4 ms·

As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business trans

by x0x0 8y ago

As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business transaction. If you rent your apartment on AirBnB, congrats, you're in the landlord business. If you rent your equipment on whatever-the-site-is, congrats, you're in the equipment rental business. Both of those businesses have jerks in them, who are negligent and/or malicious. If you don't want to deal with the negligent and/or malicious, you shouldn't be in the rental business. So -- unlike sibling -- I'm sympathetic, but really, dude wants to make money from the rental business without the downsides and he really ought to have known that's not how the world works.

rdlecler1 8y ago
This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the intermediary should have covered this.
- x0x0 8y ago
  I -- just spitballing numbers -- can't see how the intermediary can cover $4.5k in equipment while being paid $14.25/day. And, tbh, that should be pretty obvious.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    Well, they claim that this happens less than one in a thousand rentals[0], so statistically speaking, a one time fee of $4.50 for the entire rental period should be about enough to cover their expected risk, right? I don't buy the combination of, "this is rare so you shouldn't worry about it", and "it's too risky for us to cover you ourselves." [0]: https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/im-an-owner-how-do-i-know-my-gear-will-be-safe-on-kitsplit-is-it-insured https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/...
    - x0x0 8y ago
      No. Even assuming that the $4.50 covers renter peacing out with the equipment, you still have to cover damage, which is probably far more common. And make a profit.
      - danShumway 8y ago
        Okay. Add an optional $4.50 fee in addition to the current price and make it clear to lenders that it's not covered in the default situation while explaining the risk to them. > Even assuming Is my math wrong? I think that's how expected value works -- risk * cost. And the figures I'm referencing are directly from the company, so I assume they're accurate. This all basically works out to the same point. If the expected cost over the lifetime of someone's rentals is so large that the company can't cover it, then it's crazy irresponsible for them to tell consumers not to worry about it. They can't have their cake and eat it too; either it's a trivial concern and they should cover it, or it's not a trivial concern and they should take steps to warn users. The point of an intermediary is to not get bitten by things unexpectedly; to introduce confidence to consumers who don't have experience with the subject they're entering. Part of that is either prominently warning them about substantial risks that they might not otherwise know about, or pricing your product so that you can remove those risks for them.
        x0x0 8y ago
        Your math assumes that instances of theft are evenly distributed across the price of the gear. I'd bet they're not. ie if you're going to commit felony theft (about $5k in most places), you may as well steal $50k. Thus my guess is it biases high. As for the company, my guess is they only have a profitable business if they don't actually fully insure and they dump a bunch of risk onto the people supplying the gear to rent. I doubt Adorama or BH are making so much money that there's a huge business opp if you actually pay for all the risk (as Adorama and BH do because they rent their own stock.)

by x0x0 8y ago

rdlecler1 8y ago

This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the intermediary should have covered this.

x0x0 8y ago
I -- just spitballing numbers -- can't see how the intermediary can cover $4.5k in equipment while being paid $14.25/day. And, tbh, that should be pretty obvious.
- danShumway 8y ago
  Well, they claim that this happens less than one in a thousand rentals[0], so statistically speaking, a one time fee of $4.50 for the entire rental period should be about enough to cover their expected risk, right? I don't buy the combination of, "this is rare so you shouldn't worry about it", and "it's too risky for us to cover you ourselves." [0]: https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/im-an-owner-how-do-i-know-my-gear-will-be-safe-on-kitsplit-is-it-insured https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/...
  - x0x0 8y ago
    No. Even assuming that the $4.50 covers renter peacing out with the equipment, you still have to cover damage, which is probably far more common. And make a profit.
    - danShumway 8y ago
      Okay. Add an optional $4.50 fee in addition to the current price and make it clear to lenders that it's not covered in the default situation while explaining the risk to them. > Even assuming Is my math wrong? I think that's how expected value works -- risk * cost. And the figures I'm referencing are directly from the company, so I assume they're accurate. This all basically works out to the same point. If the expected cost over the lifetime of someone's rentals is so large that the company can't cover it, then it's crazy irresponsible for them to tell consumers not to worry about it. They can't have their cake and eat it too; either it's a trivial concern and they should cover it, or it's not a trivial concern and they should take steps to warn users. The point of an intermediary is to not get bitten by things unexpectedly; to introduce confidence to consumers who don't have experience with the subject they're entering. Part of that is either prominently warning them about substantial risks that they might not otherwise know about, or pricing your product so that you can remove those risks for them.
      - x0x0 8y ago
        Your math assumes that instances of theft are evenly distributed across the price of the gear. I'd bet they're not. ie if you're going to commit felony theft (about $5k in most places), you may as well steal $50k. Thus my guess is it biases high. As for the company, my guess is they only have a profitable business if they don't actually fully insure and they dump a bunch of risk onto the people supplying the gear to rent. I doubt Adorama or BH are making so much money that there's a huge business opp if you actually pay for all the risk (as Adorama and BH do because they rent their own stock.)