If you're a smart Uber driver you already know that if there is one thing you hold over your riders it's the rating and acceptance system. Unlike riders drivers are allowed to a large degree to select who to transact with. No, they can't see the where you're going at the onset but there are 3 pieces of information they do see that can aid them in accepting or decline a trip.
1. Rating- is it worth accepting a rider with a rating below 4.5? From experience anything below this increases the possibility of a) being taken to the outskirts of town, b) visiting an unpleasant destination such a rough neighborhoods or tight streets your car can barely fit into c) riders with character issues.
2. Pick-up ETA- is it worth picking up a rider that's 10 mins. away? When you could just as easily receive another request from a closer location simply by passing on the longer pick-up time.
3. Surge Pricing- supposing you have a distant pick-up request of 10 mins., the rating is 4.8, and the surge is 2X, will price be enough to compensate for the time and fuel considering this is probably a good passenger with a chance of getting a tip based on the rating?
These items can be used as a check-list with 2/3 being the acceptable standard but in the end it's really about striking a balance between customer satisfaction and profitability. Considering the 3 items above can help in avoiding potential nuisance which may lead to property damage, safety issues, and inconvenience for both parties. Being smart doesn't just mean maximizing but it also means you are aware that a win-win environment is invaluable to great customer service.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
How the LTFRB should regulate Uber and Grab
If you're up to date with local news, you prolly already know that the LTFRB is thinking about implementing minimum work hours for Uber and Grab drivers. I understand that their mandate is to regulate for the sake of road decongestion but cmon! Taking out drivers that drive only 5 hours a week does not solve the problem. I repeat it doesn't solve anything! The mere fact that these people can afford to do this probably for gas or beer money means that they will continue to ply the roads even after getting booted out of the system. We will then be left with the same number of cars with less having the capability to ride-share, making a bigger mess of things prior to the regulation.
The LTFRB apparently wants to pull the ride-share industry back to the dark ages by attacking it's advantages when it can just as easily work with the TNCs in regard to their company's commitment which in itself has it's own challenges such as:
Selection of drivers- it takes more than an NBI clearance and a 1 hour orientation to prove that an individual is qualified. These days I can tell that the TNCs have been "slipping" in this category, this is probably where we need the government to intercede the most.
Security- while riders are offered a nice security blanket through the TNCs system, the drivers on the other hand lack the assurance that all riders are legitimate. Unless he/ she is using a credit card the account is practically disposable and the rating system is rendered useless. The government should regulate this!
Compensation- although no one is forcing anyone to join, once a Peer/ Partner, many drivers find themselves with the dilemma of chasing incentives to make ends meet. If LTFRB is saying that this is the category they wish to retain (meaning full-time), then they need to step up their game in terms of looking after drivers' welfare. I think that many will agree with me that staying more than 7 hours on the road is a dangerous deal. If these guys be running on Red Bull after the nth hour, it's an accident waiting to happen, they need to regulate this!
We could dissect this even further and the deeper you dig the more opportunities you'll have for government regulation without disrupting the ride-share model. One can only speculate on the reason behind the invasiveness of such proposal but don't think for one second that these people at the LTFRB are dummies because their not. They know exactly what they're doing!
The LTFRB apparently wants to pull the ride-share industry back to the dark ages by attacking it's advantages when it can just as easily work with the TNCs in regard to their company's commitment which in itself has it's own challenges such as:
Selection of drivers- it takes more than an NBI clearance and a 1 hour orientation to prove that an individual is qualified. These days I can tell that the TNCs have been "slipping" in this category, this is probably where we need the government to intercede the most.
Security- while riders are offered a nice security blanket through the TNCs system, the drivers on the other hand lack the assurance that all riders are legitimate. Unless he/ she is using a credit card the account is practically disposable and the rating system is rendered useless. The government should regulate this!
Compensation- although no one is forcing anyone to join, once a Peer/ Partner, many drivers find themselves with the dilemma of chasing incentives to make ends meet. If LTFRB is saying that this is the category they wish to retain (meaning full-time), then they need to step up their game in terms of looking after drivers' welfare. I think that many will agree with me that staying more than 7 hours on the road is a dangerous deal. If these guys be running on Red Bull after the nth hour, it's an accident waiting to happen, they need to regulate this!
We could dissect this even further and the deeper you dig the more opportunities you'll have for government regulation without disrupting the ride-share model. One can only speculate on the reason behind the invasiveness of such proposal but don't think for one second that these people at the LTFRB are dummies because their not. They know exactly what they're doing!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)