Study Reveals Over Half Of Americans Are Open To A Car Subscription Instead Of Purchasing
The concept is nothing new; a car subscription model has been floated several times, most often by Silicon Valley startups looking to "disrupt" car ownership. Other models, like Zipcar, a subsidiary of car rental company Avis, allow drivers to share their vehicles with those who don't own vehicles for a nominal rental fee.
Extreme Terrain notes that "nearly one in two Americans" are open to a car subscription model instead of buying or leasing their next vehicle. Another ten percent are interested only if insurance and vehicle maintenance are included. Forty-six percent are "more likely" to explore a car subscription if tariffs cause vehicle prices to spike.
Automakers may be to blame for this, too. Twenty-two percent of drivers are fatigued by the ever-expanding required subscriptions for things like navigation, in-car WiFi, and remote start, and feel that a subscription that includes the car is a better choice. Twenty percent say they'd be willing to pay "over $600 per month" for a subscription, too. Almost 75 percent of respondents say the lack of a long-term financial commitment makes a vehicle subscription attractive, with two-thirds saying they'd want the option to cancel at any time. Over half (58 percent) say the ability to swap vehicles based on need interests them.
Toyota (57 percent) and Honda (50 percent) are the brands most respondents are interested in, with Subaru a distant third (31 percent). BMW, Lexus, Hyundai, Nissan, Audi, Ford, Jeep, Mercedez-Benz, General Motors, Kia, Mazda, and Volkswagen all rank between 20 and 27 percent. Unsurprisingly, the car company most often associated with disruption and technology-over-tradition, Tesla, ranked dead last - but did rank highest amongst Gen Z and Millennial respondents.
Thirty-six percent of respondents want an ICE vehicle, while 28 percent would prefer a hybrid. Twenty-two percent had no preference, and only 14 percent said they'd want an electric vehicle via subscription. Gen X was most interested in ICE vehicles (47 percent), while baby boomers (41 percent) and Gen Z (33 percent) were most interested in hybrids.
Succinctly, people are viewing the vehicle subscription as a monthly fee to rent a car with more benefits. Though most say they'd pay $600 per month for an all-in subscription, many (20 percent) also say they'd want to switch vehicles every six months. Respondents also noted they wanted to be able to change vehicles at any time based on need. This sounds like a flat fee for long-term rentals with the ability to swap your vehicle out anytime.
Three percent would want to swap vehicles monthly, and 36 percent would be happy to subscribe to the same vehicle for a full year. Thirty-one percent say they'd be happy keeping the same car indefinitely via a subscription. Only 26 percent of respondents said they would want access to luxury vehicles, suggesting they want a daily driver that costs about the same as a leased or financed vehicle without the responsibility.
A car subscription is a novel concept, but it is untenable for whatever company owns the cars. Six hundred dollars per month is $20 per day, and for a "daily driver" vehicle like a RAV4, which currently rents for double that amount via Avis for a 30-day rental period, that cost doesn't make much sense. A subscription model might work for entry-level vehicles, but it's hard to see how it would actually work for most drivers or the company that owns the vehicles.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
10 minutes ago
- Politico
Dolores Huerta Has Seen Farm Raids Before. But Not Like This.
Well, right now, we're trying to stop a detention center here in California City, which is up here in the Mojave Desert. They are offering the people to work in that center $50 an hour. In California, our minimum wage is $16. That's what a lot of workers get. Let's offer farmworkers $50 an hour, the same kind of a salary that you offer the prison guards, and you'll get a lot of American workers. We have very high unemployment in the Central Valley. We have the prison industrial complex, where a lot of our young people are going to prison. So many of these young people don't have to go to prison if they were paid adequately. I'm sure a lot of them would go and do the farm work, especially if they had good wages to do it. And we still have a lot of young people here in the valley that go out during the summers and they do farm work to help their families. I'm sure a lot of people that we now see that are homeless on the streets and that are able to work would go to work if they were paid $50 an hour. So it's just a matter of improving wages? And training, too. Because farm work is hard work. I mean, you've got to be in good physical shape to be able to do farm work. Why are undocumented workers such a large part of the agricultural workforce? Is it just that these are low-paying, hard jobs that Americans don't want to do, or is there more going on? Well, like I said earlier, the growers have denigrated the work so much that people don't realize that this work is dignified. Farm workers are proud of the work that they do. They don't feel that somehow they're a lower class of people because they do farm work. They have pride in their work. If you were to go out there with farm workers, you would be surprised to see that they have dignity, and they care about the work. They care about the plants. When we started the farm workers union way back in the late '50s and early '60s, you would be surprised how many American citizens were out there. Veterans were out there. The Grapes of Wrath was filmed here. All of those workers in that camp were white. It was the 'Okies' and 'Arkies,' the people that came from Oklahoma and Arkansas and those places to work in the fields. They were all white workers. There were some Latino workers, and then over the years, you had the Chinese, you had the Japanese, and different waves of immigrants that came in to do farm work.
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
There's a better approach for Trump to change Putin's calculus
On Monday, President Trump set a new 10 to 12-day ultimatum for President Vladimir Putin to enter peace talks over Ukraine or face a new tariff regime intended to halt global sales of Russian energy products. Trump is promising a 100 percent 'secondary tariff' on any country that imports Russian energy products, targeting India, China, Turkey and others. He's right to recognize that pressuring the Kremlin's main cash cow is a way to grab Putin's attention, but his approach is counterproductive and incomplete. There are two ways to change Putin's plans in Ukraine. The first is to stop Russia's ability to wage its war of choice by constraining its finances. Oil and gas sales account for about a quarter of the Kremlin's budget. The G7, including the U.S., has taken steps since the onset of the war to lower Russia's energy revenues. Last month, the Kremlin's tax proceeds from energy sales were at their lowest since January 2023; however, the Russian government still pocketed about $6 billion. This shows the tradeoff in the G7's initial goal — dent Russian revenues without fully blocking the sale of Russian oil. The G7 has attempted this balancing act because Russian oil exports still make up 7 percent of global oil supply and a full shut-in would roil energy markets across the world. Trump's new plan proposes to do exactly that. To stave off the threat of U.S. tariffs, importing countries may stop accepting Russian oil. Without Russia's 7 million barrels per day of oil exports on the market, global crude oil prices could shoot up almost 25 percent, even assuming other suppliers like OPEC have the capacity and desire to pick up half the slack. Prices at the pump in America would then climb just as tariff-induced inflation hits the economy at a time when nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation. The other scenario, in which some importers defy Trump's threat, is not much better. The imposed secondary tariffs would further ignite inflation in America, especially if they target Chinese imports. Another ratcheting up of tariffs timed simultaneously with increases we saw in bilateral tariffs yesterday could destabilize Wall Street's equity markets again, all while quickening price increases on Main Street. Putin understands these dynamics; that's why the secondary tariff threat won't bring him to the table. It's true that blocking the sales of Russian oil would be a massive hit to the Kremlin, but he sees this as an empty threat because the plan is costly not just to Russia but to the whole world and, in particular, America. Instead, Trump can implement a different tariff to attack Russia's revenues without causing collateral chaos. With existing authorities, the Trump administration can impose sanctions on any company or individual in the world involved in a Russian oil and gas sale. Wanting to maintain access to America's financial system, most will seek to avoid sanctions. The U.S. could permit transactions if Russia pays a shipment fee on each sale — a Russian universal tariff — to the Treasury Department. From there, the U.S. could ratchet this tariff up month by month if Putin drags his feet on negotiating. Financially squeezed over time, Putin will feel increasingly boxed in. The second way to change Putin's calculus is by fortifying Ukraine financially and militarily. Right now, the Kremlin sees global support for Ukraine waning, with citizens in America and Europe fatigued of funding a foreign war. But we don't need to rely on our own taxpayers to back the Ukrainian people. Instead, the U.S. and G7 should seize the $300 billion worth of Russian sovereign assets already frozen in our countries and commit them to supporting Ukraine's defense and reconstruction. Doing so will foil one of Putin's main strategies. Despite a standstill on the battlefield, he thinks he can bring Ukraine to its knees by destroying its economy. That will prove much harder if Ukraine can access Russia's frozen assets. In addition to financial support, Trump and Congress should commit to providing Ukraine with the military resources it needs to continue defending itself. After the 2024 election, Putin thinks he can wait out Ukraine's limited arsenal. Trump needs to flip the script and make clear that a war of attrition is not winnable for Russia. His decision to unpause previously approved military assistance was a good first step. But to force a rethink from Russia, Trump must go further. Committing to arming Ukraine with the weapons made by American workers and companies until Russia agrees to and upholds a ceasefire will do just that. After years of prolonged conflict and unnecessary death, there is a clear need to force Putin's hand. President Trump's instinct is right, but his approach is wrong. To get Russia off the battlefield and to the table, he must delineate a plan that makes negotiating Putin's best option, and that is one that hinders the Russian war machine, helps Ukraine and garners support from Americans and our allies.
Miami Herald
41 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Iconic shoe store makes alarming closure decision after 50 years
If you're selling shoes, you'd better hope you're a massive corporate brand like Nike or Adidas. If not, you're risking obsolescence. Related: Popular bankrupt home goods chain closes more stores, liquidating Unlike perfume, art, or parts of the high-fashion industry, most mainstream shoe shoppers aren't interested in niche items. They want the latest and most popular styles or brands. And as a shoe seller, if you don't carry these household names, you probably aren't getting sales. RunRepeat conducted a survey on which brands Americans use. Top shoe brands Americans use Nike: 53%Adidas: 41%Converse: 29%Skechers: 28%Jordan (which is a part of Nike): 27%New Balance: 27%Vans: 25%Puma: 25%Autry: 19%Reebok: 18% Of course, plenty of other shoes have been growing in popularity. Hoka, Asics, and Salomon have been growing as customers seek out performance. And customers who want comfort often opt for Crocs and HeyDude. But the shoe market isn't an unlimited fountain of potential. The worldwide global footwear market is estimated to be worth just over $463 billion, per Fortune Business Insights. So shoe stores must carry the most sought-after brands. The numbers are clear; customers want big brands, and few are interested in smaller, niche labels. Hanig's Footwear might not mean anything to customers outside of the Midwest. But for Chicago shoppers, it's been an iconic mainstay for decades. Hanig's Footwear was founded by Peter Hanig, who started Chicago's Cows on Parade statue phenomenon many locals and tourists are familiar with. Related: Walgreens quietly makes a harsh store closure decision He ran Hanig's Footwear as his day job. And for over 50 years, Hanig's was a popular shop on the Magnificent Mile. It opened on North Michigan Avenue in 1975. Eventually Hanig's relocated to 875 North Michigan Ave, just two blocks from Lake Michigan and a retail hub home to top brands like Ralph Lauren, Chanel, Neiman Marcus, and Adidas (all within a couple of blocks). Hanig's, however, sold mostly smaller, European, or independent shoe brands, including: MephistoAraThink!NaotGaborDansko Now, Hanig's has decided to shutter its Magnificent Mile location. The store is expected to close by September or October 2025. Its other store, located in Wilmette, Ill. (a northern suburb of Chicago) will remain open. Like in other cities, some downtown retail hubs have gotten to be too expensive for smaller or independent operators. Vacancy has been a growing issue in the Magnificent Mile, which was previously known for iconic architecture and is home to dozens of brand names including Hugo Boss, Louis Vuitton, Stuart Weitzman, Samsonite, and all the top department stores. But the Magnificent Mile has faced a wide array of issues for retailers, making business harder to conduct. Challenges facing the Magnificent Mile: Rising rent ($250–$275 per sq. ft.)Major tenants leaving (Macy's, Uniqlo)Reduced tourism and workforce (26% of Chicago's workforce is remote, per Robert Half)Overreliance on luxury retail, which can price out mid-tier retailers "Small businesses are no longer viable on Michigan Avenue," Hanig said of the closure. "I'm sad about it. This has been a major part of my life for a long time. We had an incredible time. We met so many people over the years as a result of it, and we were very lucky to be there." The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
