@irv3389 Uber works so well because people mostly need rides on demand, so "breakage" is a small concern. That is, me finding a driver I really like and just using him directly is a non-concern because I don't take cars often enough and when I do I need a car immediately (or in the near future). Going direct wouldn't make sense.
For haircuts, I imagine most people can plan ahead by at least a day and they have a preferred stylist. So, why would they want to stay in-app after they find a stylist they like? If the provider offers me $5 off to pay him directly, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.
Would love to hear how you've thought about this problem!
@ffumarola I’ve been waiting for someone to ask this, Frank! This could certainly be answered from both the consumer and barber side, but I’m of the opinion that the service side protocol has more bearing, so I’ll focus my response there.
This was a pretty major concern for us early on, so we sought the advice of other on-demand services dealing with similar questions around breakage. The most common responses were things like 1.) build specific language around the ramifications of client poaching into service providers’ ICAs, 2.) compensate well enough where barbers wouldn’t want to leave, 3.) have employees pose as customers to subject barbers to periodic ethics test. I’ve heard companies going as far as to threaten legal action against their work force for client poaching.
We included some of the basic guardrails, but our focus has always been more on making our barbers want to make the right decision vs. scaring them from making the wrong one. Of course, we offer our barbers more competitive rates than a traditional brick and mortar shop, but beyond that, we’ve put together an incentive laden plan, which encourages our barbers to grow their clientele on the platform and features a performance based sliding pay scale.
Ultimately, we’ve made it very difficult for our barbers to rationalize the decision to poach a client.
Replies
fintech spy
Shortcut