5 ms·

Of course they somehow need to earn money. So it is 10% on top of the price in exchange of being listed in a centralized DB of delivery application (in this cas

by Fnoord 4y ago

Of course they somehow need to earn money. So it is 10% on top of the price in exchange of being listed in a centralized DB of delivery application (in this case the defacto standard). Do I find 10% a lot? Oh yes (although less of a problem than 300%), but that's the problem of the network effect. They would start for free or very low margin, and once they have market share they slowly increase that percentage. The problem I have with it is that I want customers to keep having default choice, that they are not honest about it. They should be honest they are a middleman. So that they get flak for delivery, not the restaurant. Also, the customer should be informed they are not dealing directly with the restaurant.

BoorishBears 4y ago
> Of course they somehow need to earn money. Even your Dutch service you brought up is actually charging more than 12% when they deliver, and like I said above was found manipulating prices - It is almost tautological, you cannot have a delivery service spending millions on non-operational expenses like expansion, and not take advantage of restaurants, drivers, and customers. It's simply too expensive for fair business. NYC has small privately owned players who take a flat monthly fee to provide a simple web interface for ordering. They don't advertise, they don't deliver for you, they just provide a boring reliable service. That was originally how Thuisbezorgd operated before growth pressure forced them to start their own courier service. They could run indefinitely without taking advantage of anyone because of the fixed scale, and that's really just another indicative case of our current growth culture.
- Fnoord 4y ago
  Its a subsidiary of JustEat/TakeAway btw, they got different brand names in different countries. I agree its disgusting, my point is there's degrees of disgust. For me, 13% is ridiculous given the service they provide. But from the PoV of restaurant owners they could get away with a very simple website. IMO its a deal with the devil. Anyway, 13% is a different league from 300%. Same with dark stores, the value being paid isn't worth it. The profit should go to the hard working restaurant, the owner and the employees.

by Fnoord 4y ago

BoorishBears 4y ago

> Of course they somehow need to earn money. Even your Dutch service you brought up is actually charging more than 12% when they deliver, and like I said above was found manipulating prices - It is almost tautological, you cannot have a delivery service spending millions on non-operational expenses like expansion, and not take advantage of restaurants, drivers, and customers. It's simply too expensive for fair business. NYC has small privately owned players who take a flat monthly fee to provide a simple web interface for ordering. They don't advertise, they don't deliver for you, they just provide a boring reliable service. That was originally how Thuisbezorgd operated before growth pressure forced them to start their own courier service. They could run indefinitely without taking advantage of anyone because of the fixed scale, and that's really just another indicative case of our current growth culture.

Fnoord 4y ago
Its a subsidiary of JustEat/TakeAway btw, they got different brand names in different countries. I agree its disgusting, my point is there's degrees of disgust. For me, 13% is ridiculous given the service they provide. But from the PoV of restaurant owners they could get away with a very simple website. IMO its a deal with the devil. Anyway, 13% is a different league from 300%. Same with dark stores, the value being paid isn't worth it. The profit should go to the hard working restaurant, the owner and the employees.