When it comes to adopting disrupting technologies, perception is everything

At what point did record companies stop defending the interests of musicians and become a mafia that pressures governments to pass laws to hunt people down and breach their basic rights? When did we all stop seeing publishers as disseminators of culture and instead a group that insulted and coerced us? And just how did taxi drivers go from being a group of workers defending their rights to a gang of hooligans who hassle drivers and set fire to cars?

The disruption caused by technology tends to follow similar patterns. In the first phase, the new arrival arouses a certain amount of curiosity, puzzlement, and even sympathy. There is always a certain amount of ingenuity involved in disruption: the entrepreneur in question has come up with an idea that breaks the rules, avoids certain entry barriers, and creates something that is usually seen as advantageous for the consumer. This phase tends to see relatively rapid uptake driven by curiosity and interest in trying out the new service to better understand it.

In the second phase, and following a more detailed analysis or exposure to opinions by both parties, a more measured assessment emerges: consideration is given to the social impact, to the rights or situation of the losers, to the medium to long term effects, to the possible consequences or impact on other activities… This phase often sees those affected begin to resist, which can include anything from public statements to all kinds of actions, protests, strikes, etc.

This second phase is critical: the ability of the affected collective to explain its position successfully is fundamental and decisive in terms of the public’s perception of the new, disruptive, arrival. Anything involving violence, or that is seen as irrational, perceived as holding on to privilege, or that cause disturbance to the public can either increase support for the new arrival, or even prompt massive uptake of whatever service it is providing.

In the case of shared transport versus taxis, the latter have so far failed to garner any support among the general public. Its poorly communicated protest strategy, involving strikes, insults, threats, and unconvincing arguments have led to most people seeing the collective as little more than a mafia out to protect its own interests. In general, the taxi drivers’ approach can be seen as how not to go about winning support for their cause: a public relations disaster that can largely be attributed to the lack of a structure in an industry that is very poorly represented internally, and thus unable to organize any kind of coherent strategy.

If the increase in app downloads of Uber was largely prompted by taxi protests and strikes, the recent increase in violence seen in Barcelona has persuaded even greater numbers of people turn to Uber, preferring to give their money to a driver they feel sympathy toward, and whose conduct and performance merits four stars, rather than to a group seen as little more than organized criminals who go round beating people up and setting fire to cars. The thing to bear in mind here is that it doesn’t matter whether the vast majority of taxi drivers are decent, hard-working folk caught who wouldn’t hurt a fly. The actions of a few are enough to create perceptions in the public mind.

As for Uber, while other new entrants to the urban transport sector, most of them small-scale outfits, have tried to keep out of the controversy, Uber has taken on a leadership role, with a clear strategy and well-executed tactics. It has tried to explain its model, positioning it as the logical outcome of what technology can offer to free us from restrictive practices, and has framed this within a model that goes far beyond simply moving people from one part of the city to another to pretty much redefining what urban living is all about.

At the same time, there has been a certain aggressiveness about Uber’s approach, using public relations strategies that are carefully planned and that are not afraid of direct confrontation, or of journalists, competitors being sabotaged, as well as blacklisting analysts and investors seen as hostile to its interests… this is a company that seems to have no problem pursuing whatever strategy it thinks will work best for its interests. Indeed, some of its investors, despite the company being valued at more than 18.2 billion dollars.

When it comes to the public deciding whether to adopt a disruptive technology, perception is everything, often defining the mental barriers that a user needs to overcome to try or consolidate a new service. And once again, for better or worse, Uber is providing a great deal of information worthy of analysis.

(En español, aquí)