
Internal Uber Deck Reveals Revenue, Rides, Drivers and Fares - ssclafani
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-revenue-rides-drivers-and-fares-2014-11?op=1
======
pbreit
Lyft: get rid of the mustaches, fist bumps and front seats. Add town cars.

People who don't like Ubers behavior: use Lyft.

~~~
GraffitiTim
Most Lyfts in SF don't have mustaches anymore (or at least not displayed
prominently) and about 10% do the fist bump now. I always sit in the front
seat because it seems friendlier (and the drivers definitely do seem more
friendly than on Uber), but I doubt they'd have any problem with you sitting
in the back.

I use Lyft frequently and love it.

------
calcsam
Note that all revenue numbers are _gross_ not _net_.

In other words, they represent total fare $, not the 15% of fares that Uber
actually gets.

~~~
Narkov
Counting gross fares as revenue is about as honest as Groupon counting
customer receipts as revenue. We all know how that worked out.

~~~
wdr1
How is this deceptive? They never intended it for external release.

~~~
001sky
People use confidential figures for fundraising all the time. Just because its
not public doesn't mean its not being used to trade off.

That being said, the accounting issues are technical and sort of a side point.
Private investors at this stage ($10BN+ valuation) can do their own math.

Its more frame of mind of hyperbole that is relevant, IMHO.

------
steven2012
It is actually viable for Uber to recognize the entire fare as Uber's revenue,
even though they get 20% cut. There are a bunch of rules for revenue
recognition, and one of them is that if the customer perceives the driver as
being an agent of Uber, then the recognized revenue is likely the entire fare.

If a customer has a problem with a particular driver, they contact Uber, they
don't contact the driver directly. This is a key fact that makes a strong case
for recognizing the entire fare as revenue.

The difference with Groupon is that the customers were still interacting with
the end merchant, ie. whoever supplied the coupon, as opposed to Groupon as a
whole.

One problem with recognizing the entire fare is that their margins will look a
lot worse.

~~~
polarbear5
By this thinking, does Airbnb then also measure the entire cost of the listing
as revenue? I don't know much about accounting or finance, but this seems a
little misleading to me.

~~~
smt88
In my mind, Airbnb is a marketplace and Uber is a service provider. The
distinction is mostly arbitrary and driven by marketing/perception, though.

~~~
arjunnarayan
I agree, but I think the distinction is not arbitrary. The kicker is that you
pick the Airbnb provider individually, based on individual house/room
profiles. You don't say "give me a room in Seattle on this date, any room".
Whereas with Uber you say "bring me a car now to this location, any car". You
don't browse through car providers and say "ok, I'll specifically take the
blue Lexus, and only the blue Lexus".

------
eash
First post.

Just got a ping from an Uber recruiter who was linking to this article. If
they didn't leak it themselves they're certainly embracing it.

~~~
MBCook
Well 'making tons of money' is certainly better for their PR than 'driver hit-
and-ran down a kid', 'exec suggests doxxing and discrediting journalist', or
the usual 'is surge pricing ripping people off' stuff.

At this point they're probably desperate for anything with a positive angle on
it.

~~~
nness
> driver hit-and-ran down a kid

For those curious:

"Family sues Uber after New Year’s Eve crash in San Francisco kills 6-year-old
girl"

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/family-sues-uber-
dr...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/family-sues-uber-driver-
kills-6-year-old-girl-article-1.1594163)

------
woebtz
Assuming these numbers are fact, has there been any extensive research on how
taxi / private car / shuttle services' revenues have been affected by Uber and
the like?

Pre-Uber, I probably spent $100/year on taxis / shuttles (Los Angeles). Post-
Uber... I'm hesitant to look at my bank statements.

~~~
GuiA
Yes, that's what I bring up every time someone starts with the whole "Uber is
killing the poor taxi industry" rhetoric. Before Uber, I only took taxis
to/from airports, so maybe half a dozen times a year.

Now, I take Uber at least once a week. Going out with friends? I'm going to
spend money on dinner/drinks anyway, what's an added $10 in Uber fares to save
me 40 minutes of public transportation? Every time a new type of business
replaces an older model, the market size necessarily increases because the new
model is faster, cheaper, better, etc so new customers are attracted.

I don't get why taxi companies aren't putting all of their resources into
creating an Uber like infrastructure for themselves right now. It's clearly
the way of the future, and 10 years from now the traditional model of standing
on the sidewalk with your arm raised until some taxi driver feels like picking
you up will be long gone, whether they like it or not. They might dig their
heels in the ground and try to pass legislation all they want, that's just the
way it's going. Their only chance of survival is trying to beat Uber at their
own game, and every day that they spend lobbying in Washington or putting
crappy ads on buses [0] is a day lost for their cause.

[0]: [http://i.imgur.com/GjJZQAM.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/GjJZQAM.jpg)

~~~
SyneRyder
I don't think it's enough for taxis to just build a comparable
app/infrastructure at this point. Uber goes beyond now, offering perks when
you take Uber to specific destinations (eg a free burger at one place, free
drink at a specific bar, etc). My UberX driver last night gave me a free
bottle of water and let me drink it in the cab. Taxis could do all this, but
they don't seem interested in providing that level of service.

~~~
prostoalex
It's usually a kickback from the place that's happy to sell you food and
drinks. Taxi drivers in touristy areas do it all the time, but usually with
shadier places, like strip clubs and dive bars.

------
pistle
Wow, this reads nothing like a PR fluff piece misdirecting people away from
the worst week ever for Uber...

------
gcb0
isn't it illegal to swindle the market with fake financial data like this,
without source? or since it's not public yet that's OK?

~~~
Philadelphia
It's not particularly great in terms of journalism ethics, either, especially
with the level of detail they're providing. They basically reprinted a leaked
slide deck in it's entirety, without there being much of a compelling public
interest in anything it contains.

~~~
gojomo
If it's true, who's harmed? What's the ethical principle involved?

~~~
Philadelphia
That's a good question. I think it comes down to compromising credibility.
Reporters have to be perceived as trustworthy to be effective, and for that
they basically need to be viewed as having generally good character, or —
probably more importantly — good intentions. Just taking any old information
you come across and throwing it out because it brings in clicks undermines
that. The answer to who's harmed, then, is reporters in general, because it's
behavior that generates an aura of unsavoriness and makes people less likely
to trust the whole industry.

TLDR: If reporting seems like corporate espionage, people think reporters are
just corporate spies.

~~~
rhizome
I'm not sure where you're coming from with this because there's a long history
of journalism based on leaks and confidential sources. It's not a matter of
throwing out "any old information," since vetting sources is also a part of
journalism and a reporter's reputation is indeed affected by bad stories. The
repercussions you speak of simply don't exist because things like this are
part of the very definition of journalism, but if you have anything that
speaks to the validity of the sources in this story I'm sure we'd all like to
hear them.

~~~
Philadelphia
I agree, absolutely, that leaks and confidential sources are critical to
journalism. It's necessary to take into account the context and the content,
though. The less public value the leak has, and the more confidential the
information is, the more damage it can cause, the more carefully it needs to
be handled.

If a leak is very confidential but has a lot of value, using it is ok; the
Pentagon Papers, for example. If a leak is not particularly confidential, has
some public value, using it is ok; the name of the new store that's coming to
a neighborhood, for instance. The first two items I was able to find for other
expressions of the line of thought are the "Clandestine methods: Principles"
section at [1] and this article [2].

The Business Insider article doesn't present any reason for choosing to
publish the Uber information. It doesn't even offer any interesting analysis
of it. It just seems to be revealing it for the sake of revealing it. There
are ways to use the data that might be justified — for instance, discussing
the risks of the company's legal status being uncertain in some of it's
largest markets; looking at the number of drivers it has and the net effects
of that on the total number of cars on the streets; looking at general trends
in growth without revealing details, if they're interesting. Simply presenting
the information raw and without context isn't reporting, though; it's just
sharing, and, in this case, it's sharing information that wasn't meant to be
shared, so it seems sleazy.

[1][http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-
canadians/act...](http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-
canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/investigative-journalism/)

[2]
[http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/l...](http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/leaks.html)

~~~
gojomo
It may have been an intentional leak, so "meant to be shared" even if the
"confidential & proprietary" labels say otherwise.

But also, why would Uber's desire-for-secrecy be given much weight? They're
not a private individual that can be embarrassed. I haven't seen anyone
intimate that this info is either false or damaging to them in any way. (And
if, hypothetically, it were a leak that _was_ true and changes outsiders'
behavior enough to harm Uber, that might itself make the case for its release.
Uber is a big force affecting a lot of employees and markets – a prominent
'public figure'. Its many counterparties amongst the public want and arguably
deserve the best obtainable info about it.)

The sense that "it seems sleazy" thus looks to me like a case of over-
anthropomorphizing Uber itself, and thus granting it empathy which it is not
due. Even if we think it a useful legal fiction to grant companies all the
legal rights of persons, that doesn't mean they deserve all human courtesies,
too. (Of course, if the leak were primarily about actual people, and
especially if it was using dubious gossip to damage them, then a stricter
standard would apply.)

~~~
philwelch
There's a fairness argument to be made; Uber is a business and has to make
deals in order to carry out its business, be they investments, procurement
(they buy a lot of smartphones), commercial real estate, etc. If Uber's
internal finances are leaked but the internal finances of their current or
potential future business partners aren't, that harms their negotiating
position. Journalists shouldn't be stepping in and giving Apple or some local
landlord a better negotiation position with Uber by showing them Uber's cards,
so to speak. It violates the principle of impartiality.

~~~
rhizome
In that case/context, why would a journalist be obligated to consider Uber's
business needs at all?

~~~
philwelch
Because journalists shouldn't give some businesses advantages in negotiating
position over other businesses. If Uber is negotiating with Apple to buy
thousands of iPhones, and the press leaks Uber's internal financial data but
not Apple's, the press has given Apple an unfair advantage.

------
synaesthesisx
Actually...

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/20/about-those-uber-revenue-
nu...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/20/about-those-uber-revenue-numbers/)

~~~
pbreit
Is anyone actually fooled by high revenue low margin vs low revenue high
margin?

------
joelrunyon
All I want to know is what my rider rating is...

~~~
clamprecht
Can you just ask your driver?

------
rokhayakebe
Side note: UBER is valued at several billions higher than the entire taxi +
Limo industry in the US ($11B). Uber is probably creating more demand then
there was before. If correct, entrepreneurs should take the untapped part of
industries into consideration when sizing their markets.

~~~
prostoalex
How did you arrive at the valuation of the entire taxi+limo industry?

~~~
rokhayakebe
Feast, my friend

[https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/home.aspx](https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/home.aspx).

~~~
prostoalex
This
[https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1951](https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1951)
implies 1-year revenue is $11 billion. It's different from valuation unless 1x
happens to be the valuation multiple.

~~~
rokhayakebe
You are correct.

------
rhizome
HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT ALL THIS MONEY INSTEAD

~~~
general_failure
Looks pretty good. Go on and do more of whatever you are doing

