4 ms·

And that's why all of these companies are going to go under: as soon as they start having to charge real prices, instead of the artificial, VC-funded promo pric

And that's why all of these companies are going to go under: as soon as they start having to charge real prices, instead of the artificial, VC-funded promo prices, people bail. Because, whoa, food delivery is actually expensive. Did none of these companies check, before moving in to "disrupt" the restaurant industry, that there was actually anything to disrupt? Restaraunts are not lazy incumbents growing fat on their unchallenged dominance: it's a cutthroat business. And their costs are almost entirely the food and the labor, which are, for all practical purposes, fixed. There are no margins to steal from here.

rhizome 10y ago
They're not going to go under per se, because I think the customers are probably pretty valuable. I think a more vivid hint as to their future is in their choosing someone from Simply Hired as their new (7/16) CEO: positioning Munchery for acquisition in a crowded marketplace.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  Honestly, I don't agree that the customers are very valuable. There doesn't seem to be either loyalty or lock-in with these delivery startups: as soon as they raise their prices, people just uninstall the app and grab another one. I don't see anything worth acquiring here, so an IPO is pretty much it for an exit strategy, if they can last that long.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Could be, but the fact remains that they chose a new CEO whose most recent experience was winding a company down into acquisition.
M_Grey 10y ago
As far as I can tell the problem is a series of disconnected motives. The VC's have money to burn and want to become the next level of rich, which requires striking gold, often in fields they have no real conception of. The "disruptors" also want to strike it rich, but they can do that just by getting the VC capital and chalking the devastating losses they wont' personally suffer up to "valuable experience". Then of course success isn't necessarily contingent on providing a reasonable service at a sustainable price... see: Uber.

rhizome 10y ago

They're not going to go under per se, because I think the customers are probably pretty valuable. I think a more vivid hint as to their future is in their choosing someone from Simply Hired as their new (7/16) CEO: positioning Munchery for acquisition in a crowded marketplace.

Analemma_ 10y ago
Honestly, I don't agree that the customers are very valuable. There doesn't seem to be either loyalty or lock-in with these delivery startups: as soon as they raise their prices, people just uninstall the app and grab another one. I don't see anything worth acquiring here, so an IPO is pretty much it for an exit strategy, if they can last that long.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Could be, but the fact remains that they chose a new CEO whose most recent experience was winding a company down into acquisition.

M_Grey 10y ago

As far as I can tell the problem is a series of disconnected motives. The VC's have money to burn and want to become the next level of rich, which requires striking gold, often in fields they have no real conception of. The "disruptors" also want to strike it rich, but they can do that just by getting the VC capital and chalking the devastating losses they wont' personally suffer up to "valuable experience". Then of course success isn't necessarily contingent on providing a reasonable service at a sustainable price... see: Uber.