The Gig Economy: Uber’s Woes

Written by

admin

in

, , , , , ,

I enjoy looking at great disruptive companies and great examples of industries that are primed for disruption.

Think about how many companies have failed due to myopia… Radioshack couldn't understand a future where shopping was done online and Kodak didn't think digital cameras would replace good ol' film. Blockbuster couldn't foresee a future where people would want movies in their mailboxes, because "part of the joy is seeing all your options!" They didn't even make it long enough to see "Netflix and Chill" become a thing. 

The Taxi industry had been ready for disruption way before Uber came along, yet, Uber may have mismanaged their opportunity. Taxis now have a chance to innovate back. 

To run a taxi in New York you need a medallion. There are approximately 13.5 thousand medallions in NYC. In 2013, prices peaked at over 1.3 million dollars for a single medallion. 

The medallion system has been broken for a long time. NYC taxis, in particular, were corrupt and the prices of medallions were artificially inflated by Bloomberg and de Blasio, and built on a debt bubble.

Taxis offered mediocre service, high rates due to artificial caps/greed, and often didn't take credit cards.

They didn't adapt and got disrupted. It's an age-old tale. The same tale as Blockbuster or Kodak; companies thinking linearly in an age of exponential change. 

Taxi agencies had the infrastructure to edge ridesharing out and adopt friendlier policies but were slow to adopt the apps and convenience that modeled ridesharing.

 

Dzf6nmlyx6h31

via chartr

It's clear that there's an increased demand for rides. Increased demand is likely caused by access in places that didn't previously have enough demand for a full taxi-service. Ridesharing means you can have drivers in small towns, rural areas, etc. Almost all the new demand is being monopolized by ridesharing. 

Should it be, though?

Many would argue Uber's model isn't sustainable; neither are many of these gig-based companies like DoorDash. Uber has a product almost everyone uses, no inventory, very little staff, and despite "winning" the race, it lost $370 million in 2018 and $4.5 billion in 2017.
 
They gained market share by offering lower prices (even at a loss). They also incentivized an army of drivers to join based on flexible hours and side-income.
 
The road to profitability for these companies is uncertain.
 
And the public opinion of Uber is dropping. You have drivers taking out loans to lease cars. You have California making uber classify their workers as employees. You have a review of 14,576 rides showing that these companies take a much larger slice of their drivers' fares than they purport.
 
Uber's low prices got it here, but prices have slowly raised, and AB5 in California has passed, though Uber is claiming exemption – it's likely their prices will jump again if forced to comply.
 
Rideshare companies are trying to convince workers that hour flexibility is worth the non-employee status, but I don't think that has any real basis. Gig workers can't unionize, have little labor protection and don't receive benefits.
 
The industry is in a period of massive disruption – but taxies have a chance to fight back. As the gig economy becomes regulated, the already defined system may regain an edge.
 
In the game of disruption, Uber was shortsighted. In the game of knowing their customers, Taxis were shortsighted.
 
Will taxies see a resurgence as Uber inevitably hikes up rates? Will autonomous fleets put drivers out of business as they will for long-haul freight?
 
Time will tell!
 
Onwards!

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts