5 ms·

You have to wonder how saturated this market can get before it's just not viable anymore.

rokhayakebe 15y ago
Considering the fact that 95% of consumer-buying is still done in stores, then there is a lot of room.
nhangen 15y ago
Yeah, I wonder that too. On one hand, you can go wide (Groupon) or deep (Munch), but eventually it becomes saturated and commoditized. How long before someone creates a self-service way to do this? I won't hate on them for the press, I'm happy for them, but it feels more like a feature than a product.
- araneae 15y ago
  But I think food is definitely something that can be siphoned off of Groupon.
pg 15y ago
It's like search was in 1998: there's always room for something new if it's better than what existed previously.
- ztan 15y ago
  While I think it's a clever spin. I don't see why Groupon can't do the same in an instant if it proves to be effective. If that happens these guys just become another Groupon clone competing on lower rates for merchants.
  - pg 15y ago
    This is structurally quite different from Groupon. Which means Groupon would have to change their model significantly to do it. Which means it's probably not among the most likely things they'd do.
    - ansy 15y ago
      Maybe I'm missing something. But I don't see what's so different other than the deals are generally more restrictive. Isn't that just part of the wording of the deal? Couldn't $10 for $20 worth of food just as easily be $1 for a $2 cup of coffee instead? I even see a deal on Groupon Now which is $5 for a $9 sandwich. http://www.groupon.com/now/deals/5-for-9-at-nyc-bagel-deli-27 http://www.groupon.com/now/deals/5-for-9-at-nyc-bagel-deli-2... That said, I fully agree it doesn't necessarily mean anything that Groupon can do it, too. There's plenty of room for competition.
      - hydrazine 15y ago
        Great question. The differences are subtle yet definitely worth noting. To users, $20 worth of food doesn't tell them anything about what they're actually going to buy when they arrive at the venue, whereas $1 for a $2 cup of coffee specifies exactly what they'll get. You might also only spend $18.50 of your $20 credit and can't find something worth ~$1.50 to buy, which can leave a bad aftertaste for some people. Also, this allows merchants to prepare much more effectively by overstocking on the items being featured. Or they could discount an already overstocked item just to get rid of it. All in all, people visit restaurants for specific (signature) dishes, not for the restaurants themselves, so it all fits together.
r00fus 15y ago
The concept may turn out to be a game-changer: group/daily discounts. I think Groupon is too generic; you could easily focus on verticals like food, hit the big pain spots for retailers and deliver a better fit than Groupon. The reason Groupon won't counter is that takes them too far off their generic script. Plus the food focus means all the sales contacts are foodies, too. A great idea, and deeper discounts too! $10 for $20 content is not nearly as appealing as "free donut today" (upsell on milk or 2nd donut).

Considering the fact that 95% of consumer-buying is still done in stores, then there is a lot of room.

Yeah, I wonder that too. On one hand, you can go wide (Groupon) or deep (Munch), but eventually it becomes saturated and commoditized. How long before someone creates a self-service way to do this? I won't hate on them for the press, I'm happy for them, but it feels more like a feature than a product.

araneae 15y ago
But I think food is definitely something that can be siphoned off of Groupon.

pg 15y ago

It's like search was in 1998: there's always room for something new if it's better than what existed previously.

ztan 15y ago
While I think it's a clever spin. I don't see why Groupon can't do the same in an instant if it proves to be effective. If that happens these guys just become another Groupon clone competing on lower rates for merchants.
- pg 15y ago
  This is structurally quite different from Groupon. Which means Groupon would have to change their model significantly to do it. Which means it's probably not among the most likely things they'd do.
  - ansy 15y ago
    Maybe I'm missing something. But I don't see what's so different other than the deals are generally more restrictive. Isn't that just part of the wording of the deal? Couldn't $10 for $20 worth of food just as easily be $1 for a $2 cup of coffee instead? I even see a deal on Groupon Now which is $5 for a $9 sandwich. http://www.groupon.com/now/deals/5-for-9-at-nyc-bagel-deli-27 http://www.groupon.com/now/deals/5-for-9-at-nyc-bagel-deli-2... That said, I fully agree it doesn't necessarily mean anything that Groupon can do it, too. There's plenty of room for competition.
    - hydrazine 15y ago
      Great question. The differences are subtle yet definitely worth noting. To users, $20 worth of food doesn't tell them anything about what they're actually going to buy when they arrive at the venue, whereas $1 for a $2 cup of coffee specifies exactly what they'll get. You might also only spend $18.50 of your $20 credit and can't find something worth ~$1.50 to buy, which can leave a bad aftertaste for some people. Also, this allows merchants to prepare much more effectively by overstocking on the items being featured. Or they could discount an already overstocked item just to get rid of it. All in all, people visit restaurants for specific (signature) dishes, not for the restaurants themselves, so it all fits together.

r00fus 15y ago

The concept may turn out to be a game-changer: group/daily discounts. I think Groupon is too generic; you could easily focus on verticals like food, hit the big pain spots for retailers and deliver a better fit than Groupon. The reason Groupon won't counter is that takes them too far off their generic script. Plus the food focus means all the sales contacts are foodies, too. A great idea, and deeper discounts too! $10 for $20 content is not nearly as appealing as "free donut today" (upsell on milk or 2nd donut).