The statement is absolute bullshit too: "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics."
No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that".
I live in NYC. The Uber app has now been banished from my phone. It's too bad the Gett app is kind of an unpolished turd.
I wonder if what they did could be considered criminal. Back in highschool a friend of mine did the "order a dozen pizzas to someone's house" prank and he got caught doing it. Though nothing came of it, a police officer told him he could have been charged under a crime called "Defrauding an innkeeper" for ordering a service/product under false pretenses.
It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers (why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.
> No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that".
If you're suggesting that they should be prosecuted, then we can argue that, but Uber is not able to prosecute members of its team. What do you expect Uber to do, other than to stop the behavior?
There are consequences larger than "hey, stop that."
Even Uber's legal representation said they could be liable for damages:
If Uber employees intentionally diverted Gett drivers from legitimate business by making phony calls, that is an unfair business practice, illegal under California law," he said. "It is also an intentional interference with Gett's business which makes them liable for money damages.
You hire a sales team to sell your product. They're the least invested in the overall business, they have the highest turnover rate of any other department. Typically, they're young, inexperienced, right out of college. Typically, this isn't their only job. Most care less about the overall viability of the company or the company image then they do about making a sale and a commission.
The balance between sales and the long-term vision of a business is hard. You need people that are driven but are interested in sticking it out. Sales has a high-level of burn out so it's hard to get someone driven and interested in staying long-term at a company.
This Uber thing is salespeople doing whatever it takes to get that commission. Uber maybe needs to reinvent their sales incentive structure the same way they've reinvented ridesharing.
That is not only morally wrong but it is flat out stupid. Uber is the leading firm in a growing market with network effects. They should be worried about growing as fast as possible first and above all and not about competition. The network effects will take care of the competition.
The worst thing a company in a leadership position like Uber can do is take actions that acknowledge their competition. Even if they are trying to screw over their competition they are doing them a big favor by acknowledging them.
It seems that Uber may lose their first mover's advantage by their greed and small mindedness.
The network effects will take care of the competition.
Will it? Why? Unlike social networks, I don't see why would Uber benefit particularly from network effects; it doesn't even have switching costs, since the consumer can use both concurrently.
Could these be sales people giving a per driver incentive? Or was it from the direction of a manager? If it was sales people, fire all of them. If it was a manager, fire him or her. Then issue a press release.
Uber is the leading firm in a growing market with network effects.
MySpace was also the leading firm in its industry.
In Houston I've seen a lot of cabs with some app advertised on them - Hail a Cab or something like that. Actually painted (or maybe long-term decal lettering) so it's obviously embedded somehow in the industry. Eventually you'll see firms with pre-existing relationship take advantage of the business model.
It's interesting that all these ride services are so aggressive about recruiting drivers. I looked into driving for them to make a few extra bucks and the one thing they could do to get a leg up on their competition is clarify the insurance situation.
They all essentially claim that a driver's personal auto insurance is good enough and combined with the companies umbrella policy provides sufficient coverage. But then if you go and read their fine print that really isn't the case and if you were to be involved in an accident while driving for them there is a good chance no insurance would cover damage to yourself as the driver or your car.
I am also curious about personal property tax issues. In my county, the rate differs based on % of reimbursed business use. If reimbursed business use is over 50%, the tax is 2.7x higher.
Between this and how they handled the girl who was killed by an Uber driver on New Year's Eve in San Francisco...my opinion of them has taken a decided turn for the worse in the past few weeks. And for both, I can't help but think that company culture is set from the top.
I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, but when Uber itself is a business that seems to exist on the border of legality, this type of stuff isn't that much of a surprise to me. Uber et al. specifically skirt around regulations that cab companies have to abide by, which, at least in my opinion, sets the tone at the top that legality and ethics are somewhat secondary to the mission of the company.
IMPORTANT: I've used Uber, and the experience has been great. All I'm saying is that I don't love the cavalier attitude towards city regulations on taxis, and that I think that attitude flows down the chain.
Wow. The fact that this is being done in other cities, with two other competitors, and that they have names for this tactic shows that this is a company wide pattern at Uber rather than something the entire Uber New York team just thought up one day.
It is hard for something this unethical, and almost certainly illegal, to happen at several major Uber offices against at least three different competitors, and have its own name -without it being the company culture.
Lots of bantering about whether or not it's ethical / low. tl;dr: It probably is; Travis probably doesn't care.
Honestly, since all that really matters to Uber is $$ and being forced to deal with the law (and even then only barely), Gett should just sue them. It's clearly illegal (putting aside differences between NY/CA law) and it proves the point in a way they'll be forced to notice.
Is it actually illegal? That seems to be very much a question, not a matter of fact. It's obvious Uber was not intentionally trying to disrupt Gett's business. They were trying to harvest driver phone #s (so they could later try to hire away the drivers; while ethically dubious, this part does not seem illegal). Furthermore, they paid cancellation fees to Gett for doing this. It does not seem clear-cut to me at all that you could label this as fraud, which I believe is the only way to claim this is illegal.
I love the doublespeak in the statement: "Our local teams can be pretty determined when spreading the word about Uber and how our platform opens up new economic opportunities for drivers"
"opens up new economic opportunities" is that what we are calling "sales" now?
To me it says they open new economic opportunities by bringing black car service to the masses and fairly cheaply (I compared Uber to a cab for a trip I'm taking soon, UberX was much cheaper). AFAIK, black car services weren't very accessible by the public not that long ago. Services like Uber or Gett let the drivers make money in a new way, which sounds about spot on to me.
Order forms provided to CNNMoney show that more than a dozen Uber employees were involved, including community managers, operations managers, Uber's general manager, and the company's social media strategist. So much for blaming "our New York team".
Why does the bit at the end discuss California law? This happened in New York.
Because for whatever reason CNN decided to call a CA based law firm to interview them and of course a CA lawyer is going to know first and foremost about CA law.
Gett probably should sue Uber, but what sucks is they (Gett) would have to divert precious money, time, and resources to fight a much bigger company with deeper products and better lawyers, which takes focus away from product and growth, which decreases their probability of success long-term.
Very shitty, lose-lose situation for Gett. The fact that they got "free PR" out of this CNN article is probably small consolation.
Really scummy behaviour. Warrants a much stronger response than: ""Our local teams can be pretty determined when spreading the word about Uber and how our platform opens up new economic opportunities for drivers," Uber said in a statement. "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics.""
TLDR: Dave Gooden setup a honeypot on Craigslist to test whether AirBnB staff were creating fake Gmail accounts to spam Craigslist users & suggest they should post their vacation house listings on AirBnB instead.
Just this morning there was a story on NPR about how Uber has price-gouging built into their system: during a snowstorm you may pay something like 5x the normal fare.
I don't know the specifics of that story, or whether they actually have built the factor of 5X into their system, but note that some "price-gouging" is simply built into the system of supply and demand. If drivers are more scarce during bad weather, it's natural (in some sense) that the price would rise.
If you're going to call it "price-gouging", let's at least admit it's a natural part of business. Take a look at hotel rates when there's a near-by convention, air-line ticket prices over the Christmas holidays or even the prices quoted by corporate sales at businesses like Cisco, Oracle, etc.
There's not a law that says you have to charge everyone the same rate - just that you can't base it on certain types of discrimination.
Note: I'm okay with calling all those practices "price-gouging".
The idea is that it warns you first and you agree to the increased price because you really want the car. This makes them more money (obviously) but it also incentivizes more drivers to get on the road when demand far outstrips supply.
I personally feel like that's not price gouging, so long as it isn't your only method of transportation. If you were very price conscious, you would probably be using a cheaper Uber competitor to begin with.
In a world where you generally only get one chance with a new customer, I wonder how many people decided not to use Gett because there wasn't availability at the time that they wanted to try it.
As much as I love über I think these tactics aren't going to win them fans. Competition in the market should be a good thing, right ?
This is one of the reasons traditional cab services are heavily regulated: to avoid these sorts of battles. It's in the interest of a municipality to have stable, predictable, reliable public transportation. Price wars, selective service, and tactics like these disrupt that stability.
I'm sure it was a "local" decision, but from everything I read and hear, lack of ethics is part of Uber's DNA as much as lack of hierarchy is part of Steam's or Github's.
Calling it "a bit too ambitious" is just further proof of Uber's structural lack of values.
I think there is an interesting contrast between this recruiting approach and the Google/Apple/Intel/Intuit non-recruiting agreements people were complaining about yesterday. Yet here, the weight of opinion is on the other side, while I see them as roughly equivalent.
[+] [-] potatolicious|12 years ago|reply
The statement is absolute bullshit too: "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics."
No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that".
I live in NYC. The Uber app has now been banished from my phone. It's too bad the Gett app is kind of an unpolished turd.
[+] [-] 67726e|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eridius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
If you're suggesting that they should be prosecuted, then we can argue that, but Uber is not able to prosecute members of its team. What do you expect Uber to do, other than to stop the behavior?
[+] [-] jackgavigan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GarrettBeck|12 years ago|reply
Even Uber's legal representation said they could be liable for damages:
If Uber employees intentionally diverted Gett drivers from legitimate business by making phony calls, that is an unfair business practice, illegal under California law," he said. "It is also an intentional interference with Gett's business which makes them liable for money damages.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] debt|12 years ago|reply
The balance between sales and the long-term vision of a business is hard. You need people that are driven but are interested in sticking it out. Sales has a high-level of burn out so it's hard to get someone driven and interested in staying long-term at a company.
This Uber thing is salespeople doing whatever it takes to get that commission. Uber maybe needs to reinvent their sales incentive structure the same way they've reinvented ridesharing.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chourobin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hristov|12 years ago|reply
The worst thing a company in a leadership position like Uber can do is take actions that acknowledge their competition. Even if they are trying to screw over their competition they are doing them a big favor by acknowledging them.
It seems that Uber may lose their first mover's advantage by their greed and small mindedness.
[+] [-] carleverett|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|12 years ago|reply
Will it? Why? Unlike social networks, I don't see why would Uber benefit particularly from network effects; it doesn't even have switching costs, since the consumer can use both concurrently.
[+] [-] AJ007|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|12 years ago|reply
MySpace was also the leading firm in its industry.
In Houston I've seen a lot of cabs with some app advertised on them - Hail a Cab or something like that. Actually painted (or maybe long-term decal lettering) so it's obviously embedded somehow in the industry. Eventually you'll see firms with pre-existing relationship take advantage of the business model.
[+] [-] pmorici|12 years ago|reply
They all essentially claim that a driver's personal auto insurance is good enough and combined with the companies umbrella policy provides sufficient coverage. But then if you go and read their fine print that really isn't the case and if you were to be involved in an accident while driving for them there is a good chance no insurance would cover damage to yourself as the driver or your car.
[+] [-] jellicle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yapcguy|12 years ago|reply
Just in the past few weeks...
"Uber Driver Arrested in San Francisco Crash That Killed Girl"
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Uber-Driver-Arrested-in...
"Lyft Driver Hits Elderly Woman in San Francisco Crosswalk"
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Lyft-Driver-Hits-Elderl...
[+] [-] mattmcknight|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RockyMcNuts|12 years ago|reply
Who needs pesky Taxi and Limousine Commission busybodies to ensure people aren't arbitrarily blacklisted from being able to call a cab?
[+] [-] JonFish85|12 years ago|reply
IMPORTANT: I've used Uber, and the experience has been great. All I'm saying is that I don't love the cavalier attitude towards city regulations on taxis, and that I think that attitude flows down the chain.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] techreporter|12 years ago|reply
It is hard for something this unethical, and almost certainly illegal, to happen at several major Uber offices against at least three different competitors, and have its own name -without it being the company culture.
[+] [-] untog|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gorbzel|12 years ago|reply
Honestly, since all that really matters to Uber is $$ and being forced to deal with the law (and even then only barely), Gett should just sue them. It's clearly illegal (putting aside differences between NY/CA law) and it proves the point in a way they'll be forced to notice.
[+] [-] eridius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colinbartlett|12 years ago|reply
"opens up new economic opportunities" is that what we are calling "sales" now?
[+] [-] freehunter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eridius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chadwickthebold|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|12 years ago|reply
Why does the bit at the end discuss California law? This happened in New York.
[+] [-] pmorici|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pshin45|12 years ago|reply
Very shitty, lose-lose situation for Gett. The fact that they got "free PR" out of this CNN article is probably small consolation.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j_s|12 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=261024
[+] [-] SyneRyder|12 years ago|reply
How AirBnB Became a Billion Dollar Company http://davegooden.com/2011/05/how-airbnb-became-a-billion-do...
TLDR: Dave Gooden setup a honeypot on Craigslist to test whether AirBnB staff were creating fake Gmail accounts to spam Craigslist users & suggest they should post their vacation house listings on AirBnB instead.
[+] [-] leephillips|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjhoy|12 years ago|reply
Here's another NPR story about price gouging: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/29/163861383/why-econ...
[+] [-] smoyer|12 years ago|reply
There's not a law that says you have to charge everyone the same rate - just that you can't base it on certain types of discrimination.
Note: I'm okay with calling all those practices "price-gouging".
[+] [-] eli|12 years ago|reply
I personally feel like that's not price gouging, so long as it isn't your only method of transportation. If you were very price conscious, you would probably be using a cheaper Uber competitor to begin with.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aidenn0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blackdogie|12 years ago|reply
As much as I love über I think these tactics aren't going to win them fans. Competition in the market should be a good thing, right ?
[+] [-] scelerat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bowlofpetunias|12 years ago|reply
Calling it "a bit too ambitious" is just further proof of Uber's structural lack of values.
[+] [-] mattmcknight|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjh42|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlrobinson|12 years ago|reply