How COVID-19 is pushing marketplaces to manage more
COVID-19 has shaken peer-to-peer marketplace businesses to the core — how can you encourage dynamic, unscripted interactions while also safeguarding the health and safety of your customers during a global pandemic? To meet today’s evolving social norms head on, marketplace businesses are stepping in and expecting more from the marketplace than ever before to provide the consistency and quality that society demands.
Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and Turo have all managed their supplier bases with a heavier hand to promote rigorous cleaning protocols. At Turo, for instance, we’ve started requiring disinfection training and applying mandatory buffer times between trips to give germs a chance to dissipate — essentially with an aim towards improving the quality of the experience the suppliers are providing to meet our guests’ elevated apprehensions and expectations.
But this trend transcends the current health crisis — COVID-19 is only shining more of a spotlight on a decades-long trend moving away from unfettered, unregulated marketplace dynamics toward more managed, regulated marketplaces that focus on elevating quality, consistency, and reliability of service. While suppliers expect to retain autonomy around the services they provide, when they provide them, and how much to charge for them, marketplace facilitators expect (and must guide) suppliers to provide a safe, high quality, and well lit marketplace.
Increasing sophistication with the digital age
Online marketplaces started as a digital version of the paper classifieds of yore — a sort of directory connecting people with common interests. eBay and Amazon emerged as digital platforms for buying and selling items, and they were revolutionary. But instead of letting consumers reckon with consumers, wild-west-style, it quickly became evident that the platforms needed to influence some key pieces of the puzzle — payments, fulfillment, and quality control, to name a few.
Marketplaces started moving away from the bazaar paradigm — vendors hawking goods in an unregulated swirl of negotiating and haggling — toward a more predictable ecommerce paradigm — vendors selling their own stuff in an organized venue that delivers the quality, consistency, and reliability that savvy digital consumers have come to expect.
There is thus a delicate balance to strike between accommodating the supply and demand sides of the marketplace — both are your customers, and it’s important for both to glean value from your service. You need to ensure your suppliers fulfill consumer expectations (the aforementioned quality, consistency, reliability) while empowering those suppliers, adding value to their lives, and providing access to opportunity.
Balancing both sides of the marketplace: eBay
Take, for instance, the use case of shipping at eBay. For years, they had let sellers do whatever they wanted when it came to shipping; they only charged fees on items sold — not the shipping cost. Sellers were thus motivated to charge very high shipping rates to their buyers, since they kept 100% of that revenue stream. Over time, this seller-positive loophole mushroomed into a massive issue as it started to impact the buyer experience materially — someone could win an item for $50 and then pay another $50 in shipping fees. This appalling customer experience ended up alienating their shoppers and injuring their brand reputation.
When eBay eventually said enough is enough and started managing shipping, sellers were outraged — this bootleg income stream had become a treasured loophole. So for consumers, eBay became correlated to crapshoot shipping, while correcting that crapshoot experience eroded trust with their sellers. And all the while, Amazon grew its competitive advantage by building its reputation on unrivaled speed and transparent, standardized cost structures.
Balancing both sides of the marketplace: Turo
We recently overcame a similar milestone at Turo, setting rules for the distance settings over which our hosts previously had free rein. For years, hosts could set distance allowances to control the mileage guests put on their cars, which is reasonable. Until recently, however, hosts could set their own fees for additional miles driven over that allowance, of which they kept the lion’s share (between 65 and 85%, depending on their chosen protection plan).
Some hosts could set very low daily rates to attract demand (say, $25 per day), include a low distance allowance (say 100 miles, which would mean $0.25 per mile), and then set a high fee for each additional mile driven (say $0.75 per extra mile driven), thus generating additional income from their unsuspecting guests, who, like buyers who expect reasonable shipping rates, aren’t in the habit of doing convoluted arithmetic before booking a car for a weekend.
Guests would get walloped with what felt like sneak-attack fees after their trip, both increasing our operating expenses via customer support contacts, and alienating our customers, damaging the brand and ultimately the bottom line.
Expectedly, closing this loophole has inspired some chagrin from our host community, but I also have faith that they’ll understand the business rationale for ripping off this costly bandaid.
“Managed marketplaces,” Andrew Chen notes, “take on additional work of actually influencing or managing the service experience, and in doing so, create a step-function improvement in the customer experience.” That improvement in the customer experience is essential to growing and maturing the business, to leaving those wild-west adolescent days in the rearview mirror.
The tide that lifts all boats
Budding marketplaces start by prioritizing growth. Growth is the holy grail; it’s the thing that tantalizes investors, kickstarts the business, and sets the proverbial flywheel in motion. Once you’ve achieved product-market fit and that flywheel is spinning, you have enough volume and liquidity to reorient your focus to quality of service (read: managing your marketplace). Managed marketplaces yield a yin-yang balance between supplier empowerment (providing opportunity, with quality as the barrier to entry) with consumer confidence (facilitating a high-quality, consistent, and reliable service). And once you’ve struck that balance, the next phase in your marketplace’s evolution is striving to scale while maintaining those quality standards.
The progressive swing towards a more managed marketplace is not an arbitrary flex of power from the facilitator, but is an essential evolutionary step in the business’ lifecycle. To meet the quality standards of the ever-savvier consumer, and galvanize the business’ leadership position in its space, the focus swings to elegant execution with quality. From preventing hidden fees to enforcing health and safety protocols, brands must create a scaffolding that empowers suppliers to provide high-quality, consistent, and reliable experiences, and those cornerstone characteristics simply can’t be left to the invisible hand.
VP, BD at HopDrive | Uber Alum
4yThank you for sharing, Andre. Great to see Turo actively managing customer experience by standardization. Here's to lots more continued success for Turo, and your marketplace.
Investor, Problem Solver, Nap Taker
4yAndre, excellent post and I concur with a majority of what you're saying and agree that transparency and guests satisfaction is paramount to growth and survival. Hosts also need to be profitable in order to keep their vehicles on the platform. Unfortunately guests cause wear and tear to occur 2-4 times faster than if only driven by the owner, increasing hosts expenses. Plus with hosts having deductibles and sharing the risk and cost burden of damage claims, this potentially can wipe out the already razor thin profit margins. On a $30/day car hosts on the 70% plan only get $0.10 /mile for overages. This is well below the national average operational cost per mile. Additional miles should have a minimum fee of $0.50 / mile. I feel this is a fair and acceptable fee for all parties.
Sr. SDE At Amazon.com (Amazon Go)
4yFor a marketplace to be viable, it needs to be provide value to both buyers and sellers. The recent mileage changes make a large class of vehicles simply unprofitable. Even you yourself apparently realize this, as you've gotten special treatment for your 2006 Porsche 911. Every other 2006 Porsche 911 has a 200 mile daily limit, but for some reason yours has a 100 mile daily limit. The, perhaps unintended, consequences of this change in the marketplace will be the removal of a variety of (higher end) cars from the service. Given Turo's 60-85% take of trip revenue, most premium cars are simply unprofitable (most newer german cars, premium american cars, and even premium Japanese cars are basically unprofitable with a mandatory 200 miles per day and turo eating 60-85% of trip revenue). These kind of fundamental structural changes are also very costly to intake by the host community. Buying and selling cars has high overhead. Taxes and registration paid on $40,000 is non trivial. Throwing away thousands in taxes because turo has made rash decisions, without notice or consultation is also a needlessly antagonistic way to run a business. There is a reason that hundreds of hosts are exiting the marketplace. Turo: you need to do better.
Senior Director, Business Transformation at U.S. Renal Care
4yGreat post Andre H.! Your discussion around guest safety and balancing the marketplace are spot on, but I do find your analysis of host mileage restrictions to be unreasonable based on the facts. While some hosts would set low daily rate and a high mileage overage rate, your previous policy changes that put a cap on per mile rates should have quashed that predatory business model. Saying that Turo hosts were gaming the system by exploiting a loophole is disingenuous if not completely wrong. Turo takes their cut of the mileage overage, just as they do with the daily rental rate. The only difference is that Turo doesn’t charge a trip fee on the mileage like they do on the daily rate. While surprise fees are not good for building trust on the platform, the real issue (and likely true driver of the new policy) is that Turo would be liable when they are unable to collect these “sneak-attack fees” from the renter. I also take issue with Turo claiming that hosts keep “the lion’s share”. Turo charges multiple fees, including trip fees, protection plans, and young driver fees without any percentage going to the host. In reality, Turo is keeping over 50% of the total cost of most rentals. I hope that Turo can learn from Amazon and be more transparent to both sides of the marketplace.
Co-Founder & Managing Director, Superorganism
4y100%, great post Andre! Another company that comes to mind here is GOAT (cc Eddy Lu), which had an opening into the high-end sneaker market because too many buyers had been burned by knock-offs on eBay. It may seem more expensive to sit between buyers and sellers to guarantee product authenticity, but losing customers' trust is far more costly long-term.