flâneur

Why “Uber for X” startups failed: The supply side is king at andrewchen

andrewchen.com · 1,297 words · saved by 1 readers

Remember all the “Uber for x” startups? A few years ago a ton of “Uber for x” startups got funded, but very few of them – maybe none? – worked out. It sounds good but ultimately most failed on the supply side. Let’s explore why. Rideshare has better economics, at the same acquisition cost Rideshare is special. Acquiring a broad base of labor for driving is expensive, often $300+. But then they can get requests all day. You can work 20 hours and even 50 hours a week if you want. You continually need the driver app to find new customers Where a lot of “Uber for x” companies fall down – valet parking, car washing, massages, etc – is that demand is often infrequent and there’s spikes at a few points in the day. What’s your supply side supposed to do the rest of the time? In other words, “Uber for x” cos often have the same cost of acquisition and cost of labor as rideshare, but can’t fill their time with work as smoothly / profitably Marketplace outcomes are sensitive to unit economics Rid

Why “Uber for X” startups failed: The supply side is king at andrewchen andrewchen --> Andrew Chen Archives Subscribe · Featured · Recent · The Cold Start Problem 📘 Dear readers, I have moved to Substack and I will be writing here from now on: 👉 andrewchen.substack.com In the meantime, I will leave andrewchen.com up for posterity. Enjoy! Why “Uber for X” startups failed: The supply side is king 0 comments --> Remember all the “Uber for x” startups? A few years ago a ton of “Uber for x” startups got funded, but very few of them –

saved by

related reading