No, "one-button service" ("economy of a call with one click") is not going to explode
With all legal and political problems, much is attractive in the “one-button service” (“economy of a one-click call”), personified by a multitude of companies from Uber to Instacart and implemented by personnel that can be called by pressing a single button in the application on a mobile device. The threshold for entering the work here below. The work itself is flexible: the performers choose their own working hours, can work simultaneously in competing firms and are the owners for themselves (or, at least, they are promised this). And, despite the legally gray area in which many one-button service companies continue to operate, the market has clearly expressed itself. Consumer demand and the willingness of people to join the growing supply of cheap and flexible labor shows that a “one-button service” is being established.
Or otherwise?
A lot of startups, oriented on the instant result, are in distress. Last year, Homejoy closed with a one-click call home cleaning. Instacart, which provides food delivery services, recently cut wages for couriers, and Zirx and Luxe parking start-ups are said to have switched from this model to subscription service. It is reported that the SpoonRocket food delivery company closed this week after unsuccessful attempts to attract money or customers.
As the stories of the problems are growing, it is tempting to assume that we are approaching the boundaries of the “one-button service”. Companies are unable to make ends meet. And in a more and more risk-averse investment environment — where financing is done very carefully and shareholders carefully analyzing profit margins can be easily frightened — a tense financial situation forces some companies to curtail their activities.
')
But the extinction of several companies does not mean the end of the “one-button service” idea. As it happens in many other industries, this trend is experiencing growing pains. Investors and economists remain optimistic and believe that the best companies will survive. Those who, as experts say, will find a balanced balance of time, money and cost of service for a critical number of people, will remain.
The pleasure derived from ridiculing the excesses and difficulties of “one-button service” is a kind of gloating towards oneself. “The scientists and technicians in San Francisco are now focused on solving one problem,” informs one infamous tweet, which soared in the ratings of the weary tweet. "What does my mother no longer do for me?"
“Granting a right is a straight line going infinitely high,” the weekly secular magazine New York magazine proclaims intricately, reporting on the growth of “one-button service” applications for laundries. Loren Smiley from the social journalism platform Medium formulated it more directly: “The world of the people of the one-button service has nothing to do with communication. He is about how to get service. This is, in fact, a service for hermits and bed patients. ”
And, indeed, some of this irony and skepticism is fully justified in a world where a smartphone has become an intermediary for large and small services - or a completely appealing “creature”, depending on how you view it. Today, you can call your own personal chauffeur, butler, cook, florist, bartender or fashion consultant through an application on a smartphone. This is the whole world of start-ups “Uber for X”, which are based, I fear, on the often trivial whims of some information technology developers (probably young white men). Therefore, it is clear that many people would be glad to see that signs of weakness appear in this approach.
But Arun Sandararagan, a professor at New York University's business school, does not agree that the “one-button service” as a whole is facing the need to pay off some debts. “I do not think that the failure of any particular company indicates the lack of viability of this field of activity as a whole,” he says. “Rather,” he continues, “we still see the results of experimentation in a relatively immature field of the economy - akin to some of the early failures of the first boom of Internet companies.” In each new sphere there seems to be its own “Webvan”, its own “Kozmo”, its Pets.com.
Mr. Sandararajan said that people who proclaim the collapse of the “one-button service” idea ignore the fact that the formation of this business depends on so many circumstances - from fixed prices to personnel decisions, who to hire - independent contractors or official employees. Companies are constantly trying what works. And some will grow, others will go broke. Mr. Sandararajan continues: “The fact that a one-button service (“ one click economy ”) creates as a whole is the possibility of a more decentralized workforce, which will increasingly be required by consumers. A significant part of economic activity will go in the future through platforms that combine centralized and decentralized labor. "
Take, for example, the technology giant who has generated such a stir from investors in connection with the “one-button service” from the beginning. "Uber" is today the most highly regarded startup with a cost of 62.5 billion dollars. The fact that Uber introduced, according to Enrico Moretti, a specialist in labor economics at the University of California at Berkeley, is a much better way to match supply and demand. “I can stand on the corner, hoping that a taxi will appear, or I can open my application and call the driver Uber or Lyft,” says Mr. Moretti. “It makes the process extremely valuable and works very efficiently.” Regardless of whether certain companies ultimately succeed, the demand for what they offer is very strong. Consumers see the possibility of moving in this way as extremely attractive. Since this is so, then someone will probably figure out how to let someone call a taxi from a smartphone.
Well, what about the other types of "one-touch service" available from a mobile device?
Since the very nature of a one-button service requires a large volume of transactions with low profits, yes, some experiments will fail. Plus, companies in this business have much lower profits than, say, software companies, says Ryan Sarver, an investor at Redpoint Ventures, a board member at Luxe. “You have less room for error,” continues Mr. Sarver. And for such a “one-button service” company, as a rule, it is much easier to be dragged into the danger zone, if errors still occur.
Mr. Sarver says his firm is considering various factors, deciding whether to invest in a venture, including the size of the market, the experience of interacting with users, and the prospects for delivering a product that is quite different from what already exists, at a price that people willing to pay.
And each of these factors may depend on the specific service offered. For example, according to Mr. Sarver, food delivery "on call" is very different from the transport service. In his opinion, transportation is a service where a consumer’s decision depends on which service company can do this job reliably and at a good price. Food, on the other hand, is much more based on preferences. "You say:" Today Thai dishes will be, it seems, very useful. "And tomorrow you will want a 'burrito," says Mr. Sarver. Food delivery startups are still trying to determine which logistics model is more justified: delivery from existing restaurants (Postmates, DoorDash) or preparing a menu for each day (Sprig, Munchery).
According to Mr. Sarver: "Both models can work." But he believes that companies using such models will be those who manage to push customers to new activities or new habits, which represents a real and serious change in consumer behavior.
The question ultimately comes down to where consumers draw the line, when you have to pay someone else for something that is being done for you. “Some people will be willing to pay extra for freeing, say, an hour of their time to do something at this time,” says Mr. Sandararajan. He argues that the more we start thinking about “one-button service” rather than large enterprises, as a way to meet our needs - say, using “Uber” and “Lyft” instead of making a down payment for a new car, - the more that “cash pot” becomes to which companies of such a service can claim.
Right now, the “one-button service” companies are at the center of a big experiment so that you can see where the consumer’s borders are. "There are, of course, a lot of arbitrary material, cases that contribute to the release of time," says Mr. Sandararajan. “I believe they can be profitable, but they may not get to the size that Airbnb or Uber have.”
In other words, a really good business has the potential to become big. A job that simply satisfies your need to feel like a small “ruler” with a smartphone may not give the desired result.
Or otherwise?
The extinction of several companies does not mean the end of the “one-button service” idea.
A lot of startups, oriented on the instant result, are in distress. Last year, Homejoy closed with a one-click call home cleaning. Instacart, which provides food delivery services, recently cut wages for couriers, and Zirx and Luxe parking start-ups are said to have switched from this model to subscription service. It is reported that the SpoonRocket food delivery company closed this week after unsuccessful attempts to attract money or customers.
As the stories of the problems are growing, it is tempting to assume that we are approaching the boundaries of the “one-button service”. Companies are unable to make ends meet. And in a more and more risk-averse investment environment — where financing is done very carefully and shareholders carefully analyzing profit margins can be easily frightened — a tense financial situation forces some companies to curtail their activities.
')
But the extinction of several companies does not mean the end of the “one-button service” idea. As it happens in many other industries, this trend is experiencing growing pains. Investors and economists remain optimistic and believe that the best companies will survive. Those who, as experts say, will find a balanced balance of time, money and cost of service for a critical number of people, will remain.
Gloating over the "economy of one-click calling"
The pleasure derived from ridiculing the excesses and difficulties of “one-button service” is a kind of gloating towards oneself. “The scientists and technicians in San Francisco are now focused on solving one problem,” informs one infamous tweet, which soared in the ratings of the weary tweet. "What does my mother no longer do for me?"
“Granting a right is a straight line going infinitely high,” the weekly secular magazine New York magazine proclaims intricately, reporting on the growth of “one-button service” applications for laundries. Loren Smiley from the social journalism platform Medium formulated it more directly: “The world of the people of the one-button service has nothing to do with communication. He is about how to get service. This is, in fact, a service for hermits and bed patients. ”
“We are still seeing the results of experimentation in a relatively immature sphere of the economy.” ARUN SANDARARAJEN, PROFESSOR OF THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
And, indeed, some of this irony and skepticism is fully justified in a world where a smartphone has become an intermediary for large and small services - or a completely appealing “creature”, depending on how you view it. Today, you can call your own personal chauffeur, butler, cook, florist, bartender or fashion consultant through an application on a smartphone. This is the whole world of start-ups “Uber for X”, which are based, I fear, on the often trivial whims of some information technology developers (probably young white men). Therefore, it is clear that many people would be glad to see that signs of weakness appear in this approach.
But Arun Sandararagan, a professor at New York University's business school, does not agree that the “one-button service” as a whole is facing the need to pay off some debts. “I do not think that the failure of any particular company indicates the lack of viability of this field of activity as a whole,” he says. “Rather,” he continues, “we still see the results of experimentation in a relatively immature field of the economy - akin to some of the early failures of the first boom of Internet companies.” In each new sphere there seems to be its own “Webvan”, its own “Kozmo”, its Pets.com.
Mr. Sandararajan said that people who proclaim the collapse of the “one-button service” idea ignore the fact that the formation of this business depends on so many circumstances - from fixed prices to personnel decisions, who to hire - independent contractors or official employees. Companies are constantly trying what works. And some will grow, others will go broke. Mr. Sandararajan continues: “The fact that a one-button service (“ one click economy ”) creates as a whole is the possibility of a more decentralized workforce, which will increasingly be required by consumers. A significant part of economic activity will go in the future through platforms that combine centralized and decentralized labor. "
Take, for example, the technology giant who has generated such a stir from investors in connection with the “one-button service” from the beginning. "Uber" is today the most highly regarded startup with a cost of 62.5 billion dollars. The fact that Uber introduced, according to Enrico Moretti, a specialist in labor economics at the University of California at Berkeley, is a much better way to match supply and demand. “I can stand on the corner, hoping that a taxi will appear, or I can open my application and call the driver Uber or Lyft,” says Mr. Moretti. “It makes the process extremely valuable and works very efficiently.” Regardless of whether certain companies ultimately succeed, the demand for what they offer is very strong. Consumers see the possibility of moving in this way as extremely attractive. Since this is so, then someone will probably figure out how to let someone call a taxi from a smartphone.
Survival of the fittest
Well, what about the other types of "one-touch service" available from a mobile device?
Since the very nature of a one-button service requires a large volume of transactions with low profits, yes, some experiments will fail. Plus, companies in this business have much lower profits than, say, software companies, says Ryan Sarver, an investor at Redpoint Ventures, a board member at Luxe. “You have less room for error,” continues Mr. Sarver. And for such a “one-button service” company, as a rule, it is much easier to be dragged into the danger zone, if errors still occur.
Mr. Sarver says his firm is considering various factors, deciding whether to invest in a venture, including the size of the market, the experience of interacting with users, and the prospects for delivering a product that is quite different from what already exists, at a price that people willing to pay.
And each of these factors may depend on the specific service offered. For example, according to Mr. Sarver, food delivery "on call" is very different from the transport service. In his opinion, transportation is a service where a consumer’s decision depends on which service company can do this job reliably and at a good price. Food, on the other hand, is much more based on preferences. "You say:" Today Thai dishes will be, it seems, very useful. "And tomorrow you will want a 'burrito," says Mr. Sarver. Food delivery startups are still trying to determine which logistics model is more justified: delivery from existing restaurants (Postmates, DoorDash) or preparing a menu for each day (Sprig, Munchery).
According to Mr. Sarver: "Both models can work." But he believes that companies using such models will be those who manage to push customers to new activities or new habits, which represents a real and serious change in consumer behavior.
The question ultimately comes down to where consumers draw the line, when you have to pay someone else for something that is being done for you. “Some people will be willing to pay extra for freeing, say, an hour of their time to do something at this time,” says Mr. Sandararajan. He argues that the more we start thinking about “one-button service” rather than large enterprises, as a way to meet our needs - say, using “Uber” and “Lyft” instead of making a down payment for a new car, - the more that “cash pot” becomes to which companies of such a service can claim.
Right now, the “one-button service” companies are at the center of a big experiment so that you can see where the consumer’s borders are. "There are, of course, a lot of arbitrary material, cases that contribute to the release of time," says Mr. Sandararajan. “I believe they can be profitable, but they may not get to the size that Airbnb or Uber have.”
In other words, a really good business has the potential to become big. A job that simply satisfies your need to feel like a small “ruler” with a smartphone may not give the desired result.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/299458/
All Articles