Moscow, Russia – Fedot Tumusov, a member of the Russian State Duma, proposed a law that would force Apple to cut app store commission fees down from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. The law would require that a third of the app store commission be paid to the Russian government as part of a fund to train IT specialists.
source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5f4fafd8d1b2be0004703567/5aa837df2542970e001981f6
Copenhagen Airport is not enjoying the best times at the moment due to the continued turbulence in the Coronavirus crisis.
But here’s a little to rejoice in following a summer program filled with travel restrictions, grounded flights and employee layoffs.
According to the 2020 European Consumer Airport Index, Copenhagen Airport is one of Europe’s most passenger – friendly airports.
Copenhagen ranked third after leaders Zurich and Düsseldorf, while Manchester and Brussels finished in the top five.
“If you are going to travel this summer, you can consider starting or ending your journey at well-designed airports such as Zurich, Düsseldorf or Copenhagen, ” said Fred Roeder, head of the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), the organization behind the placement.
Read more here
CPH Airport ranked third on the 2020 European Consumer Airport Index
Copenhagen Airport isn’t enjoying the best of times at the moment due to the ongoing turbulence of the Coronavirus Crisis.
But here’s a little something to be happy about following a summer program brimming with travel restrictions, grounded airplanes and employee redundancies.
According to the 2020 European Consumer Airport Index, Copenhagen Airport is one of Europe’s most passenger-friendly airports.
Read more here
“This year has been one of the most challenging for the global travel industry. Many airports were closed for weeks or even months. While travel slowly recovers we want to inform consumers which airports are the most convenient to travel from and to in Europe. Airports with more space per passenger rank higher in our analysis. This is helpful to know for travelers who try to maintain distance from others. If you have to travel this Summer, you might want to consider starting or ending your journey at well-designed airports such as Zurich, Düsseldorf, or Copenhagen.
from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/3jDjkjY
“This year has been one of the most challenging for the global travel industry. Many airports were closed for weeks or even months. While travel slowly recovers we want to inform consumers which airports are the most convenient to travel from and to in Europe. Airports with more space per passenger rank higher in our analysis. This is helpful to know for travelers who try to maintain distance from others. If you have to travel this Summer, you might want to consider starting or ending your journey at well-designed airports such as Zurich, Düsseldorf, or Copenhagen.
source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5f4f67bc320adf0004990e62/5aa837df2542970e001981f6
According to a recent survey of restaurant owners, more than 29 per cent of food-service operators can’t turn a profit under current social distancing restrictions, while 60 per cent said that if things continue, they’ll have to permanently close after 90 days.
Under normal conditions, the food service industry employs 1.2 million Canadians, which makes this doomsday scenario truly frightening. Short-term mass restaurant failures would certainly take a toll, but the long-term impact would also be devastating. At some point or other, most young people rely on the food service industry for their entry into the workforce. It also provides flexible work for many older Canadians. The impact of eliminating these employment opportunities would be hard to measure but clearly would not be good.
What can policymakers do to get Canadians eating at restaurants again? We could, as some have suggested, follow the lead of the U.K.’s Eat Out To Help Out campaign. For the month of August, the British government provided a 50 per cent discount, to a limit of £10 per diner, on food and soft drinks every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday for restaurant-goers who ate in.
The goal was to provide a gentle nudge to consumers to alleviate their concerns about eating at restaurants and to give participating restaurants a revenue boost. Take-up was impressive, with more than 64 million meals being claimed over the first three weeks. On top of that, some major chains have said that they will honour the Monday-Wednesday 50 per cent discount moving forward, without government assistance, bearing the cost themselves.
Could it work in Canada? Possibly, but it largely depends on what we are “nudging” consumers back to. Some of us aren’t particularly excited about returning to $9 pints of generic beer and $17 cheeseburgers. That isn’t a slight against Canada’s food service industry; it’s a statement about the constrained environment legislators, at all levels, have created via over-regulation.
If we are going to nudge people back to restaurants, let’s make the food service industry fun again. Some simple changes in government policy could go a long way to creating a much more dynamic and ultimately fun environment for consumers, which will help make these businesses profitable once again.
Starting with alcohol, Canadian provinces should remove minimum pricing on alcoholic beverages and allow for restaurants to order directly from producers, rather than be required to order through provincial liquor control boards. Opening up the pricing model would allow for more competition — and possibly even higher margins on alcohol once bureaucracy can be side-stepped — while better serving consumers. Removing the liquor control board as the middle man would help combat inflated prices and drastically reduce costs for restaurants.
The provinces should also repeal their open-container laws and allow for outdoor alcohol consumption, something that is commonplace all over Europe. This change would allow for licensed restaurants to sell to-go drinks for those who are enjoying what is left of our summer months. Should I be able to enjoy a beer while taking a walk through a park? Of course. Should a licensed restaurant or bar be allowed to sell me that beer? Why on earth not?
Beyond alcohol, restaurants and bars should be allowed to incorporate non-smokable cannabis products into their menu offerings. If I can order a beer at a bar, I should be able to order a cannabis beverage. Giving cannabis consumers a legal commercial setting in which to consume beverages or edibles gives those consumers something that has never before been possible, while opening restaurants up to an entirely new customer base. New product offerings of cannabis beverages and edibles would be easy to implement. All that provincial authorities would have to do is roll these products into existing server licenses such as Smart Serve. If we can trust servers to serve alcohol, we can trust them to serve cannabis products.
For food, the elimination of supply management would be a major long-term help to both restaurants and consumers. The quota and tariff system that restricts the market for chicken, dairy, eggs and turkey artificially inflates restaurants’ costs and get passed along to consumers via higher prices. We know that supply management is a backwards policy that pushes people under the poverty line by inflating grocery bills upwards of $500 per year per family. Allowing for competition for these products would go a long way to reducing costs for the food service industry.
With the end of summer upon us and colder temperatures on the horizon, the clock is ticking for policymakers to breathe life back into the food service sector. If we are going to nudge people back to restaurants, let’s make restaurants fun and affordable again. Simple changes could go a long way to avoiding mass restaurant bankruptcies.
Originally published here.
The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.
The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org
«Oι ιδρυτές των πετυχημένων startups, και πολλά στελέχη τους, πολύ συχνά φεύγουν από την αρχική εταιρεία λίγα χρόνια μετά την εξαγορά. Έχουν αποκτήσει περιουσία, εμπειρία και αυτοπεποίθηση, και είναι ακόμα νέοι. Ξεκινούν νέα επιχείρηση, δική τους, και είναι πάλι αφεντικά. Προσλαμβάνουν συνεργάτες, που μπορεί να προέρχονται κι αυτοί από startups που πέτυχαν ή απέτυχαν. Έτσι μεγαλώνει και ωριμάζει το οικοσύστημα. Με εταιρείες εγχώριες, και με θυγατρικές πολυεθνικών. Με επενδυτές που θα επενδύσουν ξανά τα κέρδη. Με μεγαλύτερους και μικρότερους παίκτες.
Ένα κοινό στοιχείο έχουν όλοι αυτοί: ότι ζουν στον κόσμο της τεχνολογίας, που δεν περιορίζεται από εθνικά σύνορα. Ο Δρανδάκης και οι συνεργάτες του έδειξαν ότι μπορούν ομάδες Ελλήνων να χτίσουν καινοτόμες επιχειρήσεις με διεθνή εμβέλεια και να κερδίσουν».
Το απόσπασμα αυτό ανήκει σε ένα παλαιότερο άρθρο του Αρίστου Δοξιάδη (υπό τον τίτλο «Είναι καλό που πουλήθηκε η Taxibeat;», δημοσιεύθηκε στην εφημερίδα Η Καθημερινή στις 19.02.2017). Ο Δοξιάδης, αντιπρόεδρος του Εθνικού Συμβουλίου Έρευνας, Τεχνολογίας και Καινοτομίας (ΕΣΕΤΕΚ) και partner στην εταιρεία Big Pi Ventures, ήταν από τους ιδρυτές του Openfund που ήταν από τους αρχικούς χρηματοδότες του Taxibeat.
Θυμήθηκα το άρθρο διαβάζοντας την είδηση για την «έξοδο» του ιδρυτή Νίκου Δρανδάκη από την εταιρεία που ο ίδιος ίδρυσε και ανέπτυξε με τους συνεργάτες του. Στην επίσημη ανακοίνωση της Beat στα media διαβάζω μεταξύ άλλων τα εξής: «Ο Νίκος Δρανδάκης, Διευθύνων Σύμβουλος της Beat και η διοίκηση του ομίλου FREE NOW, μητρικής εταιρείας της Beat, αποφάσισαν να ολοκληρώσουν την επιτυχημένη συνεργασία τους. Ο Νίκος Δρανδάκης αποχωρεί από τη θέση του στο τέλος Αυγούστου. “Ο Νίκος έχει διαδραματίσει ζωτικό ρόλο δημιουργώντας και κάνοντας το Beat αυτό που είναι σήμερα. Είμαστε ευγνώμονες για την προσήλωσή του στην ανάπτυξη της εταιρείας όλα τα τελευταία χρόνια και του ευχόμαστε κάθε επιτυχία στα μελλοντικά του σχέδια”, δήλωσε ο Marc Berg, Διευθύνων Σύμβουλος της FREE NOW».
Το Beat – που ενσωματώνει τη κληρονομιά που αφήνει πίσω του ο Νίκος Δρανδάκης- ήταν και συνεχίζει να είναι μια μικρή ειρηνική επανάσταση στο επίπεδο της καθημερινής ζωής των πολιτών αλλά και στη καθημερινή λειτουργία της πόλης. Όπως επισημαίνουν οι εκπρόσωποι της εταιρείας «είναι μια δωρεάν εφαρμογή για έξυπνα κινητά τηλέφωνα και δημιουργεί μια νέα εμπειρία μετακίνησης, συνδέοντας χιλιάδες επιβάτες με διαθέσιμους επαγγελματίες οδηγούς», αλλά «δεν είναι απλά μια εφαρμογή που σε πάει από το ένα μέρος στο άλλο». Αποστολή του Beat, σύμφωνα πάντα με τις επισημάνσεις των στελεχών του, βρίσκεται εδώ για «να γίνει κομμάτι της ζωής των ανθρώπων, κάνοντας τις καθημερινές τους μετακινήσεις μέσα στην πόλη πιο προσιτές, ασφαλείς και γρήγορες».
Η εταιρεία Beat (πρώην Taxibeat) ιδρύθηκε το 2011 και είναι μέρος του FREE NOW Group, της κοινοπραξίας των BMW Group και Daimler για τις αστικές μεταφορές. Εκτός από την Ελλάδα, η Βeat εφαρμογή είναι διαθέσιμη σε Περού, Χιλή, Κολομβία, Μεξικό, Αργεντινή και στόχος της εταιρείας είναι η άμεση επέκτασή της σε περισσότερα σημεία της Λατινικής Αμερικής. Η εταιρεία απασχολεί σήμερα 800 εργαζομένους κι εξυπηρετεί πάνω από 15 εκατομμύρια επιβάτες στις χώρες όπου λειτουργεί.
Χτες Δευτέρα 31 Αυγούστου 2020 διάβασα μια ανάρτηση του φίλου Νίκου Λυσιγάκη, Public Affairs Manager στη Beat, την οποία προσυπογράφω.
Το περιεχόμενο της ανάρτησης: «Ο Ν. Δρανδάκης είναι από εκείνους που με μια χούφτα μερικούς ακόμα ανέδειξαν το ελληνικό οικοσύστημα καινοτομίας, έπεισε ανθρώπους να τον εμπιστευθούν και έβαλε skin in the game.
Δημιούργησε τη Beat. Συγκρούστηκε και νίκησε καθεστώτα με τα οποία δειλιάζουν ακόμα Κυβερνήσεις να τα βάλουν.
Έπεισε ένα γερμανικό κολοσσό να αγοράσει το δημιούργημα του και να τον κρατήσει στο τιμόνι της επιχείρησης.
Ως CEO από την εξαγορά και μετά, έκανε τη Beat την ταχύτερα αναπτυσσόμενη εφαρμογή ride hailing στη Λατινική Αμερική. Κι’ όλα αυτά, αναπτύσσοντας τεχνολογία από το Κέντρο της Αθήνας, η οποία γνωρίζει επιτυχία στην άλλη άκρη του κόσμου. Άσχετα που οι Έλληνες δε μπορούν να την απολαύσουν, λόγω ατολμίας κ έλλειψης νομοθετικού πλαισίου.
Αποχωρεί από το τιμόνι της επιχείρησης που ο ίδιος δημιούργησε μετά από 9+ χρόνια, αφήνοντας παρακαταθήκη όχι μόνο 300 εργαζομένους στην Αθήνα, αλλά ένα συνολικό disruption στη αντίληψη για τις αστικές μετακινήσεις στην χώρα. Πέτυχε μάλιστα απτά αποτελέσματα, μειώνοντας το κόστος προς όφελος των καταναλωτών.
Πριν τη Beat για παράδειγμα, το κόστος κλήσης ραδιοταξί ήταν 2 ευρώ στην Αθήνα. Με την επιτυχία της Beat, το κόστος αυτό εξαλήφθηκε κ συνεχίζει να ισχύει σήμερα μόνο στις πόλεις που δεν επιχειρεί η πλατφόρμα.
Η σημερινή αποχώρηση του ανοίγει ένα νέο κύκλο, σε ένα τομέα που η Ελλάδα πρωταγωνιστεί διεθνώς, αλλά η ίδια αρνείται πεισματικά να εξελίξει την αντίληψη της για το μέλλον των μετακινήσεων εντός των συνόρων της».
Αλλά, για να θυμηθούμε μαζί ορισμένες στιγμές της παρουσίας του Νίκου Δρανδάκη όπου χρειαζόταν θάρρος και επιμονή για να κερδηθούν μάχες.
Ας μου επιτραπεί να προσθέσω και μια σειρά από σκέψεις που βασίζονται στις παρακαταθήκες του επιτυχημένου παραδείγματος Δρανδάκη- Beat.
Τέλος, θα ήθελα να «μιλήσω» για ένα παράδοξο: Να αναπτύσσουν οι Έλληνες μηχανικοί της εταιρίας νέες καινοτόμες υπηρεσίες μετακινήσεων που κάνουν θραύση σε άλλα μέρη του κόσμου, τις οποίες όμως δε μπορεί να απολαύσει ο Έλληνας καταναλωτής, επειδή το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο, παραμένει αναχρονιστικό.
Originally published here.
The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.
The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org
Auch im Interesse der Verbraucher sollte die EU ihre Haltung zur Gentechnik überprüfen.
In den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten hat Europa beschlossen, in der Agrarpolitik seinen eigenen Weg zu gehen. Während sowohl Nord- und Südamerika als auch Japan zu einer noch stärker technologiegetriebenen modernen Landwirtschaft übergegangen sind, ist Europa rückwärts gegangen und verbietet immer mehr wissenschaftlich erwiesene Fortschritte in der Landwirtschaft. Bei den jüngsten Handelsgesprächen haben amerikanische Spitzendiplomaten den ordnungspolitischen Rahmen in der EU wiederholt als anachronistisch verspottet.
„Wir müssen Beschränkungen für innovative Ansätze und Technologien beseitigen (…) und den Willen haben, unseren Bürgern die Wahrheit über Technologie, Produktivität und Sicherheit zu sagen.“Das sind die Worte des amerikanischen Landwirtschaftsministers Sonny Perdue. Er argumentiert, dass die Beschränkungen der Europäischen Union für moderne Agrartechnologie nicht nachhaltig sind und künftige Handelsabkommen stark einschränken. Ob er nun recht hat oder nicht, hängt nicht davon ab, wie sehr man die Vereinigten Staaten liebt oder hasst, sondern davon, wie sehr man günstige Lebensmitteln wertschätzt.
Betrachten wir die Situation: Sowohl die konventionelle als auch die ökologische Landwirtschaft kämpfen mit Schädlingen. Diese muss man loswerden, um Ernährungssicherheit und Preisstabilität für die Verbraucher nicht zu gefährden. Beide benötigen Chemikalien als Teil ihrer Pflanzenschutzmittel, auch wenn Käufer von Bio-Produkten das sicher anders einschätzen würden. Wie Afrika zeigt, können Heuschreckenplagen verheerende Auswirkungen auf die Ernährungssicherheit haben und die Klimawissenschaft ermöglicht es uns, zu erkennen, dass bestimmte Schädlinge von weit entfernten Orten früher als später auf unsere Felder kommen werden, was Insektizide erforderlich macht. Um Pilze und tödliche Mykotoxine zu vermeiden, setzen wir Fungizide ein.
Politisch gesehen sind diese chemischen Pflanzenschutzmittel nicht populär, da immer mehr Umweltschützer Politiker dazu drängen, sie zu verbieten. Dies hat das politische Spektrum von links gegen rechts verlassen und ist auf beiden Seiten gleich verteilt. Leider spielt in der Debatte nur eine untergeordnete Rolle, ob diese Chemikalien von nationalen und internationalen Behörden für Lebensmittelsicherheit als sicher eingestuft wurden oder nicht.
Entscheidend scheint zu sein, dass moderne Pflanzenschutzmittel als nicht nachhaltig bezeichnet werden. Nachhaltigkeit ist jedoch unzureichend definiert und dient daher als Vorwand, um bestehende Missverständnisse über die Landwirtschaft zu bestärken. Wenn überhaupt, dann sollte Nachhaltigkeit auf einer modernen und innovativen Landwirtschaft beruhen, die den Bedürfnissen der Umwelt, der Lebensmittelsicherheit und wettbewerbsfähigen Preisen für Verbraucher gerecht wird.
Mit Hilfe der Gentechnik haben Wissenschaftler einen Weg gefunden, den Einsatz traditioneller Pflanzenschutzmittel zu reduzieren und gleichzeitig Ernteerträge zu steigern. Wieder einmal versperrt politisches Misstrauen gegenüber agrotechnischen Innovationen den Weg in die Zukunft. In diesem Fall durch die GVO-Richtlinie von 2001, die praktisch die gesamte Gentechnik für die Zwecke der Nutzpflanzen verbietet.
Der Klimawandel verändert die Lebensmittelproduktion, ob wir es wollen oder nicht. Spezifische genetische Veränderungen ermöglichen es uns, präzise Veränderungen im Lebensmittelbereich zu entwickeln. Die Vereinigten Staaten sind zusammen mit Israel, Japan, Argentinien und Brasilien führend in der Welt mit freizügigen Regeln für Genmanipulationen. Diese neuartige Technologie kann Lebensmittelsicherheit und Lebensmittelpreise für alle Verbraucher verbessern.
Die Regeln der EU sind im Vergleich dazu 20 Jahre alt und nicht in der Wissenschaft verwurzelt, wie eine wachsende Zahl von Forschern jetzt erklärt. Die Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, die Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften und die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft schreiben beispielsweise folgendes zur Anwendung des Vorsorgeprinzips in der EU: „Allerdings gehen (wir) davon aus, dass die verfahrenstechnischen Fortschritte der molekularen Züchtung nach wissenschaftlichem Erkenntnisstand keinen Vorsorgeanlass darstellen können, insbesondere da sich der ursprüngliche Risikoverdacht des EU-Gesetzgebers von 1990 selbst bei der klassischen Gentechnik nicht bewahrheitet hat und weiterhin nur hypothetische Risiken diskutiert werden.“
Eine Änderung unserer Regeln für neue Züchtungstechnologien sollte im Interesse der europäischen Verbraucher erfolgen. Europa sollte bei der landwirtschaftlichen Innovation eine Vorreiterrolle übernehmen und nicht Lehren von denVereinigten Staaten erteilt bekommen. Wir sollten Innovation zulassen und dann weltweit führend in ihr sein.
Frederik Roeder ist Geschäftsführer des Consumer Choice Centers, einer privat finanzierten weltweiten Verbraucherorgani- sation mit Sitz in Washington D.C., die für Wahlfreiheit, Innovation, Datenschutz und Wissenschaft einsteht.
Originally published here.
The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.
The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org
Bitter taste of alcohol ban
Fitch Solutions expects South Africa’s alcohol industry to contract more than 5% following months on the ban on the sale of alcohol during COVID-19 lockdown regulations.
Fitch said its revised alcoholic drinks consumption forecast for 2020 takes into account the impact of COVID-19 measures on both the supply and demand side in order to better understand consumption habits.
“We now forecast total alcoholic drinks consumption to contract by -5.4% year on year in 2020, down from our pre-COVID-19 forecast of 0.7% year on year. This expectation stems from the fact that the more affordable beer category will be attractive to consumers as the economic impact of COVID-19 hits households, with pay cuts and uncertainty around job security a likely outcome of the pandemic,” the consultancy said in a report.
“Furthermore, we expect consumers to purchase a larger proportion of their alcoholic drinks through the mass grocery retail channel and taverns for home consumption due to the residual fear of contracting the virus in public areas.”
The government earlier this month announced that it is lifting the ban on the sale of alcohol with limitations as the country entered in to level two of the nationwide lockdown from August 18. The new measures follow government’s decision to ban the sale of alcohol through both on-trade and off -trade establishments on July 13.
An initial ban on the sale of alcoholic drinks was implemented on March 27. David Clement from Consumer Choice Centre said that government’s ban on the sales of alcohol and tobacco products was a disaster.
“While South Africa’s failed prohibition experiment is over, it is important for South African consumers to urge the government to refrain from implementing another ban if a second COVID-19 wave comes to pass,” said Clement. “The pandemic has been awful for millions of South Africans and the economy as a whole. Recreating prohibition in the process just made the situation worse.”
SAB said earlier this month that as a result of the 12-week ban on alcoholic drink sales by the government, the company is cancelling R2.5-billion of investment that had been planned for this year and it is also reviewing further R2.5-billion investment plans for next year.
Originally published here.
The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.
The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org
The pandemic has, for better or worse, forced us to live online. That has made internet retail, digital services and delivery apps a godsend for millions of us sequestered at home.
This entirely new sector of the economy has allowed us to safely buy and enjoy without the risk of coronavirus. At the press of a button, your favorite food and drinks are magically delivered to your door.
But as you bite into your meal delivered by Grubhub, Uber Eats or DoorDash, there is a movement afoot to make that even more difficult.
Getting in between you and your food delivery is a coalition of advocacy groups working around the country to regulate, limit and severely restrict companies that offer delivery via applications.
Dubbing themselves “Protect Our Restaurants,” this Washington-based coalition of social justice groups is calling on state and local government to cap the commissions on delivery service apps.
They have already been successful in the District of Columbia, Seattle and San Francisco, where commission rates for food deliveries are now capped at 15 percent. And there is a bevy of other city councils lining up to join them, some wanted an even lower cap at 5 percent.
They claim delivery companies, the same ones that have empowered consumers, given vast new capabilities to restaurants and provided good income to couriers, are “exploiting” each of these groups in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
The hospitality industry is already on its last leg due to state-imposed lockdowns. Why would getting in the way between you and your next hot meal be the new issue of economic and social justice?
In July, it was projected by the NPD group that restaurant deliveries made up as much as 7 percent of food orders, 50 percent more than pre-pandemic. That number is underestimated, but it proves the rush is not yet over.
That means more customers are using food delivery apps to put meals on the table, sampling restaurants and kitchens so desperate for the income. And that service comes at a price.
For orders placed through a delivery app to a restaurant, the app charges either a flat or percentage-based fee as a commission, which funds the logistics, the courier’s pay and marketing costs. This amount varies between 13.5 percent and 40 percent, depending on which options a restaurant agrees to when they sign up.
It is that variance in commission rates that so enrages activists in this space. Plenty of anecdotes have swarmed social media warning of high fees for conducting businesses through the apps.
And while these caps on commission are well intended, they are counter-productive.
It will mean fewer order volumes that can be processed, less money will be available to couriers who sign up to deliver for the app, and apps will have to limit which businesses they accept. That would hurt restaurants, couriers and consumers who depend on these services.
This would end up hurting more people than it purports to help. That would be both anti-consumer and anti-innovation in the same fell swoop, which seems bonkers several months into a pandemic.
The other complaint mounted is antitrust concerns, similar to congressional hearings against Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google earlier this month. Activists want to use the weapons of the Federal Trade Commission to break up the “monopoly power” of delivery services.
Most of these companies, however, are true American success stories. They have existed for less than 10 years, have pivoted multiple times, expanded their services, and found a good niche empowering restaurants to quickly and reliably get their food to delivery customers.
Thousands of delivery workers have quick and easy work, giving much-needed income to students, those between jobs, and people who want extra income. They often contract with multiple services, depending on which offers the highest commission per delivery, similar to rideshare drivers.
The benefits to restaurants are also clear: less money is spent on hiring a delivery driver or vehicle, commissions charged are transparent and partnering with a well-known app helps attracts more customers who would otherwise never order from that specific restaurant. Most of these restaurants likely never had delivery before they signed up for these apps. That is hardly a case for trustbusting.
If those aiming to regulate food delivery companies and are successful in doing so, they’ll set up a paradox of their own making: the only companies that will be able to comply with the regulations and caps will be the firms with the most capital and resources. This would lockout any potential new competition and do more to restrict consumer choice than enhance it.
The last few months have provided every consumer with plenty of uncertainty. Being able to order products right to our door, though, has been a blessing.
Intervening in the market to undermine the choice of consumers and business contracts with restaurants would make that process arguably worse, and not better.
Originally published here.
The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.
The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org
