4 ms·

I don't see why KitSplit wouldn't just cover this out-of-pocket. If it really only happens 0.02% of the time, the cost of reimbursing the lender can't possibly

I don't see why KitSplit wouldn't just cover this out-of-pocket. If it really only happens 0.02% of the time, the cost of reimbursing the lender can't possibly be higher than amount of good-will lost by not doing so.

jacquesm 8y ago
> If it really only happens 0.02% of the time That may be the problem right there. It most likely happens far more frequently so they can't insure and they can't self-insure. So the loss of good-will is small in comparison to the loss of funds. A broken model with sufficient marketing money behind it is indistinguishable from a working company right up until the moment the whole thing comes crashing down.
- wmf 8y ago
  I just did the math on this and 0.02% of $4,000 is around $1, while KitSplit apparently charges 20% fees, or $20 on a $100 rental. It sure seems like they could afford to self-insure. Or are you saying that they're lying about the 0.02%?
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > Or are you saying that they're lying about the 0.02%? Yep. Because otherwise they would pay out.
  - toyg 8y ago
    Likely. And even if they weren’t lying, admitting full liability would be an incentive to fraud (arrange for your kit to be “stolen” by a co-conspirator, then collect the reimbursement) so you would probably see that percentage soar.
    - wmf 8y ago
      Remember that they are filing police reports against your co-conspirator and sending collections agencies to get the money back.
    - astura 8y ago
      If you wanted to commit insurance fraud, you wouldn't get a third party involved (with some vetting process and photos), too much effort, leaves too much of a paper trail, etc. You'd just smash a window or kick in a door then file a police report then an insurance claim.
  - jankassens 8y ago
    0.02% of rentals is also not 0.02% of gear value rented. I'd assume "voluntary parting" would occur on the higher value rentals.
  - astura 8y ago
    Most rentals are probably less than $4,000 and the high value rentals are the ones most likely to get stolen.
drngdds 8y ago
They say theft only happens 0.02% of the time. But according to the article, they consider it "voluntary parting" instead of theft when someone doesn't give back a rental camera. It's a sneaky move on their part.
adrianmonk 8y ago
Alternatively, make it optional coverage that the equipment owner can purchase or waive when setting up a rental. That way they break out the costs separately (not having to show higher prices), and they could make extra revenue because they are in an additional business. This kind of thing is already common with other transactions. The cell phone company offers protection plans in case someone steals my phone. Shippers (USPS, UPS, FedEx) offer insurance. As long as you don't price gouge on it, it also eliminates hard feelings when something does happen because you can say, "Well, it was your decision not to pay the $10 to cover this."

jacquesm 8y ago

> If it really only happens 0.02% of the time That may be the problem right there. It most likely happens far more frequently so they can't insure and they can't self-insure. So the loss of good-will is small in comparison to the loss of funds. A broken model with sufficient marketing money behind it is indistinguishable from a working company right up until the moment the whole thing comes crashing down.

wmf 8y ago
I just did the math on this and 0.02% of $4,000 is around $1, while KitSplit apparently charges 20% fees, or $20 on a $100 rental. It sure seems like they could afford to self-insure. Or are you saying that they're lying about the 0.02%?
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > Or are you saying that they're lying about the 0.02%? Yep. Because otherwise they would pay out.
- toyg 8y ago
  Likely. And even if they weren’t lying, admitting full liability would be an incentive to fraud (arrange for your kit to be “stolen” by a co-conspirator, then collect the reimbursement) so you would probably see that percentage soar.
  - wmf 8y ago
    Remember that they are filing police reports against your co-conspirator and sending collections agencies to get the money back.
  - astura 8y ago
    If you wanted to commit insurance fraud, you wouldn't get a third party involved (with some vetting process and photos), too much effort, leaves too much of a paper trail, etc. You'd just smash a window or kick in a door then file a police report then an insurance claim.
- jankassens 8y ago
  0.02% of rentals is also not 0.02% of gear value rented. I'd assume "voluntary parting" would occur on the higher value rentals.
- astura 8y ago
  Most rentals are probably less than $4,000 and the high value rentals are the ones most likely to get stolen.

drngdds 8y ago

They say theft only happens 0.02% of the time. But according to the article, they consider it "voluntary parting" instead of theft when someone doesn't give back a rental camera. It's a sneaky move on their part.

adrianmonk 8y ago

Alternatively, make it optional coverage that the equipment owner can purchase or waive when setting up a rental. That way they break out the costs separately (not having to show higher prices), and they could make extra revenue because they are in an additional business. This kind of thing is already common with other transactions. The cell phone company offers protection plans in case someone steals my phone. Shippers (USPS, UPS, FedEx) offer insurance. As long as you don't price gouge on it, it also eliminates hard feelings when something does happen because you can say, "Well, it was your decision not to pay the $10 to cover this."