 95% confidence interval for a result of 50% has a confidence interval of +/-3%.
Therefore if 50% of the sample said that they regularly use eBay, then it would be reasonable to
assume that between 47% and 53% of UK households regularly use eBay.
Standard statistical tests were carried out to explore the differences between ACORN categories.
These were T-tests carried out to 95% confidence level. The sample size for each ACORN category is
19
much smaller than 1,100, and has an average size of 218. This has the effect of increasing the
confidence interval to +/-7%, and so we can be less sure of the result. We can also be less sure that
there are real differences between the results from the ACORN categories. For example if 50% of
ACORN 1 respondents (sample size 287), and 55% of ACORN 5 respondents (sample size 198) said
that they regularly use eBay, then we could not be confident that in the target population ACORN 1
households behave any differently to ACORN 5 households (as the confidence intervals for each
ACORN category overlap). In the most part, this means that the results shown do not have any
differences, although they may exhibit statistically significant differences at a lower confidence level
(i.e. 90%).
5.2
Bias and error
The ability of householders in the sample frame to elect whether they participate in the survey will
have led to response bias. It would seem likely that those who responded would be internet or reuse
site users, as that is the focus of the survey. No analysis of non-response bias was conducted. As the
surveys were self-completed there may have been some respondent error, as a result of
misunderstanding the question or terminology used.
6.0
Monitoring Results
This section includes the results of the internet monitoring undertaken as part of this research, which
are broken down and reviewed at site-specific level. Findings from the consumer survey are included
in the following section. In all cases, monitored data has been extrapolated to estimate annual flows
through each exchange portal with specific reference to the WRAP list of items previously described.
The results presented in this section focus on the total number of items listed, rather than estimates
of the total tonnage of items exchanged. Estimated weights of items exchanged on eBay, Gumtree,
Preloved and Freegle are included in Appendix 1.
Weight estimates have been kept separate from this section, since there is significantly less
confidence in the weight estimates, in comparison to estimated numbers of items sold and
exchanged. It is problematic to provide corresponding estimates for tonnes of items sold or
exchanged with any confidence, essentially due to the often wide range of weights per item for
different subcategories of the same category. For example the FRN average weight list includes 13
different entries for televisions, which encompasses both CRT and flat-screen varieties. The different
sizes of televisions, coupled with the different types of television, means that the weight can vary
from 4.4 kg to 31.0 kg. The average weight across the range of average weights for the 13 different
types of televisions is 14.4 kg per item. However, it is problematic to apply this figure as an average
weight for televisions, since the distribution of weights (i.e. the relative numbers of items of lower
and higher weights) is not known, due to a lack of knowledge about subcategories of items (in this
example relating to different types of televisions).
Moreover, this method of applying average weights per item in order to arrive at a total estimated
tonnage can obscure the true success of exchange sites. Measures of success that are more valid
might arguably be related to the number of items exchanged, awareness of online exchange
communities and levels of usage of their sites.
6.1
eBay monitoring results
6.1.1 Priority items added per week
The total numbers of each ‘priority’ item added to eBay for auction over the course of one week
throughout the UK are shown in Table 6.1. The results for the one week that the monitoring took
place have been extrapolated to give an estimate of the numbers of these items added to eBay each
year, on the basis of the assumption that that one week can be taken as typical. A repeat of this
exercise over a number of other weeks would improve confidence in the estimates and make it
20
possible to identify errors. However, in this case the exercise was to find out whether monitoring
could effectively be carried out and, if so, to provide an indication of what the results might be.
Table 6.1 Number of items added to eBay in one week
Item
Total added in 1
week
4,210
Total for year
(rounded estimate)
218,900
Dining table
3,364
174,900
Office desk
207
10,800
Office chair
678
35,300
TV
4,263
221,700
Mobile phone
22,794
1,185,300
962
50,000
Other IT
3,305
171,900
Washing machine
1,071
55,700
Leather jacket
3,995
207,700
Cotton shirt
17,236
896,300
Jumper
19,803
1,029,800
Sofa
Computers
The largest category in terms of total number of items added per week is shown as mobile phones,
followed by jumpers and cotton shirts. The smallest categories were in the office furniture category –
‘office desks’ was the smallest item category, with office chairs the second smallest. Figure 6.1
presents these findings in chart form.
Figure 6.1 Total items added in one week on eBay
25,000
Number of items added
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
21
6.1.2 Proportions of items sold
The proportions of each type of item listed that are then sold are illustrated in Figure 6.2. The figure
suggests that the majority of the mobile phones advertised on eBay are actually sold, whereas the
turnover for other items is much lower. For example, whilst large quantities of clothing are
advertised, the proportion of cotton shirts and jumpers sold is much lower.
Figure 6.2 Proportion of items sold on eBay
90%
80%
70%
% sold
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Looking in further detail at the proportion of items sold, Figure 6.3 shows the average final bid price
for each type of item.
22
Figure 6.3 Average final bid price of items sold on eBay
£120.00
Average final bid (£)
£100.00
£80.00
£60.00
£40.00
£20.00
£0.00
Cotton shirts and jumpers have the lowest average final bid, both in the region of £5. Sofas actually
have the highest average final bid price of approximately £110. Mobile phones have an average final
selling price of approximately £79.
Figure 6.4 Average final bid for sold items and average starting bid of unsold items on eBay
£180.00
£160.00
£140.00
Cost (£)
£120.00
£100.00
£80.00
Average
final bid for
sold items
£60.00
£40.00
£20.00
£0.00
Average
starting
price of
unsold
items
23
Comparing the average final bid price for items that have sold with the average starting price of
unsold items reveals that in many cases unsold items have been listed with a starting price higher
than the average selling price. The only categories where average starting prices for unsold items
were lower than the average sales price were ‘office chairs’ and ‘other IT’. This could suggest that
these items are less popular than other items on eBay, as some were not selling even when the seller
was asking for a lower price than the average person was willing to pay. It seems from these results
that many sellers overestimated the value of their items, washing machines in particular, with some
sellers asking for a starting price of over double what the average person pays. This suggests that
these sellers do not allow adequately for depreciation. There is potentially an additional element of
risk in buying washing machines due to the combination of water and electricity in a single machine,
although Figure 6.2 shows that washing machines listed are more likely to sell than most other types
of item.
Figure 6.5 compares the proportion of each type of item sold with their average final bid. It can be
seen from the graph that the higher-priced items generally sell better than the lower-priced ones. For
example, mobile phones and washing machines are both high-priced items that sold the best during
this monitoring exercise. An exception to this pattern is sofas, which have a high average final price
but did not sell as well as the other highly priced items.
Figure 6.5 Proportion of items sold by average final bid on eBay
£120.00
Average final bid
£100.00
£80.00
£60.00
£40.00
£20.00
£0.00
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Proportion sold
Figure 6.6 shows the proportion of items sold by the average number listed, derived from the weekly
monitoring of each type of item. The graph shows that mobile phones again are an important eBay
item, with the highest proportion of sales but also a very high number listed on the site at any one
time. Whilst there are a very high number of jumpers and cotton shirts listed on eBay, the proportion
of sales of these items were the lowest of all the items that were monitored.
24
Figure 6.6 Proportion sold by average number listed on eBay
25000
Jumper
Cotton shirt
Average number listed
20000
Mobile phone
15000
10000
Leather jacket
Other IT
Sofa
Dining table
5000
Office chair
Desk
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
TV
Washing machine
Computer
60%
70%
80%
90%
Proportion sold
Comparing the numbers of items added with the proportion of items sold produces an estimate of the
number of each item sold each week. Whilst Figure 6.6 suggests that proportionately cotton shirts
and jumpers do not sell well on eBay compared with other items, Table 6.2 and Figure 6.7 show that
a relatively high number of these items are added each week and that consequently shirts and
jumpers combined are second only to mobile phones in estimated number of items sold.
25
Table 6.2 Estimated numbers of items actually sold on eBay in one week
Item
Sofa
4,210
47%
Estimated
number sold per
week
1,979
Dining table
3,364
46%
1,547
Office desk
207
38%
79
Office chair
678
42%
285
4,263
67%
2,856
22,794
82%
18,691
962
57%
548
Other IT
3,305
39%
1,289
Washing machine
1,071
79%
846
Leather jacket
3,995
49%
1,958
Cotton shirt
17,236
31%
5,343
Jumper
19,803
34%
6,733
TV
Mobile phone
Computers*
Total added in
1 week
Proportion sold
* The computers category does not include laptops, which are thought to be exchanged at a much higher rate. Laptops are
included under the ‘Other IT’ category but not separately identified.
It can be seen that the number of mobile phones sold each week is significantly higher than for any
other category, with an estimated 18,700 items sold through eBay in the UK every week. This is
based on items listed under the eBay category ‘Mobile and Smart Phones’, which excludes mobile
phone accessories but includes sim card-only ‘deals’. About 7,000 jumpers and 5,000 cotton shirts are
sold each week. Just under 3,000 televisions are sold each week, with about 2,000 each of sofas and
leather jackets sold weekly.
Finally the number of unsold items that the seller relisted was recorded. This was noted
approximately 24 hours after the end of the auction, in order to give the seller enough time to log
onto eBay and list the item for auction once again should they wish.
Figure 6.7 shows the number of items that did not sell and the number of these items that the sellers
relisted. The figure also shows the proportion of unsold items that were relisted. High proportions of
jumpers, computers, dining tables, mobile phones and cotton shirts are relisted. For jumpers, cotton
shirts and mobile phones there are large numbers of items advertised on eBay, so it may be that
supply outstrips demand for these items. It could also be the case that these are the sort of items
that sellers are not in a hurry to get rid of (because they are small and do not take up space) so they
do not mind waiting for the items to sell. For both dining tables and computers, postage is not often
an option and these items need to be collected in person. This substantially restricts the number of
interested potential buyers to the local area, so these items may take longer to sell. As mentioned in
Section 4.1.2, ‘buy it now’ items were not monitored as part of this exercise. Sale of these items
cannot be monitored in the same way as auction items, as they can sell at any time; and ‘buy it now’
items that have been on eBay for longer periods are likely to be less desirable items. In order to avoid
confusion when processing the sales results, auction items that were also listed as ‘buy it now’ were
avoided.
26
Figure 6.7 Numbers of items unsold and relisted on eBay
80
Number / % of items
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Number unsold
6.2
Number relisted
Proportion relisted (%)
Freegle monitoring results
The following tables and figures illustrate the quantities of items listed on Freegle over the monitoring
period. For Freegle, this meant monitoring over a total of 30 days between 9 July and 9 August 2010
for all 11 groups, resulting in nearly 7,000 listings. This information was supplied by Freegle through
software developed (by Freegle) to analyse the listings. This data significantly reduced the resources
required to monitor the site, yet presented a different problem in that significant quantities of data
required a large-scale clean-up exercise. The data included poorly listed items, inconsistent approach
and spelling errors. Despite this, the analysis of Freegle has produced some very interesting results,
although it should be noted that approximately half of the listings provided by Freegle either did not
fall into an item category or could not be classified because of listing discrepancies. Items that did not
match an item category but were identifiable are included in the research outputs described below.
For Freegle, it has been relatively easy to quantify the listing status (offered, taken, etc.) as this
should appear at the front of every listing.
Table 6.3 shows the total number of listings under each status for Freegle from the month of data
provided. Throughout the monitoring period only one item was withdrawn (from the Rotherham
Freegle group).
27
Table 6.3 Freegle listing status classification
Group (Freegle)
Offered
Taken
Wanted
Received
Aberdeenshire West
181
44
143
7
Bognor
217
107
187
7
Caerphilly
192
63
117
2
Central Fife
218
86
241
11
Edinburgh
1,117
400
631
23
Flintshire
182
52
216
8
Green Cycle (Brighton)
618
176
375
9
Havant
68
25
59
0
Rotherham
236
80
250
5
Towcester
46
15
38
0
Welshpool, Newtown and
Montgomery
178
46
168
6
3,253
1,094
2,425
78
Total
A total of 6,851 listings were made and it is clear from the totals above that there is no direct
correlation between the listings status types. For example, in an ideal situation the number of taken
items would approximate to the number of offered items. One possible reason for this is the defined
period of data and not being able to isolate the listings that referred only to items arising within the
period.
Table 6.4 illustrates how successful the classification of items listed was and shows that only 55% of
items listed (irrespective of listing status) are covered by the focused WRAP item classification or the
broader FRN-based classification system. The table also shows how many exchanges were completed
and how many of those exchanges were of items found in either of the items lists. Out of 6,851
listings, 614 listings were matched with both required elements of the listing status. This takes into
consideration the full range of options on listings status (Offered/Received, Offered/Taken,
Wanted/Received and Wanted/Taken).
It should be noted that it has not been possible to identify all of the duplicates, listings that include
more than one item, listings that include spelling errors or listings that have not included a specific
item within the subject line. In order to account for all such entries it would be necessary to review
every listing, and this was not possible given the timescales and resources allocated to this study.
Furthermore, despite being a condition of use of the site, the posting of Taken and Received notes is
not actively undertaken. This could lead to an underestimation of the actual number of successful
exchanges. Further research may be required to identify actual successful exchanges and this may
require contacting site users.
Figure 6.8 shows the total number of listings per category with clear peaks for large electrical items,
small electrical items and other IT. Where the items have been listed within a wider category, the
number of items within that category has been listed. It should be noted that ‘other IT’ also includes
games consoles and software. Figure 6.9 shows the same information as Figure 6.8 broken down by
the individual groups monitored.
28
Table 6.4 Freegle item classification summary
Group (Freegle)
Total
Listings
Total
Listings
Classified
(WRAP &
FRN)
Classified
(WRAP)
Classified
(FRN)
Total
Exchanged
Total
Categorised
Exchanges
(WRAP &
FRN)
Aberdeenshire West
375
213
87
164
22
15
Bognor
518
303
109
247
45
26
Caerphilly
374
195
66
160
38
18
Central Fife
556
322
110
246
59
38
Edinburgh
2,171
1,212
515
916
268
149
Flintshire
458
210
67
181
11
9
1,178
645
242
499
96
54
Havant
152
84
24
71
9
4
Rotherham
572
326
95
274
43
25
Towcester
99
66
18
53
9
8
Welshpool, Newtown
and Montgomery
398
217
88
168
14
8
6,851
3,793
1,421
2,979
614
354
Green Cycle (Brighton)
Total
Figure 6.8 Number of items listed on Freegle using the WRAP classification
400
350
Number of Items
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
WRAP Item Category
29
Figure 6.9 Items listed per group on Freegle using WRAP classification
600
Jumper
shirt
500
Leather jacket
Other IT (printers, monitors,
mice, consoles, software)
400
Computer
Number of Items
Mobile Phone
TV
300
(toaster, food processor,
hairdryer)
Large electrical items (fridge,
washing machine)
200
100
0
WRAP Item Category
30
Figure 6.10 Items exchanged on Freegle using WRAP classification
A detailed analysis of Freecycle has not been possible because (unlike Freegle) data have not been
provided by the service provider. Therefore Freecycle has been monitored in a similar way to the
other exchange sites, by actually gathering listings as they became available over a much shorter
period of time and from a much smaller number of groups. However as Freegle and Freecycle are
very similar in their operation, we can assume that the types of items listed are broadly similar.
Table 6.5 shows the quantities of items listed on Freecycle.
31
Table 6.5 Freecycle listing status classification
Group (Freecycle)
Offered
Taken
Wanted
Received
Cardiff
428
183
250
11
Chichester
119
38
90
2
Inverness
105
34
95
3
Doncaster
66
44
43
7
Towcester
5
5
14
1
723
304
492
24
Total
6.3
Gumtree
The total number of each of the priority items being advertised regionally on Gumtree was recorded
and is shown in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Priority items being advertised on Gumtree
Item
Milton
Keynes
45
Portsmouth
Cardiff
Sheffield
Inverness
Total
170
364
227
148
954
Dining table
19
60
236
144
34
493
Office desk
15
53
75
66
28
237
Office chair
11
17
46
14
13
101
Television
74
230
511
413
134
1,362
Mobile phone
119
209
967
595
83
1,973
Computers
19
72
268
159
57
575
Other IT
31
61
168
50
71
381
Washing machine
9
74
109
59
18
269
Leather jacket
1
6
14
14
6
41
Cotton shirt
7
18
88
44
16
173
Jumper
2
3
8
9
0
22
Sofa
Once again mobile phones feature highly amongst items being exchanged, with 967 adverts in the
Cardiff area and 595 in Sheffield. Large quantities of televisions were also advertised through
Gumtree, with 511 in Cardiff and 412 in Sheffield; and relatively high numbers of sofas. Very few
leather jackets or jumpers are advertised on Gumtree, and office furniture did not feature as highly as
household furniture. These findings can be seen in Figure 6.11.
32
Figure 6.11 Total numbers of advertisements for each type of item across all regions on Gumtree
2000
Total number of advertisements
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Cardiff and Sheffield are the most active Gumtree regions, with Cardiff having 2,854 priority item
adverts and Sheffield 1,794. Portsmouth had 973 adverts, and Inverness 608 during the period
monitored. Activity in Milton Keynes was substantially lower with just 352 adverts in total. The
number of adverts for each type of item in the different regions is shown in Figure 6.12. Adverts for
sofas and televisions were most common in Inverness, and televisions were most common in
Portsmouth. In Milton Keynes, Cardiff and Sheffield, mobile phones were the most commonly
advertised item. Adverts for office equipment and textiles were low across all areas.
33
Figure 6.12 Total numbers of adverts for each type of item across all areas on Gumtree
1000
900
Total number of advertisements
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Milton Keynes
6.4
Portsmouth
Cardiff
Sheffield
Inverness
Preloved
Activity on Preloved is much lower than that on Gumtree, with just 163 adverts in total for all priority
items across all five areas. Table 6.6 shows the number of adverts for each item in each area. The
most adverts found for any search was for mobile phones in Doncaster, for which 17 adverts were
listed. In many cases just one or two adverts appeared for each search, with some searches yielding
no results at all in that area. In particular there is very little Preloved activity in Inverness; out of all
the searches conducted for priority items, just three adverts were returned (for two computers and
one leather jacket).
34
Table 6.6 Total adverts for priority items on each area on Preloved
Item
Milton
Keynes
Portsmouth
Cardiff
Doncaster
Inverness
Totals
Sofa
8
5
5
5
0
23
Dining table
1
8
1
12
0
22
Office desk
1
2
0
1
0
4
Office chair
1
1
0
2
0
4
Television
8
4
4
1
0
17
12
5
4
17
0
38
Computers
1
0
1
1
2
5
Other IT
5
5
0
2
0
12
Washing machine
0
2
0
3
0
5
Leather jacket
7
2
1
4
1
15
Cotton shirt
0
0
0
12
0
12
Jumper
0
3
0
3
0
6
Mobile phone
As can be seen from Figure 6.13, mobile phones are the most popular item posted on Preloved,
followed by sofas and then dining tables. The regional aspect of Preloved may make it a better outlet
for items that cannot be sent via Royal Mail. Again, there are fewest adverts for office equipment,
and low numbers of ads for computers and washing machines.
Figure 6.13 Total numbers of adverts for all items across all areas on Preloved
40
Total Number of Adverts
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35
Doncaster is the most active area on Preloved, with a total of 63 adverts appearing for the priority
items. Milton Keynes and Portsmouth are also active, with 44 and 37 adverts respectively. In Cardiff
there were 16 adverts in total and in Inverness just 3. The regional differences can be seen in Figure
6.14.
Figure 6.14 Total numbers of adverts for each type of item on Preloved
18
16
Number of adverts
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Milton Keynes
Portsmouth
Cardiff
Doncaster
Inverness
For Preloved (as for Gumtree) it was not possible to monitor successful exchanges using information
obtained from the website, only the number of adverts placed. It could be assumed that similar
success rates for exchange were achieved with items on Preloved as on the other free exchange sites
listed (Freegle and Freecycle); although lower overall use of the site suggests this might not
necessarily be the case.
To investigate how much exchange is occurring on Preloved (as well as the other regional exchange
sites) it would be necessary to actually contact users of the website who had placed the advert and
ask them (perhaps two or three weeks after placing it) if the exchange went ahead.
6.5
Business-to-Business
B2b exchange websites are growing steadily in number and use, but there appears to be a different
set of drivers compared with domestic exchange sites. This is most apparent in the range of materials
and classification of materials offered. As discussed in Section 4.5, most of the WRAP- and FRN-based
lists are irrelevant to b2b exchange and therefore the monitoring of b2b websites has been based on
the item categories used within those sites. Where possible items that matched the lists provided by
WRAP and FRN were monitored; these include items such as IT peripherals and items of furniture.
36
Table 4.3 (in Section 4.5) lists the material categories found on each of the above sites and
highlighted (in italics) are the categories that could potentially be aligned with the WRAP-based list
and the FRN-based list if required.
Table 6.7 contains a review of all the items listed on EastEx, irrespective of the regional location of
arising. A total of 534 items were listed and the vast majority of these are always present on the site
with no evidence of exchange. The items all appear to be regular by-products of contributors’
processes.
Table 6.7 EastEx total listings per category
Category
Batteries
Total
Listings
1
Category
Total Listings
Pallets
41
Building materials
16
Paper and card
58
Chemical liquids
12
Plant and equipment
7
Drums and containers
21
Plastic and rubber
Electricals and electronics
15
Putrescibles
2
Furniture and fittings
33
Textiles and clothing
55
Glass and ceramics
28
Vehicle parts
10
Metals
0
Wood and timber
64
Oils
5
Miscellaneous
55
111
Whereas non-commercial exchange sites (non-b2b) have a relatively high turnover of listings and
items, the b2b sites appear to have a significant volume of constant listings. This is due to the large
proportion of by-products listed which are produced at a steady rate. For example, one member of
EastEx appears to have a constant supply of pallets which are listed on EastEx (and potentially other
b2b sites), and the listing does not change irrespective of the rate of valid exchange. This means
proving the quantity of exchange is a difficult task and would require direct contact with producers,
which was not done for this study.
Table 6.8 shows the total listings currently available on SalvoMIE for England. This site is clearly a
small player in the sector, though this is unsurprising as it concentrates on unused raw materials.
Construction waste is covered by a wealth of regulation that could limit transfer and therefore the
total number of listings appearing on Salvo MIE. The cost of haulage is also likely to be very high in
relation to the value of the item listed.
The classic situation with business material exchange systems (online or otherwise) is that they have
relatively short lifespans. In the first period, many exchanges occur that put ‘producers’ in contact
with ‘users’; once these links have been established, the transaction continues in private, in a direct
b2b manner. Thus it is highly likely that the b2b sites monitored, if running for extended periods, are
left with more difficult materials that cannot be so readily exchanged.
37
Table 6.8 Salvo MIE – total listings across England
Category
England
Concrete and recycled aggregate
18
Hoardings
1
Metals
1
Paints
2
Plasterboard
1
Plastics
2
Soils, Recycled soils and Compost
1
Various and mixed
20
Total
46
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only two listings were made and these were both in
Scotland and both under ‘Various and mixed’.
Waste Exchange UK provides for exchange of a much wider range of materials and product types. It
has a large number of listings across a wide range of categories and some recognition outside
England. The listings appear static, often being repeated every month as part of ongoing work or
processes.
38
Table 6.9 Waste Exchange UK total listings per category
Category
England
Scotland
Wales
Acids
15
0
3
Northern
Ireland
1
Alkalis
4
1
3
0
Construction Material / Aggregates
58
3
3
0
Container and Pallet
44
1
0
1
Electronic
20
1
0
0
Food Waste
25
0
0
0
Glass
35
0
0
2
Green Waste
10
0
0
1
Metal and Metal Sludge
60
2
0
0
Miscellaneous
71
0
1
2
Oil and Wax
21
0
0
0
Other Chemicals
22
0
0
0
Packaging Materials
83
3
2
3
Paint and Coating
20
1
0
0
Paper and Cardboard
145
0
4
0
Plastic and Rubber
127
2
1
3
Solvent
12
0
0
0
Textile and Leather
23
1
0
0
Wood
65
1
0
1
Total
860
16
17
14
One observation of the national listings on Waste Exchange UK is that the vast majority are in
Gloucestershire (518 out of 907), which seems best explained by the fact that the site is advertised
through the Gloucestershire County Council website, along with a large selection of other exchange
portals and providers.11 The website originates and is still based in Stroud. There would seem to have
been little national take-up so far but its presence on the County Council’s website suggests good
local recognition can increase use. It is not known if other local authorities promote sites such as
Waste Exchange UK.
11
http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5250
39
7.0
Consumer Survey Outputs
This section describes the outputs from the consumer survey. This part of the research was
conducted to provide supplementary evidence to better explain consumer behaviour relating to online
exchange. In particular, it was designed to learn where items may be taken for disposal, or how they
may be exchanged if they are not being exchanged online. Questions were also asked to try and
understand the levels of web usage and use of the websites in focus, as well as other websites not
included in the monitoring work.
The sample profile of respondents in each ACORN category is shown in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Respondents split by ACORN
ACORN
Category
Number of
respondents
Base
Percentage
of
respondents
1,092
Percentage
split of UK
100%
ACORN 1
287
26%
24%
ACORN 2
180
16%
13%
ACORN 3
295
27%
28%
ACORN 4
132
12%
13%
ACORN 5
198
18%
22%
Responses were grouped according to whether or not they could access the internet, and whether
they were users of online exchange websites.
Table 7.2 shows the breakdown of responses for all respondents by internet use and use of exchange
websites. The analysis of the survey in the following sections has split the respondents into two
groups: those who use online exchange websites (583 respondents) and those who do not (509
respondents).
Table 7.2 Use of online exchange sites and access to an internet connection
Do you have an internet
connection?
Have you ever used an online exchange website?
Yes
No
Base
%
Yes
582
53%
188
17%
770
71
No
1
0%
321
29%
322
29
583
53%
509
47%
1,092
100
Base
It can be seen that the majority of respondents do have an internet connection and have used an
online exchange website (53%).
The survey obtained responses from 321 householders (29%) who do not have access to the internet
and do not use online exchange websites. This figure correlates well with national data from the
40
Office of National Statistics (ONS), which states that there were 19.2 million households with an
internet connection in 2010, representing 73% of households. Whilst we acknowledge there might
have been bias as a result of a lower response rate from those who feel that the survey does not
apply to them, the statistic from the ONS would indicate that this has not been the case.
Table 7.3 shows how many people in each ACORN category stated that they use online exchange
websites.
Table 7.3 Use of online exchange sites
ACORN category
All
Base
1
2
3
4
5
1,092
287
180
295
132
198
Yes
53%
55%
66%
54%
51%
41%
No
47%
45%
34%
46%
49%
59%
Significance
(result is
significantly
different from
other ACORN
results)
n/a
ACORN 1
ACORN 2
ACORN 1
ACORN 2
ACORN 3
ACORN 2
ACORN 2
ACORN 3
ACORN 4
ACORN 5
ACORN 5
ACORN 5
Less affluent households in ACORN group 5 are statistically least likely to have used exchange
websites – only 41% in this group have used an exchange website. ACORN group 2 shows the
highest level of usage at 66%, significantly more than other groups. ACORN group 2 households are
generally younger professionals and students, which explains the high level of internet access.
The significance row in Table 7.3 shows which results are significantly different from others based on
a statistical T-test. The number shown refers to the ACORN category for which the sample result is
significantly different. However, for many of the results shown in the following sections, there are no
significant differences between ACORN groups (at a 95% confidence level), which is due to the
smaller sample sizes once responses to individual questions are broken down by group.
7.1
Users of online exchange websites
This section shows the results of the group of 583 respondents who said that they have used
exchange websites. The questions relate to their awareness and use of the sites, as well as the ways
in which they use them, reasons why and the types of item they would willingly exchange.
7.1.1 Which online exchange websites are used?
Respondents who do use online exchange sites were asked about their awareness and use of such
sites. The consumer exchange sites monitored for this report were asked about directly: eBay,
Freecycle, Freegle, Gumtree and Preloved. Respondents were also able to give an ‘other’ answer.
Across all ACORN groups, respondents tend to be occasional rather than regular users for all sites,
including eBay. People are clearly very aware of the eBay brand and it had the highest stated use
(91% of respondents use it regularly or occasionally). Preloved and Freegle were the least used sites
(12% and 6% using them, respectively), and had the lowest levels of awareness among respondents.
41
Freecycle (37%) and Gumtree (29%) had reasonable levels of reported use by respondents, though it
has been previously pointed out that those using exchange websites may also have been more likely
to fill in the questionnaire as they would feel it relates to them. Only 69 respondents said they use
other exchange websites, and only 40 people specified which website that was, of which Greencycle,
Friday free adverts, and Amazon were the most mentioned.
Clearly the higher awareness and use of eBay by respondents helps explain the results from the
monitoring, so that the site most people are using is more likely to see a higher flow of second hand
goods through exchanges arranged on it.
7.1.2 How have the online exchange sites been used?
The people who use each online exchange site were asked how they used the sites: was it for getting
hold of items (accepting or buying), offering or selling items, requesting items or a combination? The
results are presented in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1 How online exchange sites are used
80%
Requesting items
Offering and some accepting
Offering only
Accepting with some offering
Accepting only
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
eBay
Freecycle
Freegle
Gumtree
requesting
offering
accepting
requesting
offering
accepting
requesting
offering
accepting
requesting
offering
accepting
requesting
offering
accepting
0%
Preloved
There is a pattern here which seems to show that people are more willing to receive something
second hand if they have to pay for it. Free items (e.g. on Freecycle and Freegle) seem to be less
tempting and those sites are used more by people wanting to give things away. For eBay and
Preloved (where items are sold) there are more people accepting items than offering them. For
Freecycle and Freegle (free items websites) there are more people offering items than accepting
them. For Gumtree, which has a mix of free items and items for sale, there are more equal numbers
of people offering and accepting.
42
eBay is used by 37% of users to accept items only, whereas just 8% of users only offer items. Ten
percent of respondents said that they use the website to request items, even though this is not a
feature of eBay. This compares with 30% of users requesting items through Freegle, where this is
possible. This indicates that there may be an interpretation issue regarding the question.
The users of Freecycle mainly offer items (73% of respondents) rather than accept items (29% in
total). Of the 58 users of Freegle, 74% use it solely or mainly to offer items, and 36% to solely or
mainly accept items. Users of Gumtree have 42% accepting items and 47% offering. On Preloved, of
the 38 users, 24% accept items only and 13% offer items only.
7.1.3 Reasons for using online exchange sites
Respondents were asked to note the reasons why they do or do not use each of the online exchange
sites. The complexity of the structure of the question has made it difficult to analyse, and the results
were ultimately inconclusive.
7.1.4 What items have been exchanged or would be considered for exchange?
This question focused on what items have been exchanged or accepted online and what items would
be considered when exchanging online (Figure 7.2). The same list of items was used as for the
monitoring, described in Section 3.3.
43
Figure 7.2 Items exchanged online by users of online exchanges
300
Offered
Accepted
250
Number of Responses
Would
consider
200
150
100
50
0
Items
The items reported as most likely to have been offered and received were small electrical items,
computer peripherals, and ‘other items’, which covered a wide variety of items (the most reported
being toys, furniture, DVDs/CDs, bikes and books). Televisions and mobile phones had also been
offered by more respondents than other items. Least likely to be offered or received were leather
jackets, dining tables, desks and office chairs. Overall there were more offered items than received
items, as one would expect since not all offered items will be accepted. Some types of item were
more likely to have been received than offered (other IT, cotton shirts, jumpers and office chairs),
which provides some evidence of the level of demand for certain items. This may also be indicative of
which items are most searched for by site users.
Respondents were also asked if they would consider exchanging each type of item online. Aside from
‘other items’ (as respondents were less likely to think of ‘other items’ to add to the list), it was more
likely that respondents would consider exchanging an item that they had previously exchanged. Here
the gap between what they have already exchanged and what they would consider might be taken to
represent the ‘potential’ for that type of item, at least in terms of crudely what respondents would be
willing to do (and without attempting to quantify the likelihood of such an exchange actually taking
place). In these terms, Figure 7.2 suggests that the greatest ‘potential’ lies with online exchange of
furniture. Respondents also appear willing to exchange leather jackets and large electrical items more
44
than they already do. There is less untapped potential with small electrical items and ‘other IT’, where
exchange of items is already taking place quite successfully. Further investigation of the level of
displacement (items diverted from the waste stream through exchange) is presented in Section 7.4.
7.1.5 Offline alternatives to dispose (or recycle/reuse) items
Respondents were asked what they would do with items that they would not exchange online. For
each item more than one route of disposal could be selected; hence it is not possible to tell which
route of disposal they would have prioritised. This also means that it has not been possible to
determine a displacement rate from other reuse options. There are various other reasons why a
survey such as this is not able to accurately determine displacement. Firstly, options such as bulky
waste collections and use of household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) do not readily allow analysis
that determines whether items disposed in this way would then have gone on to be reused. Some
bulky collections do not facilitate reuse and many HWRCs do not make reuse possible except in rare
circumstances. This is particularly likely to be the case where they only have outside storage space, in
which case items that cannot be kept outside are likely to be weather-damaged before they can be
sold for reuse. Further, the analysis of this kind of survey relies on claimed responses. It seems likely
that respondents would want to appear to be likely to ‘do the right thing’, in which case responses
such as donating to charity or to friends and family may be given more frequently than would tend to
be the case in reality.
We can reasonably presume that various factors would influence the chosen method of disposal. For
example, when moving house there is rarely enough time to arrange for exchange in the way that
one might normally prefer; and therefore easier disposal options may be taken at such times. Figure
7.3 shows the proportionate breakdown of total responses for intended disposal of all items, if the
items were not exchanged online.
Figure 7.3 Offline alternatives to dispose of (or recycle/reuse) items, proportion of responses from online
exchange users
Keep them
4%
Refuse collection
3%
Collection of large
items by council
6%
Donated to friends /
family
22%
Sold offline
6%
Car boot sales
6%
Local tip or recycling
centre
17%
Charitable collection
or outlet
25%
Second hand shops
11%
45
Generally respondents would consider giving items to charitable collections/outlets (25%) or giving to
friends and family (22%). This was followed by taking to the local household waste recycling centre
(HWRC) (17%) and taking to a second hand shop (11%). The items taken to the HWRC may be
disposed of, recycled or taken by an onsite reuse centre, so it does not necessarily mean the item
would be sent to landfill if taken to an HWRC.
Only 3% of the responses related to disposal of items through the refuse collection, though it is
reasonable to suppose that the survey results have understated kerbside refuse as a potential
disposal route, with some respondents perhaps feeling reluctant to state that they would dispose of
items in a wasteful manner. We can expect that intended offline routes of disposal may vary by
ACORN category (as discussed in Section 7.4), since other research has shown that the
disposal/recycling behaviour of different ACORN categories varies in relation to kerbside disposal and
recycling.12 The results do seem to indicate, in any case, that the total additional reuse that can be
attributed to the use of online sites is markedly lower than the total quantities of reuse that are
actually found to be occurring through the monitoring that was carried out and has already been
presented in this report. Additional reuse would appear likely to occur in only around 10–15% of
cases (including some of the responses giving bulky collection and use of HWRCs as likely alternatives
as well as kerbside refuse collection). This assumes that the proportion of responses involving
disposal to residual waste suggested in Figure 7.3 does offer a reasonable proportion of online
exchanges that would otherwise have been disposed of. As already explained, the true displacement
rate would involve a more detailed investigation of alternative options and how likely it is that each
would be used in any one instance.
This survey question was not constrained to investigating a respondent’s actual history of offline
disposal (or recycling/reuse) of various items, and therefore the responses often relate to the
aspirations of the respondents, rather than indicating their actual behaviour.
There could be an impact on the results arising from a respondent’s understanding of the terminology
used in the question. From a respondent’s point of view there could well be some degree of overlap
of charitable collections and second hand shops, which has not been brought out through the survey.
The distinction between the two alternatives could be subjective, depending on what individual
respondents consider to be charitable collection/outlets or second hand shops. It would seem sensible
to assume that in some less affluent areas, all second hand shops are also charitable outlets.
12
Resource Futures on behalf of WRAP, Waste Compositional Analysis by ACORN Category, 2011 (unpublished at the time of
writing).
46
Figure 7.4 Offline alternatives for disposal (or recycling/reuse) of furniture for online exchange users
70%
60%
Keep item
50%
Refuse collection
Collection of large items by council
40%
Local tip or recycling centre
Charitable collection or outlet
30%
Second hand shops
Car boot sales
20%
Sold offline
Donated to friends / family
10%
0%
Sofa
Dining table
Desk
Office chair
Base: Sofa 708, dining table 673, desk 649, office chair 617
It can be seen that the most popular disposal routes for all furniture are donating to charity and
donating to friends and family. For sofas, dining tables and desks over 50% of people who answered
this question would donate to charity and family/friends. Office chairs would also be donated to
charity or friends and family, although taking them to the HWRC would also be an option for 38% of
respondents.
47
Figure 7.5 Offline alternatives for disposal (or recycling/reuse) of electrical items
70%
60%
Keep item
50%
Refuse collection
40%
30%
Second hand shops
Car boot sales
20%
Sold offline
10%
0%
Television Mobile Computer Other IT Other Washing
phone
electrical machine
Base: TV 681, mobile 618, computer 666, other IT 583, other electrical 661, washing machine 642
There was a general pattern to the preferred disposal options for the electrical items, in that HWRCs
and donating to family/friends were the most popular options. The third most stated option for
washing machines was using the council bulky waste collection, whereas for all other electrical items
the third option was to use a charitable outlet.
48
Figure 7.6 Offline alternatives for disposal (or recycling/reuse) of clothing
70%
60%
Keep item
50%
Refuse collection
40%
30%
Second hand shops
Car boot sales
20%
Sold offline
10%
0%
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Base: leather jacket 645, cotton shirt 674, jumper 678
The most stated disposal options for all three types of clothing items was donating to charitable
collections or outlets, followed by second hand shops and donating to friends and family.
7.2
Non-users of online exchange websites
Out of the 1,092 respondents, 509 said they did not use online exchange websites (or were assumed
not to as they did not answer the question relating to use and awareness of the different websites; or
stated that they did not have access to the internet).
7.2.1 Awareness of online exchange sites
The respondents who do not use the websites were asked if they were aware of the sites or not; the
results are shown in Figure 7.7.
49
Figure 7.7 Awareness of online exchange websites for non-users of online exchanges
140
Number of Respondents
120
100
80
Aware of (but have not used)
60
Not aware of
40
20
0
eBay
Freecycle
Freegle
Gumtree
Preloved
Websites
Generally, those who answered this question were more likely to be unaware of a website than to
know of it but not have used it. The exception to this was eBay, of which many more people were
aware than unaware.
7.2.2 Reason for not using online websites
Respondents were asked to rate each website for ease of use, personal security, environmental
benevolence, bargain hunting and item quality.
There was a low response rate to this question and therefore it is difficult to draw solid conclusions
from the results. However, amongst the responses that were received, the quality of an item was
reported to be the main reason for not using online exchange websites, followed by personal security
and not understanding how they worked.
7.2.3 Willingness to use online exchange sites for non-users
All non-users were asked whether they would consider exchanging certain items online. The response
rate to this question was also low, as the data in Table 7.4 show.
50
Table 7.4 Responses to question asking whether non-users would consider using online exchange sites
Items
Base
Response
Sofa
34
32
Dining table
42
39
Desk
40
38
Office chair
30
27
Television
27
26
26
24
30
28
Leather jacket
19
18
Cotton shirt
12
10
Jumper
11
10
Mobile phone
21
20
Computer
23
22
Other IT
32
30
Of the respondents who do not use online exchange sites, less than 10% answered this question. It is
not possible to determine whether those not answering the question would not consider exchanging
items. However, of those who did respond, the results show that the least exchangeable items were
cotton shirts and office chairs, and the most exchangeable items were televisions and computers,
although the differences between least and most exchangeable are small.
7.2.4 Offline alternatives to exchange or dispose (or recycling/reuse) items for non-users of
online exchanges
The non-users of online exchange websites were asked what they do with items they would like to
exchange or dispose of; the proportions of responses for each disposal (or recycling/reuse) option are
shown in Figure 7.8.
51
Figure 7.8 Offline disposal (or recycling/reuse) routes for non-users of online exchanges, proportion of
responses
Keep them
Refuse collection
3%
5%
Sold offline
3%
Car boot sales
2%
Donated to friends /
family
15%
Collection of large
items by council
12%
Second hand shops
9%
centre
20%
or outlet
31%
This question was answered by 410 respondents. It can be seen that 31% of respondents use
charitable collections or outlets to dispose of their unwanted items. Local tips or recycling centres, i.e.
HWRCs (20%) and donating to family and friends (15%) were the other popular choices.
Figures 7.9, 7.10 and 7.11 show the offline disposal (or recycling/reuse) options for non-users of
online exchanges for each category of items (furniture, electrical and clothing).
52
Figure 7.9 Disposal (or recycling/reuse) routes for furniture, non-users of online exchanges
70%
60%
Keep item
50%
Refuse collection
40%
30%
Second hand shops
Car boot sales
20%
Sold offline
10%
0%
Sofa
Dining table
Desk
Office chair
Base: Sofa 297, dining table 275, desk 250, office chair 226
In the furniture category, the option stated by the most respondents was donation to charity. Other
commonly stated options were the council bulky waste collection and donation to family/friends.
Office chairs differed from the other furniture types in having HWRCs as the second most frequently
stated option.
53
Figure 7.10 Disposal (or recycling/reuse) routes for electrical items, non-users of online exchanges
70%
60%
Keep item
50%
Refuse collection
40%
30%
Second hand shops
Car boot sales
20%
Sold offline
10%
0%
TV
Mobile Computer Other IT Other Washing
phone
electrical machine
Base: TV 284, mobile 230, computer 191, other IT 164, other electrical 287, washing machine 275
For televisions, computers, ‘other IT’ and ‘other’ electrical items, the local tip or recycling centre, i.e.
the local HWRC, was the most common response. Mobile phones differed in that the most frequent
response was donation to charity. More people said they would put a washing machine out for the
council to collect than any other route of disposal (or recycling/reuse).
54
Figure 7.11 Disposal (or recycling/reuse) routes for clothing items, non-users of online exchanges
70%
Keep item
60%
Refuse collection
50%
Collection of large items by
council
40%
30%
20%
Second hand shops
10%
Car boot sales
0%
Sold offline
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Base: Leather jacket 262, cotton shirt 283, jumper 295
The most frequently stated option for clothing is donation to charity, followed by taking to a second
hand shop. Over 10% of people would also possibly donate their clothing to friends or family.
Clothing seems more likely than other items (except for some electrical items) to be discarded for
refuse by non-users of online exchange. For both furniture and large electrical goods high numbers of
non-users of online exchange sites would use bulky waste collections, which involve a fairly high risk
of those items not being reused (although the electrical items will be recycled). Further analysis of
offline disposal routes can be found in Section 7.4.
7.3
Comparison of users and non-users
There were 583 users of online exchange websites and 509 non-users who participated in the survey,
although not all of them answered the questions relating to alternative disposal routes. All
respondents were asked about offline alternatives used to exchange or dispose of items. Figure 7.12
and Table 7.5 give a comparison of users and non-users of online exchange websites.
Table 7.5 shows the different offline reuse and dispose routes for all items for both users and nonusers of online exchange. This shows that overall reuse by users of online exchange sites is slightly
higher, although some routes are well used by both (such as charitable collections). The potential
displacement from other types of reuse by offline respondents is lower (i.e. they could do more
additional reuse), though a number of options remain open to increase the amount of reuse they do,
of which online exchange websites is only one. What they switch to when they take up reuse is likely
to be a matter of convenience as much as anything. The data would suggest that there are
opportunities to increase reuse of items collected through the bulky waste system or HWRCs.
55
Table 7.5 Comparison of offline reuse and disposal routes for users and non-users of online exchange websites
Offline alternative
Users of online
exchange
Non-users of
online exchange
Keep them
4%
3%
Refuse collection
3%
5%
6%
12%
17%
20%
25%
31%
Second hand shops
11%
9%
Car boot sales
6%
2%
Sold offline
6%
3%
22%
15%
Figure 7.12 Offline disposal routes for items, comparison of users and non-users of online exchanges
100%
90%
80%
70%
Sold offline
Car boot sales
60%
Second hand shops
50%
HWRC
40%
30%
Refuse collection
Keep item
20%
10%
0%
Do use online sites
Do not use online sites
For respondents who use exchange websites but are disposing of an item offline it was found that the
most commonly stated routes were to donate to charities, then to give items to friends and family,
followed by taking items to the HWRC. For those respondents who do not use exchange websites, it
can be seen that they would also dispose of their items via the same three main routes, albeit in a
different order of preference: via a charity, taking them to the HWRC and then donating to family or
friends.
56
Differences can be seen in the higher proportion of responses relating to use of the refuse collection
and bulky-waste collection for non-users of exchange websites.
Interestingly, it seems that people who use online sites may also take more items to car boot sales,
sell offline and put less in the refuse or bulky waste collection than those who do not use the online
sites. This may suggest that overall the users of sites are more likely to put in the effort to get some
money for their unwanted items. This is consistent with the finding that non-users are more likely to
use charitable collections or to take items to charity shops.
7.4
Additional analysis of alternative disposal routes
The responses received have been further analysed to investigate differences in the behaviour of
respondents when it comes to alternative disposal routes. The analysis has been conducted for
ACORN categories and also per priority item. In particular, the alternative disposal options have been
considered to determine whether there is likely to be any displacement of waste from the municipal
waste stream to reuse outlets.
57
Figure 7.13 and Figure 7.14 show this variation in disposal route by ACORN group in more detail for
two of the priority items: cotton shirts and sofas. This analysis is for all respondents, regardless of
whether they currently use online exchanges or not.
In viewing these results it is important to bear in mind that the responses relate to the aspirations of
the respondents and do not necessarily relate to their behaviour. For example (as discussed below),
ACORN 2 appears to have the highest aspirations in terms of using the more benevolent alternative
routes to online exchange; but this may be partially a reflection of the fact that there is higher
internet usage for ACORN 2 (with a high proportion of young professionals and students in this
category), and consequently a higher rate of participation in online activities, including online
exchanges. This may be influencing the stated responses for offline disposal alternatives. The
example of ACORN 2 aspirations is interesting because it is at odds with other research, which would
suggest that for textiles, ACORN 1 is considerably more active in terms of actually using benevolent
disposal routes (charity shops, donations) than ACORN 2.13
Although all groups are most likely to donate a cotton shirt to a charity, there are differences
between the habits of the different ACORN categories. For example, it can be seen that ACORN 2 is
the group that is most likely to aspire to take a cotton shirt to a charitable collection or outlet, second
hand shop, sell the item offline, take it to a car boot sale, or donate it to friends and family (although
the comments above regarding the possible difference between behaviour and intention need to be
borne in mind here). ACORN 5, on the other hand, is the most likely to put the item in the refuse
collection and more likely to take it to the local tip or recycling centre (i.e. HWRC). It is also worth
noting there are some odd responses, for example the use of a council bulky waste collection for
cotton shirts.
13
Resource Futures on behalf of WRAP, Waste Compositional Analysis by ACORN Category, 2011 (unpublished at the time of
writing).
58
Figure 7.13 Offline disposal routes for cotton shirts by ACORN group
80%
Percentage of respondents
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Acorn 1
20%
Acorn 2
Acorn 3
10%
Acorn 4
0%
Acorn 5
Offline Disposal Route
For sofas, on the other hand, ACORN group 2 is again the most likely out of all the ACORN groups to
aspire to donate the item to charity, take it to a second hand shop, sell it through a car boot sale or
other offline means; but it is also the group that is most likely to take it to the tip or recycling centre
(i.e. HWRC) or request a collection by the council. This may be a reflection of the fact that
respondents from ACORN group 2 were more likely to consider a range of options for passing on
sofas rather than narrowing their responses to only one or two. ACORN group 1 this time is also likely
to donate the item to friends or family, or to a charity. Across the responses for ACORN group 5, the
most popular disposal route is to have the item collected by the council. For all other ACORN groups,
the most popular disposal route is through a charity collection or outlet.
59
Figure 7.14 Alternative disposal routes for sofas according to ACORN group
Percentage of respondents
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Acorn 1
20%
Acorn 2
10%
Acorn 3
0%
Acorn 4
Acorn 5
Offline Disposal Route
Table 7.6 shows the two most popular alternative disposal routes for each of the priority items. This
is shown in graphical form in Figure 7.15. The routes shown in the table are those that are most likely
to be used by consumers if they choose not to exchange an item online. It can be seen that for
furniture, both home and office, the most popular disposal route is through a charitable collection or
outlet, followed by donation to friends or family. For all electrical items except mobile phones, the
most popular disposal route is the local tip or recycling centre (i.e. HWRC). Again the second most
popular route is donating the item to friends or family, except in the case of washing machines, for
which arranging a council collection is the second most popular route. For all clothing – leather
jackets, cotton shirts and jumpers – the most popular response was to dispose of the item through a
charitable collection or outlet, followed by a second hand shop.
The mobile phone category shows slightly different results from all the other electrical items, in that
the most popular disposal route is to donate the phone to friends or family, very closely followed by
disposing of it through a charitable collection or outlet.
60
Table 7.6 The two most popular alternative disposal routes for each priority item
Most popular option
Second most popular option
Sofa
Dining table
Desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computer
Other IT
Other electrical
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Second hand shops
Cotton shirt
Second hand shops
Jumper
Second hand shops
Figure 7.15 shows the different disposal options and the relative popularity of each of the top five
responses for all priority items. For the clothing categories, it can be seen that the significantly most
popular disposal route is through a charity collection or outlet, with over 60% of respondents stating
this route for each priority item. Similarly, this was easily the most popular route for the furniture
categories. Whilst taking items to the tip or recycling centre (HWRC) was the most common response
amongst the electrical items (excluding mobile phones), the graph shows that this was also a fairly
common response for many of the furniture categories. For these larger items, there were also a
reasonable number of respondents who said that they would arrange for a council collection for larger
items – as is the case with washing machines.
61
Figure 7.15 Most popular alternative disposal routes for priority items
70%
% respondents using disposal route
60%
50%
40%
Collection of
large items by
council
Local tip or
recycling centre
30%
20%
Charitable
collection or
outlet
Second hand
shops
10%
0%
Priority item
8.0
Opportunities for Market Development
The evidence gathered as part of this research suggests that internet-mediated reuse could be a
cultural and societal response to a number of factors and to see it as a potentially expanding market
is to assume that society can accept reuse as part of a purchased item’s typical life. However, this is a
general reuse issue rather than one specific to online exchange. In terms of the sites included in this
research, eBay will largely look after itself; with a net income of nearly US$2 billion in 2010 and a
significant advertising budget, the company will continue to grow and attract new users every day.
eBay are also the owners of Gumtree and with the recent decline in television advertising costs,
Gumtree has become a regularly advertised website – more so than the parent company.

As the internet becomes more widely used by all sectors of society, the development of
online exchanges may change to target different sectors and reach populations that are not
currently included. For example, rather than competing with furniture reuse organisations,
these outlets could be encouraged to list their items online. Therefore when their traditional
client base has access to the internet, they will be able to identify and purchase items online
rather than needing to visit the shop. In these instances the websites may need to be
62
developed to account for third parties purchasing the item (e.g. a housing association on
behalf of its tenant).

A benefit of internet reuse over other outlets is that there may be greater opportunities to
match items wanted and offered (free or otherwise). An easy-to-use website that provides
accurate descriptions and pictures is likely to facilitate reuse and allow site users to have
more confidence in the quality and usability of the item they are purchasing/ taking.

Inevitably, the use of online services will increase as more of the UK’s population become
comfortable with using the internet. As internet use increases, it would be appropriate for
local authorities to support online exchanges in the same way that they support offline
methods. This support might be as simple as to link to the site from their own web pages.

For the purposes of this research, the free exchange sites were more difficult to monitor since
items listed on them were not categorised by type but by listing status. For ease of
monitoring, a more detailed and structured categorisation would make it quicker and simpler
to search for and find different types of items being listed.

A further opportunity may be found in encouraging charitable organisations to use online
exchange mechanisms; for example, having a shop on eBay or a group based on the
Freegle/Freecycle model. Based on the evidence of this research, providing an online link to
charity shops could encourage both reuse and charitable exchange and have a double
benefit. This does already occur; for example, some furniture reuse organisations will sell
items on their own website or through portals such as Amazon marketplace. In fact, on eBay
sellers can choose to donate a percentage of the sale price to charity, or a charity can sell
items itself. One example is Marie Curie Cancer care; its eBay page states that 100% of the
sale price of any item sold will go to the charity.14
9.0
Observations and Conclusions
There are two elements to this section. The first concentrates on some of the headline observations
made during this research. They are not all data-based and a number of hypotheses are described
which have arisen from the process of undertaking the research. The second section provides
conclusions about the potential to measure the amount of online exchange to identify the amount of
reuse using this mode of exchange.
9.1
Observations
This section firstly details a number of headline observations made during the monitoring phase of
this research, with specific observations for each website about the amount of activity on each site
and the amount of exchange that was observed.
9.1.1 eBay
Monitoring the number of certain items added to eBay over the course of one week provided a means
of estimating the number of items added to eBay each year. Numbers are high; for example
approximately 1,185,000 used mobile phones, 896,000 cotton shirts and 56,000 washing machines
are listed on the site for sale each year.
The proportion of these items which are actually sold on eBay varies by item. Average sales range
from 82% of mobile phones and 79% of washing machines being sold, down to 31% of cotton shirts
14
http://donations.ebay.co.uk/charity/charity.jsp?NP_ID=11871&searchString=mariecuriecancercareshop#buynp
63
and 34% of jumpers. The actual number of shirts and jumpers sold is still fairly high, however, as
large numbers of these items are listed in the first place, and a high proportion of products that do
not sell first time are then relisted. The results from the items monitored suggest that highly priced
items sell better on eBay than cheaper ones.
The average final bid also varies by item. Sofas are the ‘highest value’ item of those monitored,
selling for an average price of £110. Mobile phones and washing machines also go for higher prices
(as would be expected), with cotton shirts and jumpers both being much cheaper and selling for close
to £5 on average.
There is limited office furniture on eBay, although the items that are listed seem to sell fairly well.
The numbers of larger items that are sold through eBay, such as furniture, washing machines and
computers, are generally lower than smaller items which can be more easily posted to the buyer. The
larger ‘bulky’ items mostly need to be collected in person, which will dramatically reduce the number
of prospective buyers. This monitoring exercise has shown that mobile phones sold the best on eBay
out of all items monitored. High numbers are listed on the site in the first instance, but a high
proportion of those items are also sold; this could be because mobile phones are highly priced but
also easy to post.
9.1.2 Gumtree
Mobile phones are popular items advertised on Gumtree, as are televisions. Results varied by region,
with some areas being much more active than others. A relatively high number of sofas are also
featured on Gumtree. This could be because items are advertised locally, and so prospective buyers
who are searching the adverts are more likely to be in a position to collect the item, compared to
national sites. Very few clothes are advertised on Gumtree, and office furniture did not feature highly.
9.1.3 Preloved
Preloved activity was found to be lower than on Gumtree, although the setup of the site is very
similar, with items being advertised locally. Altogether, there were just 163 adverts for monitored
items across all five areas. In some cases, searches returned just one or two items in certain
categories, and in fact in Inverness there were only three adverts in total across all priority items.
Mobile phones were once again the most popular items to exchange on Preloved, followed by sofas
and dining tables. This could be because the local nature of the adverts benefits those selling large
items that need to be collected in person by the buyer. Very few adverts were found for office
furniture, and there were also low numbers of adverts for computers and washing machines.
9.1.4 Freegle/Freecycle
From the outset, it was clear that neither of these sites has invested in providing an efficient service
for wide-scale use and as the services grow in popularity, some sort of preliminary classification
similar to eBay would improve the usability of the sites and potentially improve the rate at which
items are exchanges on these sites.
Nonetheless a high proportion of users make accurate use of the system which facilitates effective (if
time-consuming) searching for specific items. The availability of a daily digest of listings further
simplifies searching; however, items can be taken very quickly, introducing an element of luck in
obtaining specific types of items.
Geography also plays a part in the effectiveness of Freegle and Freecycle. The group setup means
that a user has to belong to many groups in order to search an area from which they can collect
items. It can be assumed that all items must either be collected or delivered – using a postal service
would then put a cost on an otherwise free item.
64
9.1.5 Consumer survey
The survey data was analysed based on those who do and do not use online exchange sites.
However, there was a low response rate for non-users for the majority of questions which means that
we cannot be confident in drawing conclusions from this data.
For the respondents who do use online exchange websites, it can be seen that eBay and Gumtree are
the most recognised and used. Overall there seem to be more items offered online than accepted,
although this does vary depending on the item. ‘Other’ items, small electrical and ‘other IT’ items
were the most offered and accepted items from respondents who use the websites. When not using
online exchange websites, the respondents who do use them said that they would mostly donate
unwanted items to a charity shop, followed by friends and family donations. For the respondents who
do not use online exchange websites, only six people answered the question about how aware they
are of the different websites; therefore there this data could not yield any reliable results.
When asked how they do dispose of unwanted items, the majority of people who do not use online
exchange websites said that they would donate to charity, make use of a local authority collection or
take it to the household waste recycling centre (HWRC). This result clearly suggests that the majority
of respondents are willing to take environmentally positive actions to manage useable but unwanted
items. However in reality a proportion of these items could be unsuitable for reuse and goodwill, i.e.
willingness to reuse, could well be superseded by convenience.
As shown in Section 7.4, there is a clear trend with offline alternatives for item exchange. Clothing
appears to be sent mainly to charitable outlets (which may include second hand shops depending on
the respondent’s perception of the question) whereas electronic goods (WEEE) are more likely to go
to HWRCs. The offline destination of furniture might be more varied, probably due to the sheer bulk
of some of the items. Many shops, particularly the charitable outlets, are reluctant to accept WEEE
due to the stricter regulation on selling electronic goods. These items require testing by qualified
persons (PAT testing) whereas items such as clothing and furniture are much easier to prepare for
resale or distribution.
The question of suitability for reuse is not likely to be answered by the ‘producer/vendor’, but
whoever receives the item. Therefore it is likely that a proportion of items that are offered for reuse
will not be suitable for reuse and will merely take a longer route to disposal, with no benefit being
derived from the initial goodwill of the offer.
9.2
Conclusions
This study set out to identify whether it is possible to measure the amount of goods being exchanged
online and to develop an understanding of the potential for reuse, and therefore the benefits of online
exchange. From the monitoring that has taken place, it is clear that it is possible to measure the
quantities of items that are listed for exchange. However, for most sites it has not been possible to
know for certain whether an exchange has actually taken place or not.

The research has quantified awareness and use of online exchange both in terms of quantity
and type of items advertised.

For eBay, it can be clear when an item is sold and it becomes second hand therefore
preventing the item from becoming waste. We can quantify the number of items and
therefore it should be possible to calculate the tonnage of waste prevented as a result. This is
a quantifiable benefit of this online exchange portal.

It is not clear how long the item continues to be used before becoming waste. The length of
time a second hand item needs to be used in order to qualify as a reused item is a question
beyond the scope of this report.
65

It is more difficult to measure exchange that has taken place through websites such as
Freegle. This is because it is currently very difficult to determine with certainty whether an
item has actually been taken or not. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of users would
suggest that most, if not all, items are exchanged; but even if this is true, once again it is not
possible to know how long the item is used before it becomes waste, or re-enters the reuse
cycle.

With the online monitoring it has sometimes been difficult to obtain data, especially data to
confirm the item has been sold or exchanged. Without this data it is difficult to measure the
amount of goods being exchanged online and to develop an understanding of the benefits of
online exchange. Success in answering the original aims of this study: to measure online
exchange of second hand goods and provide information for an assessment of the benefits of
reuse through this medium, has been greater for some of the websites than others.
Including online exchange as a viable method of facilitating waste prevention could be an important
element of accounting for waste prevention in the UK. To be able to determine how much reuse is
occurring through online services, it would need to be possible to assess more accurately whether an
exchange takes place, and further research or monitoring would be needed to check with accuracy
whether the reuse that had occurred was additional or was displacing reuse that would have occurred
elsewhere (e.g. via a charity shop or reuse organisation). It would be much more straightforward to
achieve this if the sites themselves were set up in a way that facilitated effective monitoring of
specified types of second hand items, and it is hoped that the recommendations for Freegle and
Freecycle may be of some use in designing their sites to enable easy identification and categorisation
of the main types of items that appear on them.
The issues of item quality and the potential for exchanged items to be subsequently reused or resold,
in relation to items changing hands through online exchanges, have not been comprehensively
addressed in this research. In particular, for the free exchange sites Freecycle and Freegle, items
could be exchanged for benevolent reasons and then sold on for financial gain. Collectibles and
furniture are both subject to this sort of activity. The issue of quality could be addressed through
contacting recipients of items through the portals studied and this could potentially shed light on how
long items are kept out of the disposal stream.
The overall volume of items exchanged could be increased with relatively little investment and it is
recommended this should be researched further in collaboration with specific website operators.
Introducing item categories, even at a very broad level (for instance, furniture, electronics, clothing)
could help people find the items that they are looking for. eBay uses these categories to simplify
search for items, although it is also used to aid the casual browser. This research aimed to find out if
it is possible to measure the amount of goods being exchanged online and to develop an
understanding of the benefits of online exchange. This report shows that the volumes of items can be
quantified to some extent, and that it may be possible to extend the data to estimate weights of
materials changing hands in this way. The monitoring required in order to determine the flow of items
must be streamlined if it is to be repeated on a larger scale; and the nuances and variations of how
specific portals are used must be more clearly understood if annual estimates are to be made more
reliable.
66
Appendix 1: Weight estimates of items
Estimated weights of items exchanged are presented here. These estimates have been kept separate
from the main body of the report, as there is significantly less confidence in the weight estimates in
comparison to estimated numbers of items sold and exchanged, for the reasons described below.
Elsewhere in the report the numbers of items sold and exchanged have been calculated. However it is
problematic to provide corresponding estimates for tonnes of items sold or exchanged with any
confidence, essentially considering the often wide range of weights per item for different
subcategories of the same category. For example the FRN average weight list includes 13 different
entries for televisions, which includes both CRT and flat screen varieties. The different sizes of
televisions, coupled with the different types of television, means that the weight can vary between
4.4 kg and 31.0 kg. The average weight across the range of average weights for the 13 different
types of televisions is 14.4 kg per item. However, it is problematic to apply this figure as an average
weight for televisions because the distribution of weights (i.e. the relative numbers of items of lower
and higher weights) is not known, due to lack of knowledge about subcategories of items (in this
example relating to different types of televisions).
Table A1.1 lists the average weights that have been used for the priority items. We have applied the
‘average’ weight to the number of units exchanged for each of the priority items, and the results of
this analysis are presented below. It should be borne in mind that the ‘average’ weights for any of
these items could be misleading, depending on whether an item subcategory has a lower or higher
weight than the average used in the calculation. Therefore this method of applying average weights
may result in a significant under- or over-estimate of the actual weights involved in online exchange;
and it is not possible to say which without more comprehensive analysis of the listings. Indeed, as
designs and consumer preference changes, this may be reflected in the weight of the items
exchanged (for example, items such as mobile phones and televisions are lighter now than in the
past), and so it will be important for future research to apply average weights of items at a
subcategory level, and for these average weights to be reasonably up to date, if reliable weight
estimates are to be produced.
This method of applying average weights per item in order to arrive at a total estimated tonnage can
obscure the true success of exchange sites. Measures of success that are more valid might arguably
be related to the number of items exchanged, awareness of online exchange communities and levels
of usage of their sites.
Table A1.1 Average weight of priority items
67
Category
Average
Weight (kg)
Sofa
39.50
Dining table
25.00
Office desk
24.33
Office chair
12.00
TV
14.35
Mobile phone
0.50
Computers
6.50
Other IT
14.33
Washing machine
58.67
Leather jacket
1.50
Cotton shirt
0.20
Jumper
0.50
Ebay
Table A1.2 and Figure A1.1 show that sofas, televisions, dining tables and washing machines
contribute more to the tonnage of material exchanged via eBay than other items, despite the fact
that the number of listings and the exchange rate (i.e. the percentage of items that are actually sold
or exchanged) are lower. It is estimated that a total of 4,848,064 priority items are listed on eBay
every year, and the weight of these items sold equates to approximately 15,436 tonnes.
Table A1.2 Estimated listings, exchange rate and tonnage exchanged per annum on eBay
Category
Sofa
Dining table
Office desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computers
Other IT
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Total for priority items
Estimated
annual
listings
222,463
210,418
13,663
52,449
256,724
1,011,764
52,787
286,728
66,658
332,852
1,107,483
1,234,077
4,848,064
Estimated
exchange
rate
47%
49%
49%
42%
67%
82%
59%
39%
79%
49%
31%
34%
Total
tonnage
exchanged
per year
4,130
2,578
163
264
2,469
415
202
1,603
3,089
245
69
210
15,436
68
Figure A1.1 Total estimated tonnage exchanged per annum on Ebay
Leather jacket,
245
Cotton shirt, 69
Washing
machine, 3,089
Jumper, 210
Sofa, 4,130
Other IT, 1,603
Dining table,
2,578
Computers, 202
Mobile phone,
415
TV, 2,469
Office Desk, 163
Office chair, 264
69
Preloved
The average number of items listed per week per Preloved group is low, but if the findings of this
study are factored up to account for the fact that there are 70 groups throughout the country, the
estimated number of listings per annum is 116,480, for the priority items included in this study. Using
an exchange rate based on that observed for eBay, the total weight of items exchanged per year has
been estimated as a total of approximately 927.39 tonnes (for all priority items). In common with
findings for eBay, furniture and large electrical result in a higher tonnage exchanged, despite lower
volumes listed and exchanged. Few items of clothing are listed and exchanged on Preloved.
Table A1.3 Estimated listings, exchange rate and tonnage exchanged per annum on Preloved
Category
Sofa
Dining table
Office desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computers
Other IT
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Total for priority
items
Average
number of
new listings
per week
5
4
1
1
3
8
1
2
1
3
2
1
Estimated
network
activity per
year
18,200
14,560
3,640
3,640
10,920
29,120
3,640
7,280
3,640
10,920
7,280
3,640
Estimated
annual
tonnage
116,480
719
364
89
44
157
15
24
104
214
16
1
2
Estimated
exchange
rate*
47%
49%
49%
42%
67%
82%
59%
39%
79%
49%
31%
34%
Estimated
total
tonnage
exchanged
per year
338
178
43
18
105
12
14
41
169
8
0
1
1,748
927
*based on eBay monitoring
Figure A1.2 Total estimated tonnage exchanged per annum on Preloved
Leather jacket,
8
Jumper, 1
Washing
machine, 169
Other IT, 41
Computers, 14
Mobile phone,
12
Sofa, 338
TV, 105
Office chair, 18
Dining table,
178
Office Desk, 43
70
Gumtree
The average number of listings is higher for Gumtree than for Preloved, although there are fewer
groups with only 46 Gumtree sites throughout the UK (compared with 70 for Preloved). Factoring up
the findings of this study to all Gumtree groups in the UK results in a total estimated weight of items
exchanged of 27,686 tonnes. Once again the larger items contribute significantly to total tonnage,
and users are not listing items of clothing as frequently as they do on eBay.
Table A1.4 Estimated listings, exchange rate and tonnage exchanged per annum on Gumtree
Category
Sofa
Dining table
Office desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computers
Other IT
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Average
number of
new listings
per week
191
99
47
20
272
395
115
76
54
8
35
4
Estimated
network
activity per
year
456,872
236,808
112,424
47,840
650,624
944,840
275,080
181,792
129,168
19,136
83,720
9,568
3,147,872
Estimated
annual
tonnage
18,046
5,920
2,736
574
9,338
472
1,788
2,606
7,578
29
17
5
49,109
Estimated
exchange
rate*
47%
49%
49%
42%
67%
82%
59%
39%
79%
49%
31%
34%
Estimated
total
tonnage
exchanged
per year
8,482
2,901
1,340
241
6,256
387
1,055
1,016
5,987
14
5
2
27,687
*based on eBay monitoring
Figure A1.3 Total estimated tonnage exchanged per annum on Gumtree
Leather Cotton shirt, 5
jacket, 14
Washing
machine, 5,987
Jumper, 2
Sofa, 8,482
Other IT, 1,016
Computers,
1,055
Mobile phone,
387
TV, 6,256
Dining
table,
2,901
Office Desk,
Office chair, 241 1,340
71
Freegle
Whilst the numbers of items listed per month per group are quite low, there is a large number of
groups (269) which means that the estimated number of annual listings is quite high (309,888).
However the exchange rate for Freegle is estimated to be lower than for eBay and other sites, so that
the estimated weight of material exchanged is only 691 tonnes. Freegle is used a lot for exchanging
small electrical appliances. These are not listed below, as small electrical appliances generally are not
classified as priority items for the purposes of this study. Mobile phones are included in the list. It is
interesting to note that the number of small electrical appliances listed is 106,524, resulting in an
estimated weight of items exchanged of 124 tonnes.
Table A1.5 Estimated listings, exchange rate and tonnage exchanged per annum on Freegle
Category
Sofa
Dining table
Desk
Office chair
(fridge, washing
machine)
TV
Mobile phone
Computer
Other IT (printers,
monitors, mice,
consoles, software)
Leather jacket
Shirt
Jumper
Total for priority listings
Estimated
total
tonnage
exchanged
per year
110
15
100
9
Average
listings
per group
per month
12
1
9
2
Annual
listings
38,736
3,228
29,052
6,456
Estimated
annual
tonnage
1,530
81
707
77
Estimated
exchange
rate
7.2%
18.2%
14.1%
11.4%
23
14
6
10
74,244
45,192
19,368
32,280
3,527
649
10
210
8.5%
5.8%
4.5%
9.1%
300
38
0
19
18
0
1
0
58,104
0
3,228
0
309,888
833
0
1
0
7,623
12.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
101
0
0
0
692
72
Figure A1.4 Total estimated tonnage exchanged per annum on Freegle
Other IT, 101
Computer, 19
Mobile Phone, 0
Sofa, 110
Dining table, 15
TV, 38
Desk, 100
Large electrical
items (fridge,
washing
machine), 300
Office Chair , 9
Summary
The estimated total tonnage of priority items exchanged per annum in the UK for the online exchange
sites included in this study is summarised in the Table A1.6, with the same data detailed in Figure
A1.5.
It is worth noting that the weight of items exchanged on the local sites (e.g. Gumtree) is quite high,
relative to use. Whilst eBay has by far the highest number of items listed, the items that are popular,
both in terms of listings and subsequent exchanges, are generally small in size and weight and more
likely to be posted to the buyer, whereas the sites with geographically specific groups are more likely
to match buyers and sellers who can collect or deliver large items within their local area.
Table A1.6 Estimated total weight exchanged per year (tonnes)
Category
Sofa
Dining table
Office desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computers
Other IT
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Total for priority
items
Ebay
4,130
2,578
163
264
2,469
415
202
1,603
3,089
245
69
210
Preloved
338
178
43
18
105
12
14
41
169
8
0
1
Gumtree
8,482
2,901
1,340
241
6,256
387
1,055
1,016
5,987
14
5
2
Freegle
110
15
100
9
38
0
19
101
300
0
0
0
Total
13,060
5,672
1,647
533
8,868
815
1,290
2,761
9,544
267
74
212
15,436
927
27,687
692
44,742
73
Tonnes
Figure A1.5 Estimated total tonnage exchanged per year
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Ebay
Preloved
Gumtree
Freegle
Table A1.7 shows the difference between the number of items listed and the estimated tonnage
exchanged per annum in the UK. This takes account of the exchange rate, i.e. the percentage of
items that are actually sold or exchanged.
74
Table A1.7 Comparison of numbers and estimated tonnages of items exchanged per annum in the UK for the online exchange sites included in this study
Ebay
Category
Sofa
Dining table
Office desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computers
Other IT
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
No. items
listed per
year
222,463
210,418
13,663
52,449
256,724
1,011,764
52,787
286,728
66,658
332,852
1,107,483
1,234,077
4,848,064
Tonnage
exchanged
per year
4,130
2,578
163
264
2,469
415
202
1,603
3,089
245
69
210
15,436
Preloved
No.
items
listed
per
year
18,200
14,560
3,640
3,640
10,920
29,120
3,640
7,280
3,640
10,920
7,280
3,640
116,480
Tonnage
exchanged
per year
338
178
43
18
105
12
14
41
169
8
0
1
927
Gumtree
No. items
listed per
year
456,872
236,808
112,424
47,840
650,624
944,840
275,080
181,792
129,168
19,136
83,720
9,568
3,147,872
Tonnage
exchanged
per year
8,482
2,901
1,340
241
6,256
387
1,055
1,016
5,987
14
5
2
27,687
Freegle
No.
items
listed
per
year
38,736
3,228
29,052
6,456
45,192
19,368
32,280
58,104
74,244
0
3,228
0
309,888
Total
Tonnage
exchanged
per year
110
15
100
9
38
0
19
101
300
0
0
0
692
No. items
listed per
year
736,271
465,014
158,779
110,385
963,460
2,005,092
363,787
533,904
273,710
362,908
1,201,711
1,247,285
8,422,304
Tonnage
exchanged
per year
13,060
5,672
1,647
533
8,868
815
1,290
2,761
9,544
267
74
212
44,742
The percentage contribution that different types of items make to total exchanges in terms of both volume and weight can be seen in Table A1.8.
75
Table A1.8 Percentage contribution of listings and estimated tonnages of items exchanged per annum in the UK for the online exchange sites included in this study
Category
Sofa
Dining table
Office desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computers
Other IT
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Ebay
No. items
Tonnage
listed per
exchanged
year
per year
5%
27%
4%
17%
0%
1%
1%
2%
5%
16%
21%
3%
1%
1%
6%
10%
1%
20%
7%
2%
23%
0%
25%
1%
Preloved
No. items
Tonnage
listed per
exchanged
year
per year
16%
36%
13%
19%
3%
5%
3%
2%
9%
11%
25%
1%
3%
2%
6%
4%
3%
18%
9%
1%
6%
0%
3%
0%
Gumtree
No. items
Tonnage
listed per
exchanged
year
per year
15%
31%
8%
10%
4%
5%
2%
1%
21%
23%
30%
1%
9%
4%
6%
4%
4%
22%
1%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
Freegle
No. items
Tonnage
listed per
exchanged
year
per year
13%
16%
1%
2%
9%
14%
2%
1%
15%
5%
6%
0%
10%
3%
19%
15%
24%
43%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Total
No. items
Tonnage
listed per
exchanged
year
per year
9%
29%
6%
13%
2%
4%
1%
1%
11%
20%
24%
2%
4%
3%
6%
6%
3%
21%
4%
1%
14%
0%
15%
0%
76
Combining the estimated tonnage exchanged per annum on eBay, Preloved, Gumtree and Freegle shows
that an estimated 44,741 tonnes of items are reused through these online exchanges per year in the UK,
taking into account all the priority items included in this study. Whilst the volume of furniture and white
goods exchanged is lower than for other goods, Figure A1.6 shows that these types of items contribute
significantly to the overall weight of material exchanged.
Figure A1.6 Combined estimated total tonnage exchanged per year
14,000
12,000
Tonnes
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
77
Appendix 2: Customer Survey
Questionnaire
Reuse – how using the internet to exchange items can help reduce waste and improve our
environment
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a government body
dedicated to improving resource use throughout the UK, is conducting research
into the environmental benefits of online exchanges.
This short questionnaire is designed to increase understanding of how online
exchange sites, such as eBay, Freecycle, Freegle, GumTree and Preloved, are
used. Exchanging items online can have important environmental
benefits by diverting reusable items away from landfill, and the aim of this
research is to understand the extent of these benefits.
The questionnaire should only take a couple of minutes to complete and
return in the prepaid response envelope. Alternatively, you can fill the
questionnaire out online by typing the following link into your internet browser:
www.surveymonkey.co.uk/s/InternetBasedReuse
The questionnaire requires you to enter a name and your postcode. However,
these details will only be used for the purposes of this of research. Your details will
not be published and will not be made available to any third parties. You will not
be contacted and any answers that you give will remain anonymous.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to help with this important piece of
research; your time is much appreciated. So much so that every respondent will
be entered into a free prize draw with the chance to win high street vouchers
worth up to £50.
Thank you and good luck!
Name
Post Code
1.
Do you have access to an internet connection?
Yes
No
If No, please go to question 6
2.
The following section relates to your awareness and use of online exchange sites. Please mark
() to all that apply. Regular user refers to more than once per week.
Regular Occasional Aware of
Not
user
user
(but have aware of
not used)
eBay
Freecycle
Freegle
GumTree
Preloved
Other, please
specify:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
If you have not used any exchange websites, please go to question 4 and identify the main reasons
for this.
78
Preloved
GumTree
Freegle
Freecycle
If you have used online exchange sites, what have you used them for?
eBay
3.
Other sites, please specify
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
Accepting Items
only
Accepting items
with some items
offered
Offering items and
accepting some
items
Offering items only
Requesting items
Other, please
specify
Preloved
GumTree
Freegle
Freecycle
eBay
Not used
4.
Please look at the list of potential reasons for either using or not using online exchange sites.
So that we can identify positive reasons from negative ones, please mark your positive reasons with a
tick () and negative reasons with a cross (x). If a reason does not apply, it should be left blank.
aaaaaaa
aaaaaaa
Ease of use
Personal security
Environmental benevolence
Bargain hunting
Difficult to understand
Concerned about poor item
quality
Sofa
Leather jacket
Dining table
Cotton shirt
Desk
Jumper
Office chair
Mobile phone
TV
(toaster, food processor,
hairdryer)
(fridge, washing
machine)
Computer
Other IT (printers,
monitors, mice,
consoles, software)
Other items, please specify
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Would
Consider
Accepted
Offered
Would
Consider
Offered
Accepted
5.
This question refers to types of items that you may have offered or accepted online. Which of
the following items have you offered, accepted or would consider exchanging online?
79
Donated to
friends/family
Sold offline
Car boot sales
Second hand shops
or outlet
Collection of large
items by council
centre
Refuse collection
Keep them
6.
What offline alternatives (if any) would you use to pass on or get rid of each type of item, if
you decided not/were not able to do this online?
Sofa
Dining table
Desk
Office chair
TV
Mobile phone
Computer
Other IT
Other electrical e.g.
toaster, hairdryer
Washing machine
Leather jacket
Cotton shirt
Jumper
Other, please specify
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Other, please specify
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your contribution is very valuable to us.
80
www.wrap.org.uk/onlineexchange

Final Report Online Exchange Potential Impact

Transcription

Similar documents

eBay.ca: +1001_Airbrushed helmet picture

Citi Habitats - CIR/SEIU Healthcare

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

Using the eBay Listing Migration Tool

How to Make the Most of eBay Motors

Eye on eBay

California based merchants with consistent 4.9 shipping DSRs

here - Pete Bruckshaw

1991 Volkswagen Syncro 4WD Westfalia Full Camper

advertising specifications