Uber Hubris:
Why We Should Be Asking More Questions About Uber
Uber is in the bad publicity hot seat again with a leading story about comments made by Uber Senior Vice President Emil Michael on “digging up dirt” on critical journalists. Sarah Lacy, editor at PandoDaily, writes that she is in Uber’s targets for her critical pieces of the company. Uber’s “God View”, a real time view of passengers, has been used as a party trick, questionable from a privacy perspective, and Business Insider reports that this tool has been used to track a journalist’s position. Alex Howard broadens the implications from journalists to politics noting the popularity of the service among members of Congress. Uber knows, and likes to show off, what the company can do with it’s data. In addition to God View, two years ago Uber used their data to calculate the use of the service for overnight stays, or in Uber’s terms, “Rides of Glory”.
Uber’s aggressive, to be diplomatic, use of data shouldn’t be surprising. The company is ruthless and growing fast with a valuation of $18B this past summer and current press reports suggesting the company will be valued at $30B during the next round of investment. This rapid growth is not just from providing a great service but a combination of savvy and questionable practices. Uber battles local regulations in nearly every city they enter, often ignoring bans to build their brand and engaging their users as decentralized company advocates. Emails to users fight against bans on their behalf. At the same time as Uber flies flag of competition they undermine competitors through less savory approaches. One practice involved hiring “brand ambassadors” to repeatedly call and cancel rides from competing car service Lyft to reduce the number of Lyft drivers available to users.
Another rising critique of Uber safety and treatment of passengers. Along these lines there have been cases cases of sexual harassment and an Uber driver robbing a passenger at gunpoint. BoingBoing highlights how a driver recently told a rider who cancelled her request to return to her radiation treatment center to retrieve her scarf that she “deserved cancer.” Earlier this year Uber introduced a $1 “safety fee” for UberX rides to cover the cost of background checks driver safety education. This presents an important position for Uber within the context of a network economy service: the value of the company’s brand is in managing trust in connecting a rider to a driver. This trust is undermined through how the company uses data of user trips and the behavior of drivers.
However, additional questions should be raised about the aggressive culture of Uber and how this might impact drivers. Recent stories about Uber relationship to drives should raise questions in relation to negative drive-passenger interactions. For example, drivers are contractors, not employees. They can be fired at will as easily as deactivating their account. Additionally, Uber claims the median income for drivers in New York is nearly $100,000 a year, a number Slate says isn’t based on fact. Uber isn’t just recruiting drivers with claims of high incomes and the polish of a hot brand, the company has also helped drivers purchase vehicles with subprime loans.
Stories about Uber share a common theme in that they illustrate hubris of a rapidly growing company. John Gruber summed up the recent events writing: “It’s like Richard Nixon came back from the grave and is running a startup.” Uber provides a popular transportation option that has been welcomed by their growing user base. At the same time, the cutthroat attitude to critics and competitors raises questions. The company’s relation to users and drivers alike should be questioned within the context of the company’s culture and the role of the company as a gateway and gatekeeper between drivers and riders.
