While you got the effects correct, you got the process wrong and that’s important.
The way it works is a new company with a new and notably cost-effective way of doing things comes along and is unsurprisingly wildly successful.
The business model isn’t based on cost effectiveness. Most of these companies work at a loss for a long time, providing artificially low prices in order to gain market share and push existing players out. This is isn’t new. It’s called dumping. Irs just been a bit obscured by buzzwords like “new technology” and “disruption.”
And then, inevitably, that leads to them hiring a whole raft of executive parasites who all have to be paid obscene salaries for doing nothing of any real value, which means the company needs to raise prices and cut back on services in order to generate more profit to pay those salaries.
These executives aren’t hired to do nothing and collect high salaries. Their salaries aren’t what drives the price increases. The major shareholders who spent their money to sustain the company so far want to get return on that money. They install executives with this one goal - maximize profit - so they can get this return. This is what drives the hiring of sociopaths who drive prices up in order to increase profits at all costs. This is what drives hiring such people in all public corporations. You got the effects right but the reasons aren’t to do with shit execs and their salaries. It’s all to do with major shareholders search for growing profits. Everything else follows from there. This is important to understand in order to point the finger in the right direction. Misdirecting people’s substantiated anger with the system has been a perennial tool used to maintain profit maximization for as long as possible.
I’d also like to point out that the underlying model may well be unsustainable in the way that it is offered at the start. Who benefits when a for-profit company operates at a loss? We, the customers, do. We get low prices and customer-friendly practices that are genuinely enjoyable. That business can’t operate in that way indefinitely, as the early investors are not funding it as an act of charity.
Eventually, the bill comes due. The shareholders have funded the company on the premise that, after losing lots of money on customer acquisition, it can restructure and monetize those customers and recoup their investment, hopefully with a lucrative return when they decide to capitalize their holdings and find a new company with which to repeat the process.
There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process; the shareholders are subsidizing your product at no cost to you. But we shouldn’t be surprised when the shareholders stop subsidizing and start squeezing their formerly pampered customers in the hopes of getting their money back (and more, of course).
This doesn’t excuse unethical or abusive practices, but it does mean that, even without them, the experience of those early days probably wasn’t going to last forever.
There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process; the shareholders are subsidizing your product at no cost to you.
At the individual level, sure. Even for things like streaming services it isn’t a net negative to take advantage of those ‘introductory’ prices.
But a lot of these businesses that operate at an obvious loss are undercutting currently existing business practices that are probably more cost efficient than these new businesses. Like restaurants that used to take care of their own delivery were undercut by malicious pricing from door dash and uber eats only to wind up in a situation where they would have to start from scratch again or pay the outrageous extortion fees to DD and UE.
I avoided both DD and UE because I knew it would not be sustainably long term. It was obvious they were maliciously undercutting competition. Same with uber and lyft and all the other ride share businesses, although at least they got some reform going on the taxi side.
There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process;
I can think of one reason. Depriving the existing industry from revenue leading to its demise which ensures the new entrant can raise their prices higher than the preexisting status quo. This is the other part of the equation that makes dumping work. Of course we can’t expect most people to choose to pay more but if people were able to resist that, the strategy wouldn’t work.
While you got the effects correct, you got the process wrong and that’s important.
The business model isn’t based on cost effectiveness. Most of these companies work at a loss for a long time, providing artificially low prices in order to gain market share and push existing players out. This is isn’t new. It’s called dumping. Irs just been a bit obscured by buzzwords like “new technology” and “disruption.”
These executives aren’t hired to do nothing and collect high salaries. Their salaries aren’t what drives the price increases. The major shareholders who spent their money to sustain the company so far want to get return on that money. They install executives with this one goal - maximize profit - so they can get this return. This is what drives the hiring of sociopaths who drive prices up in order to increase profits at all costs. This is what drives hiring such people in all public corporations. You got the effects right but the reasons aren’t to do with shit execs and their salaries. It’s all to do with major shareholders search for growing profits. Everything else follows from there. This is important to understand in order to point the finger in the right direction. Misdirecting people’s substantiated anger with the system has been a perennial tool used to maintain profit maximization for as long as possible.
I’d also like to point out that the underlying model may well be unsustainable in the way that it is offered at the start. Who benefits when a for-profit company operates at a loss? We, the customers, do. We get low prices and customer-friendly practices that are genuinely enjoyable. That business can’t operate in that way indefinitely, as the early investors are not funding it as an act of charity.
Eventually, the bill comes due. The shareholders have funded the company on the premise that, after losing lots of money on customer acquisition, it can restructure and monetize those customers and recoup their investment, hopefully with a lucrative return when they decide to capitalize their holdings and find a new company with which to repeat the process.
There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process; the shareholders are subsidizing your product at no cost to you. But we shouldn’t be surprised when the shareholders stop subsidizing and start squeezing their formerly pampered customers in the hopes of getting their money back (and more, of course).
This doesn’t excuse unethical or abusive practices, but it does mean that, even without them, the experience of those early days probably wasn’t going to last forever.
At the individual level, sure. Even for things like streaming services it isn’t a net negative to take advantage of those ‘introductory’ prices.
But a lot of these businesses that operate at an obvious loss are undercutting currently existing business practices that are probably more cost efficient than these new businesses. Like restaurants that used to take care of their own delivery were undercut by malicious pricing from door dash and uber eats only to wind up in a situation where they would have to start from scratch again or pay the outrageous extortion fees to DD and UE.
I avoided both DD and UE because I knew it would not be sustainably long term. It was obvious they were maliciously undercutting competition. Same with uber and lyft and all the other ride share businesses, although at least they got some reform going on the taxi side.
I can think of one reason. Depriving the existing industry from revenue leading to its demise which ensures the new entrant can raise their prices higher than the preexisting status quo. This is the other part of the equation that makes dumping work. Of course we can’t expect most people to choose to pay more but if people were able to resist that, the strategy wouldn’t work.