Case analysis of Uber
Uber is a San Francisco firm established in 2009 by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp. Currently, it is one of the quickest expanding companies within the world. Uber was positively received by the urban society and extensively commended for its affordable prices, decent service, as well as short waiting durations as echoed by its fast growth. Its estimated valuation during 2014 arrived at USD 17 billion, and that was an increase from USD 3.5 billion in the previous year. The concept behind Uber is quite simple (Glennen, 2017). Prospective travelers are able to download a smartphone application that lets them to call the nearest accessible Uber car. Nonetheless, unlike an old-style taxi firm, Uber does not run its own vehicles. The company recruits private drivers eager to offer rides to paying commuters and conveys the ride requests straight to them. Uber functions efficiently as a matching medium for drivers and passengers and generates cash through taking a 10-20 percent cut from every trip. The drivers may operate during their free time and have to sustain a good rating that is provided by passengers following every trip. Prior to Uber, getting a taxi was a ritual that clients were compelled to agree to every day. However, they did not enjoy the rides and they had to use a comparatively high sum of money. There was just no alternate until the entry of Uber which changed everything.
Until Uber got on the scene, few persons deemed the inherent pressure of hiring a taxi. Within the majority cities, the taxi experience has improved extremely little since 1950. However, nobody had established a better means to get a ride nor even visualized that there might be a better means (Bhuiyan, 2016). The operators of the taxis themselves, regularly functioning within a controlled or monopolistic setting, held little inducement to innovate. The customary technique of locating a cab is to march to a busy lane, lookout for an untenanted taxi, and extend an arm to get the attention of the driver. This is a great friction procedure for both the passenger as well as the traveller. The driver wanders across streets looking for prospective clients. Whereas experienced drivers understand where to go to boost the likelihood of getting clients, they still experience a great deal of wasted fuel along with driving minutes. Moreover, consumers encounter much friction. Regularly, there are no taxis within the vicinity. For example, whenever it is raining more persons are in need of cabs. This generates a disproportion of demand and supply, and clients might stand within the rain flapping their arms for prolonged durations. Even with the creation of Taxi stands, airport queues, and other approaches to help lessen this friction, the issue had remained unresolved making it hard for some clients to get cabs within the old market. Once demand is great, the taxi ranks could be empty of cars. Conversely, once demand is low, drivers could sit for prolonged episodes waiting a cab. This was the nature of the market before the entry of the Uber.
During December 2008, Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp, two businesspersons and associates, were within Paris attending the yearly tech meeting LeWeb (Bhuiyan, 2016).. That night, they had to return to their studio and they could not hail a taxi owing to the ice. After Camp and his associates used $800 get a private driver, he desired to discover a way to lessen the price of direct transport (Glennen, 2017). He recognized that sharing the price with persons could make it inexpensive, and his concept transformed into Uber. They needed a cheap alternative wherein persons could share the budget. They need an alternative that could be reached easily without having to rom down the streets looking for a cab. As a result, they exploited this market. This is the inefficiency Uber exploited.
Uber’s surge pricing in the context of shifts in supply and demand
The fare rates for the Uber are decided through a system recognized as “surge pricing” that levies a greater rate in times when a lot of travellers are in search of their service (Kedmey, 2014). The surge pricing for the Uber explicitly leverages the idea of demand and supply. As the company explains it, “once demand for the services outdoes the supply of vehicles, surge pricing takes effect growing the price. One will automatically notice a ‘surge’ icon if he or she still need a drive. Uber displays the surge multiplier and subsequently asks for the client’s approval to that higher cost. Surge pricing holds two consequences namely: persons who can wait for a car frequently choose to wait until the charges declines; and drivers who are within the proximity drive to that vicinity to get the clients for higher charges. As a result, the amount of persons in need of a car and the amount of accessible drivers get closer together, causing the wait times to go down. The Uber drivers are compensated depending on the time as well as the distance covered in a specified trip and the Uber charge rate in effect at the moment that they are with a traveler.
To sum up, the intent of Uber is to capitalize on the volume of drives and drivers it may offer irrespective of any man-made or natural occurrence that could deter customary kinds of transportation from meeting the need of the clients. Arbitrary charge surge is not the endgame of Uber since it applies its standardized model to react to times and zones of great demand. Preferably, Uber’s surge balances demand and supply through re-allocating rides to those zones, to make sure that surge goes down due to the drivers’ influx (Lin, Kalanick, & Wang, 2014).
Uber’s surge pricing in the context of price discrimination
Price Discrimination takes place when company sells a product or service to diverse customers at two or more dissimilar values for grounds not essentially linked with cost. Price discrimination brings about greater revenue for the company. After Uber lunched upfront pricing within the United States last year, its model of charging travellers a fixed value when they request for a ride as well decoupled driver rates from what travelers compensated (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). The value that Uber levies to travellers is its best speculation at what a ride will cost; the amount it compensates drivers is a metered rate founded on distance covered and time used. For instance, from the UberX at the lower part to Uber LUX, Uber can effectively price discriminate at five rate levels within Los Angeles.
Economists define this model of charging persons founded on their will or capability to pay instead of flat rate “price discrimination” (Bhuiyan, 2016). Different from other kinds of discrimination, it is not essentially deemed bad. The basic concept is that travelers hold a certain sum they are ready to pay for any specified trip and Uber hold a certain value that they charge. The variance between what the firm charges and the client will compensate is known as the consumer surplus. Within most marketplaces, there is just single rate (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). However, if Uber is aware of precisely how much every consumer is ready to pay, they may charge in view of that. That permits them to get the entire customer surplus and allocate it to themselves. This might seem unfair or annoying, but they do not consider it ineffective.
Concepts of economies of scale and economies of scope to Uber’s business model
Building an economy of scale is one of the primogenital business prototypes, and first got to distinction throughout the Industrial Revolution. An economy of scale defines the cost benefit that originates from generating a huge amount of goods as opposed to generating a lesser amount. Uber is a two-sided market, a platform business prototype that links drivers and travellers through an interface that holds gamification elements that makes it simple for two sides to link and trade (Gurley, 2014). Uber does not possess any car. In its place, it depends on economies of scale of demand wherein the cost of employing the platform for every user surges as more consumers employ the site. On the one side, there are economies of scale in developing and working a software site which is a key Uber reserve. Minor rivals have to develop basically the similar features, price of which is spread over lesser amount of consumers. On the other side, there are as well economies of scale in running bigger fleets of cars that provide drawback to Uber’s model of great amount of independent drivers contrasted with old-style taxi business. It is indistinct if Uber will be capable to attain cost benefit but the projections of having a substantial advantage within this field are thin.
Concepts of game theory to Uber’s market
Uber broke into a marketplace that has extensively been led by monopolistic taxi dealers. Within the context of cities particularly, the taxi business has developed to be rooted in oligopolies – with two or one key taxi firms offering services to ready drivers within cities like New York. This oligopoly described by the high obstacles to entry signifies a real case of game theoretic competition together with the arrival of Uber. Uber’s interruption to the business came with lesser charges, minimization of travel time, and expediency (Cherry, 2012). The value of getting a taxi before Uber characterized a charge far beyond perfect competition. Within a sequence of price damages amongst the taxi services and Uber, the price of getting a cab has gotten nearer to the marginal price of offering the service.
This technique of price reducing to get hold of a marketplace may be modeled within game theory within the setting of monopolistic competition. Beginning with the primary “monopoly”, the taxi service regulated the whole market. As a result, Uber had two choices – get the entire marketplace through giving a lesser cost, or team up with the taxi services to reach a single value that the two parties will obligate to offering and divide the marketplace segment. Moreover, even after costs have stabilized, Uber and the taxi services encounter the choice daily of whether to continue with the present price given by the two companies (team up) or weaken the others’ cost and take the whole marketplace share for a temporary epoch (cut)(Cherry, 2012).
Uber’s potential for international expansion and potential trade policy issues
The future of Uber rests on international expansion. Amazingly, in beneath eight years the firm has accomplished enlargement in over 450+ marketplaces across the globe and is constantly developing (Ladd, 2019). Growing globally has entailed a sequence of modifications to the mobile appliance and business model to confine it to the marketplace as well as culture. The firm has had to create changes to put up diverse currencies, languages, and distance policies but presently they are experiencing worldwide challenges in their non-U.S. marketplaces. Uber was the principal main ride-hailing firm having mobile on-demand transport. While rivalry began to deepen, Uber organized on the manner to stay number one within this marketplace field. They understood in realization of the threat posed by these rivals into the marketplace, they had to swiftly and aggressively expand both domestically as well as globally. Nevertheless, along the way “the firm’s enlargement was met with excitement and key blocks leading to litigations, technological restrictions, and government regulations. For instance, Uber’s costly push into china concluded shortly during 2016 after its domestic competitor Didi Chuxing publicized it had bought Uber China and more lately the firm fused with Yandex, to mark its depart from another main global marketplace, Russia.
The incentive pay model Uber uses and how it affects the principal-agent problem
The traveller who is riding within the Uber is described as the principal while Uber is described as the agent. Within the transaction the Uber’s driver is described as an intermediary. Nevertheless, the driver might hold extra information compared to the rider leading to information asymmetry and a distinct principal-agent issue (Anderson, 2014). Over the previous few years, the practice of giving incentives to service employees has turned out to be a basis of hot discussion within the service industry as well as among government watchdogs. The most universal issue that incentives are intended to overwhelm is what economists refer to as the “principal-agent issue.” Within this case, a principal (employer) and agent (worker) hold marginally diverging concerns, and the principal has to devise a way of having the agent to perform within her top interests. Whereas both the employee and employer share a concern within the establishment’s general success, every worker desires to accomplish his or her responsibilities with trifling effort. As a result, the boss has to decipher creative ways of inspiring his or her employees whereas simultaneously dipping the expenses of monitoring them openly.
Asymmetric information issues with Uber’s business model
The traveller who is riding within the Uber is described as the principal while Uber is described as the agent. Within the transaction the Uber’s driver is described as an intermediary. Nevertheless, the driver might hold extra information compared to the rider leading to information asymmetry. The firm’s surveillance practices attained through the firm policy as well as the interaction scheme of their application generate substantial information asymmetries between the business unit and distinct chauffeurs. Using real-time statistics gathering means, the firm’s core round-the-clock workers like data engineers and scientists hold access to and regulation over massively larger volumes of information regarding every driver’s knowledge in work. Every chauffeur’s metrics may therefore be contrasted to drivers in cumulative and rated consequently; Uber hence generates prods that guide drivers when where, and the manner to operate. Information asymmetries are not derivatives of the application design of Uber but essential portions of the Uber business model. Rather than giving consistent salaries, Uber’s model compels blind reception of travelers by chauffeurs who are not presented with the customer’s endpoint or the manner they might get on the charge.
In conclusion, Uber is a San Francisco firm created in 2009 by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp. Currently, it is one of the quickest expanding companies within the world. Uber was positively received by the urban society and extensively commended for its affordable prices, decent service, as well as short waiting durations as echoed by its fast growth. During December 2008, Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp, two businesspersons and associates, were within Paris attending the yearly tech meeting LeWeb. That night, they had to return to their studio and they could not hail a taxi owing to the ice. After Camp and his associates used $800 get a private driver, he desired to discover a way to lessen the price of direct transport. He recognized that sharing the price with persons could make it inexpensive, and his concept transformed into Uber. The future of Uber rests on international expansion. Amazingly, in beneath eight years the firm has accomplished enlargement in over 450+ marketplaces across the globe and is constantly developing.
References
Anderson, D. N. (2014). “Not just a taxi?” For-profit ridesharing, driver strategies, and VMT. Transportation, 41(5), 1099–1117. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9531-8
Bhuiyan, J. (2016). Contracts and chaos: Inside Uber’s customer service struggles. Buzzfeed. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/contracts-and-chaos-inside-uberscustomer-service-struggles?utm_term=.vhWO4ZkRoM#.cn11P9weRJ
Cherry, M. A. (2012). The gamification of work. Hofstra Law Review, 40(4), 851–858
Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 279–296. doi:10.1177/1086026614546199
Glennen, C. (2017).Start-ups are growing like never before thanks to economies of scale. World Finance https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/start-ups-are-growing-like-never-before-thanks-to-economies-of-scale
Gurley, B. (2014). A deeper look at Uber’s dynamic pricing model. Retrieved from https://newsroom.uber.com/guest-post-a-deeper-look-at-ubers-dynamic-pricing-model/
Kedmey, D. (2014). This is how Uber’s “surge pricing” works. TIME. Retrieved from http://time.com/3633469/uber-surge-pricing/
Ladd, T. (2019). The Triumph of Uber’s Losses. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedladd/2019/10/01/the-triumph-of-ubers-losses/#665cc50e649f
Lin, H., Kalanick T., & Wang, E. (2014). System and method for providing dynamic supply positioning for on-demand services. Retrieved from http://www.freshpatents.com/- dt20140109ptan20140011522.php