個案總覽

The rapid rise of app-based "ridesharing" services, led by San Francisco-based companies Uber and Lyft, had a disruptive effect on the existing market. Uber and Lyft dominated the ridesharing market in the United States and many other markets, although other companies such as Sidecar and Cabulous drove key innovations in the service. By 2015 Uber was clearly the dominant firm. Despite encountering opposition from regulators and traditional taxi companies all over the world, Uber managed to expand to 58 countries and more than 300 cities. In a world of smartphones, apps, and GPS systems, the methods of traditional taxis suddenly seemed obsolete. Was ridesharing truly a value-creating innovation or just a cleverly devised scheme to mask the illegal maneuvers of an unregulated insurgent? Were Uber and Lyft just technology companies that revolutionized the market-making power of advanced data systems and free markets to serve the basic desire of every traveler to get from point to point quickly, conveniently, and cheaply? Or were they glorified illegal cab services, flagrantly cannibalizing an established taxi system?

Uber offered a variety of car services that varied by city. The full-range of services included UberX, UberBLACK, UberSUV, UberSELECT/PLUS, UberXL, UberLUX, and UberTAXI. The services varied by type of car offered and fare charged. In large cities, the option to select among a variety of private transportation services and car types existed long before Uber and other ridesharing services came on the scene. It seemed straightforward then that differentiation of service level must be profitable. But was the provision of this variety of service levels better for riders as well? What was the rationale for offering service-level variety for products and or services that were clear substitutes for each other? When did differentiation by service level make sense for both riders and the service provider? And how many service levels should there be?

A key difference between ridesharing services and standard yellow taxis was the rating system. After a trip using a ridesharing service, riders were encouraged to rate their drivers on a scale of one to five stars. The rating systems put immense pressure on drivers to maintain as high a rating as possible. Many drivers regarded the rating system as unfair, because they were sometimes penalized for factors out of their control. But just as passengers could rate drivers, drivers could also rate passengers. When low-rated passengers attempted to summon rides in the future, there was a greater likelihood of rejection by drivers. The rating systems used by ridesharing services seemed to be a key differentiator from taxicabs and for-hire services. But did the systems work as they should? Did the use of a ratings system lead to an improvement in service quality over competing services? Or were its flaws too serious and unfair to ensure anything other than additional stress for drivers?

A principal objective of economic thinking is to inform key decisions made by firms and their managers. One of the most important topics for managers concerns the basic choices about labor: How many people should I hire, and what should I pay them? Using the context of football (soccer) in Brazil, this case can be used to explore players' current and future worth to a team. Analysis could include marginal product of labor, marginal revenue product, team profitability, and how managers might fund player acquisitions while still generating consistent profits.