Who Still Wants to Own a Car?
Written by Jason Craker on
OEMs at the Crossroads Revisited, Part Two
Missed part one of this series? Catch up here.
Eighteen months ago, I explored the shifting landscape of car ownership, highlighting the rise of subscription models and alternative ways for consumers to access vehicles. At the time, it seemed that the automotive industry was on the brink of a major transformation, following the path of other industries where ownership had given way to pay-per-use convenience.
Fast forward to today, and it’s fair to say that reality has delivered a harsh lesson. Many of the examples I cited in the original blog—Care by Volvo, Volvo on Demand, ONTO—have either been shut down or have struggled to remain commercially viable. The bold experiments that promised a future where fewer people owned cars and more people simply used them have, in many cases, failed to take hold.
So, what happened? And does this mean the traditional model of car ownership is here to stay? Not necessarily. But it does mean that the transition hasn’t been as simple or as inevitable as many had assumed.
The Subscription Model: A Case of Too Much, Too Soon?
Subscription models still make sense in principle. Consumers in many sectors—from entertainment to fashion—have embraced access over ownership, and younger generations in particular seem less wedded to the idea of buying big-ticket items outright. Yet in the automotive world, the execution has been fraught with challenges.
Care by Volvo, an early example of an OEM-led subscription service, was ultimately withdrawn. Volvo on Demand, the company’s more flexible car-sharing platform, also failed to gain sufficient traction. ONTO, which became Europe’s largest electric car subscription service, collapsed into administration. Lynk & Co, once seen as a trailblazer for subscription-based car usage, has the risk of being absorbed into its sister brand ZEEKR, highlighting the growing financial pressures on such models.
The reason? In simple terms, the numbers just didn’t add up. The cost of running these services —managing fleets (specifically Electric Vehicles (BEV)), maintaining vehicles, and absorbing depreciation and falling residual values on EVs —meant that profitability remained elusive. Meanwhile, consumers, while intrigued by the idea, weren’t willing to pay the premium required to make these services sustainable.
In retrospect, it’s easy to see why the first wave of subscription models struggled. Unlike industries such as music and film, where a subscription provides access to an almost limitless library of content, a typical car subscription provides access to a single vehicle—at a higher cost. The financial burden proved too much for both providers and consumers alike.
The Future of Car Ownership: A Shift, Not an Overhaul
Does this mean subscription models are dead? Not necessarily. Instead, it may mean that the industry needs to rethink how they are structured.
Why is Change Hard for the Automotive Industry?
For example, the emphasis so far has been on new cars—but could a subscription model for used vehicles, at a lower price point, be more viable? Could fleet providers such as Hertz or Enterprise, with their experience in managing vehicle inventory, be better positioned to deliver these services than OEMs?
Then there’s the question of who should be driving this shift. OEMs, historically, are manufacturers first and foremost. Retail and customer engagement have never been their core focus. This raises an important consideration: should OEMs be the ones leading the charge on new ownership models, or should they focus on producing vehicles while letting others in the ecosystem—rental companies, fleet operators, or even community-based schemes—handle the distribution and access models?
With all this said, it’s great to see the traditional Renault organisation launching Mobilize at Paris 2024, alongside some great redesigned Electric platforms - the Renault 5 E-Tech Evolution is still one of my picks in the last year, Their Mobilize brand is gaining some engagement, as they specifically look to target the highly urbanised areas, with their circular economic principles, car sharing partnership with glide.io and flexible insurance and usage packages.
Ownership vs. Access: The Debate Continues
Despite the commercial failures of recent subscription models, the desire for alternatives to outright car ownership remains strong. The economics haven’t worked—yet—but the underlying trends are still in motion. Younger generations are more sustainability-conscious and less interested in asset ownership. Urbanisation continues to reduce the necessity of owning a car outright. The automotive sector is also shifting toward a more software-defined model, where cars become platforms that can be upgraded and customised over time.
And then there’s the bigger picture. The concept of ownership itself is evolving across industries. In housing, we see shared living spaces and co-ownership models emerging. In technology, leasing and upgrade programs for phones and laptops have become commonplace. In transport, shared mobility solutions—whether it’s e-scooters, bikes, or car clubs—continue to grow in urban environments.
It may simply be that the first wave of automotive subscription models was too ambitious, too early. The failure of initial attempts doesn’t mean the concept itself is flawed—it means the execution needs to evolve.
What Next?
So, am I walking back my original argument? Yes, to a degree. I’m not a futurist, and I don’t have a crystal ball, but I still believe that the traditional model of car ownership will be challenged over time. What I got wrong was how quickly that shift would happen and who would lead it.
The reality is that the automotive industry hasn’t yet cracked a commercially viable alternative. But that doesn’t mean the conversation is over. The need for more flexible, affordable, and sustainable mobility solutions isn’t going away—it just might take a different form than we first imagined.
Maybe the solution isn’t full-fledged subscriptions. Maybe it’s cooperative ownership models, where communities share access to a fleet of vehicles. Maybe it’s a shift toward leasing-based models with more dynamic pricing. Maybe it’s a stronger emphasis on the circular economy, where second- and third-life vehicles are refreshed and repurposed rather than discarded.
What’s clear is that the market is still searching for answers. And if OEMs don’t find a way to engage more meaningfully with this conversation, they risk being left behind—not by subscription models, necessarily, but by whatever does eventually replace the traditional ownership model. Because make no mistake, something will.