Uber’s Operating and Marketing Chiefs Step Down in Leadership Shakeup(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Uber’s Operating and Marketing Chiefs Step Down in Leadership Shakeup
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-07/uber-operating-marketing-chiefs-step-down-in-leadership-shakeup-jwmiwpn8
38 comments
I see they waited until Uber finally returned to their IPO price.
Well yeah, I'm still not convinced that the market is bullish on Uber and Lyft.
The outgoing COO earned up to $47.6 M for his performance in the men's individual fail: https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1137125244756357120
Earned up to is correct but somewhere less than that amount since he wasnt there long enough.
The actual values are in the S1: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519...
Under Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control.
Under Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control.
We have no way of knowing what the incentives were as well as vesting schedule. But you're right. It's incredibly unlikely that it was anywhere close to that number.
Doesn’t bode well for their path to profitability.
Always happens when a new CEO comes on board. I'm surprised it took Dara this long, but I guess his first job was to get Uber out of the PR nightmare and through IPO.
except that in this case, the new CEO is the one who hired the COO and brought him on with him
Marissa did this at Yahoo as well. https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/28/marissa-mayer-on-henrique-...
I'm sure there are hundreds of CxOs coming and leaving within one CEO's reign. Is there any reason to single our Marissa Mayers?
Uber used to work so well for me but ever since Travis left the service has rapidly degraded to the point where I try not to use it if I don’t have to. This goes double for Uber Eats. I don’t know if the original leadership change caused to problems but it’s very noticeable. The software used to be very tight (for lack of a better word). Responsive, always did what I wanted. Always a satisfying experience. Now it’s slow, laggy, more prone to drivers flaking, has arbitrary UI changes... Sadly none of the competitors offer a UX on par with early Uber.
Did you ever think that maybe drivers are flaking more now because Uber realizes as a company they eventually need to to make money, and therefore they need to cut how much drivers get, and now drivers are picky over what rides they take, and it has nothing to do with Travis?
I'm not sure if Uber is actually paying drivers significantly less or if drivers have simply wised up to the full costs of driving for a ride sharing company + the jobs market is better than it was a few years ago so there are fewer people who need to drive just to make ends meet.
I have personally noticed that overall average cost of Uber/Lyft for me has gone up over the last year or so unless there's a promo going on. It's now to the point where I think twice before hailing a ride instead of driving myself or looking for another option.
I have personally noticed that overall average cost of Uber/Lyft for me has gone up over the last year or so unless there's a promo going on. It's now to the point where I think twice before hailing a ride instead of driving myself or looking for another option.
> I have personally noticed that overall average cost of Uber/Lyft for me has gone up
I took a taxi last month for the first time in something like 6 years because uber was 15 minutes away and surging. The taxi was already there and cleaner than almost any uber ive ever taken - and cheaper than the surge.
I took a taxi last month for the first time in something like 6 years because uber was 15 minutes away and surging. The taxi was already there and cleaner than almost any uber ive ever taken - and cheaper than the surge.
I find that metered taxis are cheaper for about 80% of the trips I make. The exceptions are during periods of extremely high traffic where your Uber/Lyft Price is fixed, but the metered taxi price could really shoot up if you’re sitting in traffic too long.
Essentially, unless I’m traveling in rush hour, I’m always better off taking a metered cab, and it’s usually faster to boot.
Essentially, unless I’m traveling in rush hour, I’m always better off taking a metered cab, and it’s usually faster to boot.
>need to to make money, and therefore they need to cut how much drivers get, and now drivers are picky over what rides they take,
Which is the same damn taxi dispatch problem that Uber was originally created to solve, so I guess now they can't use "we're different because internet!" to argue against regulations anymore.
Which is the same damn taxi dispatch problem that Uber was originally created to solve, so I guess now they can't use "we're different because internet!" to argue against regulations anymore.
Over on nakedcapitalism[1] there's an ongoing debunking of Uber's absurd claim that their technology can somehow improve on a commodity service like taking a taxi.
1. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/hubert-horan-will-th...
1. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/hubert-horan-will-th...
And yet customers abandoned the taxi industry like it was radioactive, about five nanoseconds after the first flawed, dubiously-legal alternatives started to appear.
Only an industry that is doing almost everything wrong could have suffered the fate of the taxi industry.
Only an industry that is doing almost everything wrong could have suffered the fate of the taxi industry.
Customers abandoned the taxi industry because their dispatchers sucked, and drivers would refuse fares that begine or end in a location they personally preferred not to serve. This is "the dispatcher problem" I mentioned above.
To the people saying that Uber rides are heavily subsidized... What percentage would be "heavy"? Because I thought Uber's loses as a fraction of revenue were around 20%, which doesn't scream "heavily" to me
It’s around 50% — the main problem being that there’s no obvious way to make it significantly more cost efficient. Driver compensation is already hovering around minimum wage and there’s plenty of competition if they raise rates. If would be one thing if they were running at a loss in new markets / for new customers but trending profitable but as far as I can tell they’re banking on being able to starve the competition and jack up prices or getting self-driving cars at a price where they can afford the capital costs because they’re not paying the drivers.
$1.8 billion losses on $11.3 billion in revenue is nowhere close to 50%. (2018 numbers)
If you have different numbers, I'd love to hear them.
If you have different numbers, I'd love to hear them.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't subsidies be calculated on gross bookings if they were subsidizing a percentage of the cost of the ride.
I was curious about the stark discrepancy between your numbers and the parent's, so I did some quick research.
I think you're both kind of right. Reuters writes:
>In 2015, Uber passengers were paying only 41 percent of the actual cost of their trips, according to an analysis by transportation industry consultant Hubert Horan, based on financial statements from Uber. [0]
Of course that's four years ago. What about 2018 numbers? An interesting article makes some allegations about Uber deliberately inflating their profits [1] and making it difficult to tease apart the details:
>When Uber abandoned its failed Chinese, Russian and Southeast Asian operations, the dominant local companies gave Uber equity and debt instruments to partially compensate it for providing them an easier path to market dominance. These non-tradeable instruments only exist because of Uber’s decision to discontinue operations, but Uber includes their $5 billion value in “Net Income From Continuing Operations”
>The current accounting value of these assets is based entirely on Uber’s judgement as to what paper issued by companies currently losing massive amounts of money might be worth someday. [5] If one takes Uber’s judgements at face value, one could conclude that Uber’s only profitable activity is getting paid off for discontinuing staggering unprofitable markets.
..as well as..
>Lyft’s IPO prospectus presented ridesharing unit revenue data but Uber did not. Uber only presented the sum of car service and food delivery trips, so prospectus readers couldn’t figure out what customers were paying for the two services separately, or how prices for the two services have changed. The combined data suggest that both growth rates and pricing was declining in the second half of 2018, but prospectus readers have no way to identify the underlying problems, or whether those problem are likely to get worse.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-profitability/true-p...
[1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/04/hubert-horan-can-ube...
I think you're both kind of right. Reuters writes:
>In 2015, Uber passengers were paying only 41 percent of the actual cost of their trips, according to an analysis by transportation industry consultant Hubert Horan, based on financial statements from Uber. [0]
Of course that's four years ago. What about 2018 numbers? An interesting article makes some allegations about Uber deliberately inflating their profits [1] and making it difficult to tease apart the details:
>When Uber abandoned its failed Chinese, Russian and Southeast Asian operations, the dominant local companies gave Uber equity and debt instruments to partially compensate it for providing them an easier path to market dominance. These non-tradeable instruments only exist because of Uber’s decision to discontinue operations, but Uber includes their $5 billion value in “Net Income From Continuing Operations”
>The current accounting value of these assets is based entirely on Uber’s judgement as to what paper issued by companies currently losing massive amounts of money might be worth someday. [5] If one takes Uber’s judgements at face value, one could conclude that Uber’s only profitable activity is getting paid off for discontinuing staggering unprofitable markets.
..as well as..
>Lyft’s IPO prospectus presented ridesharing unit revenue data but Uber did not. Uber only presented the sum of car service and food delivery trips, so prospectus readers couldn’t figure out what customers were paying for the two services separately, or how prices for the two services have changed. The combined data suggest that both growth rates and pricing was declining in the second half of 2018, but prospectus readers have no way to identify the underlying problems, or whether those problem are likely to get worse.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-profitability/true-p...
[1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/04/hubert-horan-can-ube...
I think I have to point out that your link at [1] uses Uber's IPO P/L numbers (which include their sale of some foreign holdings) which worked out to a profit of ~987 Million in 2018, but their past financial statements have purposefully excluded the income from those sales in their revenue and P/L numbers. (Uber does not typically use GAAP numbers for exactly this reason)
> It’s around 50%
You sound sure. Where did you get this number?
You sound sure. Where did you get this number?
It works out to billions of dollars a year in losses so yeah.
A big factor in high adoption for Uber was the fact that each ride was highly subsidised by investor monies.
Price was rarely a concern. Uber always felt fair in pricing to competitive markets like Chicago where cabs are better than St Louis or Seattle.
Seattle was the worst. Cabs were super late and never knew the city and gouged you. Took a cab 12 miles at 3am in Seattle once and it was 97$ another time (like 2012) the guy couldn't find the place 3 times and was 2 hours late. Finally showed up when I talked him there and fucker had a gps but claimed he didn't need it.
Uber and lift show up on time have good dispatch and reasonable fares.
However in Portland I always used radio can cause it was clean and had good dispatch and fair prices.
I use cabs in SF all the time from the airport cause company pays and I don't have to deal with the cf that is getting a rideshare there. Just walk out and pay $50 to downtown. It's $15-20 over rideshare but no wait. And yay moral hazard.
Anyway I love flywheel and radio can (I think related companies) cause they do it as well as Lyft and have fair prices. Cabs shouldn't be like healthcare for pricing.
Seattle was the worst. Cabs were super late and never knew the city and gouged you. Took a cab 12 miles at 3am in Seattle once and it was 97$ another time (like 2012) the guy couldn't find the place 3 times and was 2 hours late. Finally showed up when I talked him there and fucker had a gps but claimed he didn't need it.
Uber and lift show up on time have good dispatch and reasonable fares.
However in Portland I always used radio can cause it was clean and had good dispatch and fair prices.
I use cabs in SF all the time from the airport cause company pays and I don't have to deal with the cf that is getting a rideshare there. Just walk out and pay $50 to downtown. It's $15-20 over rideshare but no wait. And yay moral hazard.
Anyway I love flywheel and radio can (I think related companies) cause they do it as well as Lyft and have fair prices. Cabs shouldn't be like healthcare for pricing.
The software has also degraded significantly. It’s an all around lowering of quality.
Their latest rebrand is also a disaster in my opinion. They went from a distinctive visual identity to a logo equivalent of someone pasting an Arial textbox in Paint on a black background.
My experience with Uber was entirely before the CEO change and it was always slow, the UI on Android used iOS idioms, and drivers flaking on me over and over and over again is what drove me to Lyft.
I doubt very much that Travis was making the UI good.
I doubt very much that Travis was making the UI good.
Interesting, UI/UX is fine on iOS (iPhone XR). What's your bad experience?
Perhaps usage went up since Travis left do to less ethical dilemma in supporting the company, and they couldn’t keep up?
I think it was the other way round. Investor scrutiny on Uber increased after it became clear they were gonna IPO. When it became evident that Uber couldn’t make money to justify their valuation (and potentially not make money at all), the justification became self driving cars.
When it became clear Uber’s self driving cars weren’t happening, and Travis personally had greatly compromised the possibility of it working out, Travis was forced to leave.
IOW, Travis’s leaving was driven by the increased scrutiny when it became clear Uber needed to IPO, and needing to IPO meant Uber couldn’t continue losing money like they did which led to them having to make changes which meant customers weren’t as happy with them anymore.
When it became clear Uber’s self driving cars weren’t happening, and Travis personally had greatly compromised the possibility of it working out, Travis was forced to leave.
IOW, Travis’s leaving was driven by the increased scrutiny when it became clear Uber needed to IPO, and needing to IPO meant Uber couldn’t continue losing money like they did which led to them having to make changes which meant customers weren’t as happy with them anymore.
I think that’s a pretty out there explanation that would require some data to back up. They’ve been doing a ton of work on the app, it just isn’t at the same quality as before.
It looks like Hartford walks out the door with at least $10M (based on IPO price) in immediate stock vesting due to his termination.