4 ms·

How is it dishonest? It's a fee for the service that one receives. You pay one amount for groceries and another for the service of those groceries being deliver

by wwalser 10y ago

How is it dishonest? It's a fee for the service that one receives. You pay one amount for groceries and another for the service of those groceries being delivered. That's exactly what a service fee should be. Consumers should understand that services have a cost. Companies should charge consumers an amount that is commensurate with the cost that it takes to deliver that service (unless they operate in a non-competitive market in which case they are free to charge whatever their customers are willing to pay). If there are humans involved in providing that service, they should be paid a living wage. Tipping is the backward part of US consumer expectation. Not service fees.

developer2 10y ago
You may have missed the part where the service fee is optional and can be removed, or replaced with a tip to the employee. The fact that the fee is optional, instantly makes it not a "fee". Service fees are not a discretionary addon that customers can choose to eliminate.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  Yes, you can set it to 0, but they are 100% trying to trick people into not tipping and giving instacart the money. At my neighborhood restaurant they eliminated tips and replaced it with a fixed service fee of 20% they give to the employees. It's common to call such things service fees and to think that goes to the end workers, instead of the corp. It's indefensible to say they didn't mean to trick people into thinking it was a tip for the delivery people.
  - wwalser 10y ago
    The article doesn't say that the service fee is _not_ given to workers. It may pass through Instacart. It may all go into a common pool paid to workers. Instacart may take a rake. We simply have no idea. Until someone shows some data, everything that you've said is assumptions.
- wwalser 10y ago
  I didn't miss it. I just think way more information is necessary in order to understand whether or not it's a positive or negative. As originally implemented, it doesn't appear to be in any way dishonest. My understanding of the article is that the service fee wasn't originally optional. It was a static 10%, required, service fee. No information is given about how much of that fee goes to workers, meaning it's entirely possible that all of it does. It doesn't go to _the_ worker who delivered your groceries, it goes into a common pool that is distributed across all workers. If 10% is enough to break the barrier into a living wage then this could be a positive change. Workers no longer have to fear having a "bad night" where they have 5 runs to get a single $10 items vs a "good night" where they have 3 runs to get $200 worth of groceries. They made it optional and mutable when their workers protested.
rdl 10y ago
I don't disagree that tipping has a lot of problems. However, instacart is intentionally using "dark patterns" in UX (names, positioning) to mislead end users into thinking paying a higher service fee goes to the driver. There was a far easier way to do this (a fixed order charge which is clearly an instacart fee, and then a separate tip clearly marked as per driver) -- the right solution would probably be to do like Amazon and reduce the fixed order charge or eliminate it when customers buy certain high margin items, make large orders, or sign up for a subscription.
- wwalser 10y ago
  Labeling a service fee a service fee isn't a dark pattern. Nothing about "service fee" makes me thing it's going to the driver. Also, per the article, the service fee wasn't originally something that could be changed. It was a static 10%. Neither you nor I have enough information to know if 10% is enough to pay drivers a living wage. Maybe it should have been 15% or more but there is no way for me to know. I am, however, very confident that a service fee that goes into a common pool and is paid out across all workers is a better solution than customers tipping.
SippinLean 10y ago
That service is Instacart's product though.

by wwalser 10y ago

developer2 10y ago

You may have missed the part where the service fee is optional and can be removed, or replaced with a tip to the employee. The fact that the fee is optional, instantly makes it not a "fee". Service fees are not a discretionary addon that customers can choose to eliminate.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
Yes, you can set it to 0, but they are 100% trying to trick people into not tipping and giving instacart the money. At my neighborhood restaurant they eliminated tips and replaced it with a fixed service fee of 20% they give to the employees. It's common to call such things service fees and to think that goes to the end workers, instead of the corp. It's indefensible to say they didn't mean to trick people into thinking it was a tip for the delivery people.
- wwalser 10y ago
  The article doesn't say that the service fee is _not_ given to workers. It may pass through Instacart. It may all go into a common pool paid to workers. Instacart may take a rake. We simply have no idea. Until someone shows some data, everything that you've said is assumptions.
wwalser 10y ago
I didn't miss it. I just think way more information is necessary in order to understand whether or not it's a positive or negative. As originally implemented, it doesn't appear to be in any way dishonest. My understanding of the article is that the service fee wasn't originally optional. It was a static 10%, required, service fee. No information is given about how much of that fee goes to workers, meaning it's entirely possible that all of it does. It doesn't go to _the_ worker who delivered your groceries, it goes into a common pool that is distributed across all workers. If 10% is enough to break the barrier into a living wage then this could be a positive change. Workers no longer have to fear having a "bad night" where they have 5 runs to get a single $10 items vs a "good night" where they have 3 runs to get $200 worth of groceries. They made it optional and mutable when their workers protested.

rdl 10y ago

I don't disagree that tipping has a lot of problems. However, instacart is intentionally using "dark patterns" in UX (names, positioning) to mislead end users into thinking paying a higher service fee goes to the driver. There was a far easier way to do this (a fixed order charge which is clearly an instacart fee, and then a separate tip clearly marked as per driver) -- the right solution would probably be to do like Amazon and reduce the fixed order charge or eliminate it when customers buy certain high margin items, make large orders, or sign up for a subscription.

wwalser 10y ago
Labeling a service fee a service fee isn't a dark pattern. Nothing about "service fee" makes me thing it's going to the driver. Also, per the article, the service fee wasn't originally something that could be changed. It was a static 10%. Neither you nor I have enough information to know if 10% is enough to pay drivers a living wage. Maybe it should have been 15% or more but there is no way for me to know. I am, however, very confident that a service fee that goes into a common pool and is paid out across all workers is a better solution than customers tipping.

SippinLean 10y ago

That service is Instacart's product though.