6 ms·

If this is anything like frequent flier programs, my cynical interpretation is that if you're a casual rider, you'll get: - less leeway on cancellations since

If this is anything like frequent flier programs, my cynical interpretation is that if you're a casual rider, you'll get: - less leeway on cancellations since you now need to earn them - worse support, since the higher status folks will get the higher priority / premium support - slower airport pickup times as high status folks get to "cut in line" while you wait - lower quality drivers as the higher rated ones are given only to the frequent riders This is based on the chart showing the benefits of higher status in the article.

dmix 8y ago
I don't see why people who spend 10-100x more than the average person should be treated the same as a casual user who uses it once in a while though. That's basic economics.
- wyattpeak 8y ago
  No, but I see every reason as an average user to oppose a strategy which will worsen the service for me. There's no moral obligation to support economic good sense. Yellow journalism is economic good sense. Removing contact details from websites is economic good sense. Exhausting common goods is economic good sense.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Its disturbing the amount of people that seem to be unable to distinguish a moral argument from an economic or legal one. They seem to have the opinion that if something "economically" or "legally" makes sense, its the same thing as it being an acceptable idea that should have no issue taken with it.
  - xapata 8y ago
    Angering customers may not in fact be good economic sense. You may be thinking more short-term than you should.
    - wyattpeak 8y ago
      While I'm arguing against them doing it in my comment, I do think it's a perfectly good long term strategy economically. Experience suggests to me that the standard of service at which customers will stop buying a product is very low, so long as it's cheap. A hundred years ago grocers thought that self-service supermarkets were too customer-unfriendly to last. That seems to have stood the test of time just fine. Buying a business class fare on a plane absolves you of almost all the unpleasantness of an airport, yet fewer than 5% of people, eyeballing it, take the airlines up on that.
- CardenB 8y ago
  Probably because the network’s critical mass necessary to provide a reliable service depends on the average user. If you alienate the majority of your user base, the more frequent users won’t have a reliable service at all.
A2017U1 8y ago
I use grab extensively in SEA and they have a rewards program built in. Generally shun company rewards but I didn't mind their system. Sample size of one but having gold status did seem to get quicker rides in peak hours. The points you can cash in don't add up to much, get a free or discounted trip every now and then. They also offered food /cinema vouchers etc. Overall it's ok, you can't opt out but no one is forcing you to use it. Your arguments are probably right about the downsides but is it truly uncommon to treat higher spending customers better? They aren't a public service.

dmix 8y ago

I don't see why people who spend 10-100x more than the average person should be treated the same as a casual user who uses it once in a while though. That's basic economics.

wyattpeak 8y ago
No, but I see every reason as an average user to oppose a strategy which will worsen the service for me. There's no moral obligation to support economic good sense. Yellow journalism is economic good sense. Removing contact details from websites is economic good sense. Exhausting common goods is economic good sense.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Its disturbing the amount of people that seem to be unable to distinguish a moral argument from an economic or legal one. They seem to have the opinion that if something "economically" or "legally" makes sense, its the same thing as it being an acceptable idea that should have no issue taken with it.
- xapata 8y ago
  Angering customers may not in fact be good economic sense. You may be thinking more short-term than you should.
  - wyattpeak 8y ago
    While I'm arguing against them doing it in my comment, I do think it's a perfectly good long term strategy economically. Experience suggests to me that the standard of service at which customers will stop buying a product is very low, so long as it's cheap. A hundred years ago grocers thought that self-service supermarkets were too customer-unfriendly to last. That seems to have stood the test of time just fine. Buying a business class fare on a plane absolves you of almost all the unpleasantness of an airport, yet fewer than 5% of people, eyeballing it, take the airlines up on that.
CardenB 8y ago
Probably because the network’s critical mass necessary to provide a reliable service depends on the average user. If you alienate the majority of your user base, the more frequent users won’t have a reliable service at all.

A2017U1 8y ago

I use grab extensively in SEA and they have a rewards program built in. Generally shun company rewards but I didn't mind their system. Sample size of one but having gold status did seem to get quicker rides in peak hours. The points you can cash in don't add up to much, get a free or discounted trip every now and then. They also offered food /cinema vouchers etc. Overall it's ok, you can't opt out but no one is forcing you to use it. Your arguments are probably right about the downsides but is it truly uncommon to treat higher spending customers better? They aren't a public service.