It did work with Uber, though, but I think Uber could have gotten the same results with a different marketing strategy. Instead of investing all that money into lowering their prices, Uber should have focused on company image by promoting their other main advantage: their product. Being able to order a ride via an app, not needing to handle cash, and seeing trip costs and driver information before the car arrives, should be enough advantages. If Uber had promoted them, both its target group as well as its competitor-the taxi market-would have had a much better understanding of what was coming their way. The product offered by Uber is simply better than the traditional taxi, which is reflected in the satisfaction of both the drivers and customers of Uber alike. If Uber had focused on the product advantage, the rest of the company operations would have likely followed this positive trend. For example, if more (taxi) drivers had seen the real advantages of Uber, the company would not have had the need for such aggressive tactics regarding the recruitment of rival employees. This positive image may have significantly impacted other aspects, such as government negotiations. Furthermore, given that Uber would have had to put less focus on these aggressive tactics, this focus could have been used to improve the product instead. For example, they could have positively developed a shared economy by working with drivers to create contracts that benefit both parties. Conclusion In a way, Uber’s statement that being a market disrupter naturally comes with making enemies is correct. Despite this, the mentality when it comes to the tactics that Uber used to penetrate the ride-sharing market is controversial at the very least and arguably wrong at most. I believe that Uber should concentrate on explaining their core product benefits to consumers rather than buying market share via pricing. When consumers see the benefit, Uber will win.
54 Online Touch Home