Growing up, we were told never to get in a car with a stranger. Especially if it was a van and the stranger offered candy or a cute puppy. Why? Because our parents, whom we knew cared about our welfare, warned us that those strangers probably didn’t have the best intentions. Thus, the phrase “stranger danger” was coined. Fast forward to today, and in an almost perversely ironic turn of events, kids whose parents warned them about stranger danger have grown up and are now building businesses around the idea. Uber employs legions of strangers with everything from Priuses to (yes, indeed) vans to drive us around. They will even bring kittens (aw)! Instead of calling this the Stranger Danger Business Model, we’ve coined it the “Share Economy” — which, I have to admit, makes getting into a car with a stranger sound like a happy and much less harrowing experience than I was warned of in my youth. But let’s not kid ourselves: the “share economy” is rife with dangers of its own. So, here are some notes for the entrepreneurs of the share economy (mealsharing, ridesharing, housesharing, etc.) on how your business models seem misaligned with your values — so that you can actually build what we expect of you: values-based businesses without the dangers to your customers.
Let’s start with your ideas: Uber, Lyft, Chariot, Airbnb, Mealsharing, Share Your Meal. First, let’s give you a round of applause for these disruptive ideas that shift our thinking around very traditional spaces. Well done, you. But before you take a bow and are given any more accolades, let’s have a frank discussion about what you have put into the world.
While I appreciate the challenges to existing business models that these entrepreneurs have come up with, share economy companies cannot be just happy, grown up versions of our neighborhood lemonade stands, red wagon rides or blanket tents from our six-year-old selves. Because, complexity. After a rough analysis of the share economy ideas, you get the general criticism: Share economy businesses are dangerous for their customers, burdening them with all of the risk. Oppositionally, share economy companies could argue that they are safe enough that cities around the country have let them operate — and this is true. Many cities have let this play out for awhile. But many other cities and many potential customers are catching on and beginning to question and reject the share economy business models in favor of safer, less risky options. And just because you don’t get caught right away doesn’t mean you haven’t done something wrong, or at least questionable.
So, my criticism is both practical AND ethical. We have lauded Millennial entrepreneurs for their values-based business breakthroughs. We’ve given them rockstar status as the heroes of our future. This is a generation of self-proclaimed world-changers who want to make the world a better place. But the share economy — arguably the most recognizable paradigm shift fostered by the millennial generation — insults us by skirting public policy meant to protect the very customers it woos. It places us at risk with each ride, rental and meal. And perhaps worse, it does not acknowledge these risks or work to ameliorate or “share” these risks. The danger posed by the share economy as it is right nowisn’t just in the transactions themselves: It is in the very blindness of the share economy to see and address the risk to customers, to public safety and public policy before it funds and fosters and puts another risk oriented business in front of an unsuspecting customer.
I’m all for disruptive models, just not dangerous ones that lack the very values that are purported. If you really want to be the tech rockstars you envision yourselves to be, then do the hard work of finding and building a solution that is safe and lawful, not just expedient. Doing so would not only be Silicon Valley smart, but honorable. (And let’s face it, if you put yourself out there as do-gooders, then you should expect people to hold you to it.)
My own company is focused on alignment: aligning people with purposeful work and corporate culture with outcomes. So, I’m pretty invested in the idea that what we do should reflect what we say, and what we say should reflect who we are. If the purpose of the share economy is to do more than connect people and unused resources, but to change the world in meaningful ways, then the purpose of this article is to call out those in the share economy on the misalignment. I’m pretty sure the intent was not to recreate the concept of stranger danger. And I’m pretty sure that when held to higher, more aligned standards, the new share economy entrepreneurs will deliver (I’m keeping the faith, anyway).
To push the point, I’m challenging values-driven millennial entrepreneurs to a Values Hackathon. Before you build another app or pitch another idea, query and code for these questions: What, if any, are the ways in which my business idea places the burden of risk on my customer? How am I taking public policy and safety regulations into account in my model? How have I thought about and planned for a worse-case scenario use of the model (what if bad people or sloppy people or uncaring people want to be part of my share model? Would my model be safe for my kid or my kid sister?) so that risk is reduced before it even goes to market? How have I made the risks transparent to my customer base? How have I figured out a way in my business model to share in any risk rather than leave it all to my customer? Rather than taking version 1.0 and putting it into the world with its potential stranger dangers, think hard about the repercussions. You are the future and you’ve shown us that you want to (and can) change the world — now show us you can DO IT BETTER.
Let’s start with your ideas: Uber, Lyft, Chariot, Airbnb, Mealsharing, Share Your Meal. First, let’s give you a round of applause for these disruptive ideas that shift our thinking around very traditional spaces. Well done, you. But before you take a bow and are given any more accolades, let’s have a frank discussion about what you have put into the world.
- Ride Sharing (Uber/Lyft/Chariot, etc): Sure, these companies have envisioned a solution to the “I can’t get a taxi out here!” problem by creating a logistics app that connects neighbors and their cars with needy riders. They have pointed a big, fat arrow at the problem for all taxi companies to see. And better yet, have actually hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbooks, so now they are really paying attention. In the process, we’ve all gotten excited about touching our phone screens to immediately conjure up a quick ride. Love it. But here’s where we, your customers and people watching what kind of businesses the “values” generation builds, have some hard things you need to hear and consider. Ride share companies put their own customers at risk — and make a profit doing it. There’s a reason why we didn’t already have random strangers driving other people around for money, and you can’t just slap a taxi sticker on your car and call it a business. The reason is that we have laws that have been crafted for the sake of protecting the person riding in the car (and protecting our economy, if we want to consider taxes from drivers as a way to ensure we continue have great, safe roads and bridges and clean air). Not only is it intellectually dishonest to skirt consumer protection regulations by calling yourselves technology companies versus the transportation companies you are, but it is also dangerous. For your customers. Transportation companies are regulated to protect passengers by requiring commercial licenses (read: training) and registration of people who drive other people around. Taxi companies are also insured if anything goes wrong (because stuff does — google statistics on car accidents). But in your business model, if anything goes wrong when in a rideshare vehicle, it’s all on the passenger and the driver. Good luck and hope everyone has enough insurance! I don’t know about you, but I’m not willing to settle for a “cross your fingers!” policy as protection for many things in life that matter — like putting those I love and care about in your rideshare cars just to save a buck. My kids’ lives, my friends’ lives, my neighbors’ lives are worth more to me. And they should be worth more to you, as you are the ones who want to change the world with your values-based business models. So, why not be honest about being transportation companies? Why not create a sustainable and policy-forward model that honors your customers by protecting them?
- Home Sharing (Airbnb): It’s a nice idea to build an app that allows people with empty houses to share them with those looking for a place to lay their heads on their vacay. But again, the model puts all the risk on the homeowner — the homesharing customer. It’s the homeowner who is at risk if the nice online renters decide to stay forever (Google squatters rights) or accidentally burn down the house. What is values-based about making a profit off of your customer who is taking all the risk with their home — which is something of huge value and usually something they have worked hard to own? And if the intent is really a good one on the part of your homeshare company, then why not change your model to also “share” some of the risk?
- Meal Sharing (Mealsharing, Share Your Meal): Admittedly, there is a great deal of food waste in our Land of Plenty. The stats are pretty ugly. So, the idea that perhaps we can share our food with others who need it is a helpful (albeit, not new) idea. And since shipping our leftovers to Africa isn’t gonna help, a “local” effort to change the world via meal sharing apps was born. Yay! Less food waste! So what could possibly be wrong with sharing some meals you cook in your home with the neighbors in your community? Once again, this is an issue of consumer safety. We have food safety regulations for a reason: to decrease foodborne illnesses and ensure public safety. How can the mealsharing customer know if the food was prepared in a sanitary kitchen, with food that wasn’t expired? Ever had food poisoning at a restaurant? They are equipped and licensed for such things and still have mishaps. Now imagine a whole share economy industry where there is no regulation around sanitary home kitchens or food prep and no guarantees of what’s actually in your food — or any recourse if something happens. Under these conditions should we, the customers, feel comfortable feeding such meals to our kids or our loved ones — crossing our fingers that all is in order? Again, another share model in which the customer takes the risk.
While I appreciate the challenges to existing business models that these entrepreneurs have come up with, share economy companies cannot be just happy, grown up versions of our neighborhood lemonade stands, red wagon rides or blanket tents from our six-year-old selves. Because, complexity. After a rough analysis of the share economy ideas, you get the general criticism: Share economy businesses are dangerous for their customers, burdening them with all of the risk. Oppositionally, share economy companies could argue that they are safe enough that cities around the country have let them operate — and this is true. Many cities have let this play out for awhile. But many other cities and many potential customers are catching on and beginning to question and reject the share economy business models in favor of safer, less risky options. And just because you don’t get caught right away doesn’t mean you haven’t done something wrong, or at least questionable.
So, my criticism is both practical AND ethical. We have lauded Millennial entrepreneurs for their values-based business breakthroughs. We’ve given them rockstar status as the heroes of our future. This is a generation of self-proclaimed world-changers who want to make the world a better place. But the share economy — arguably the most recognizable paradigm shift fostered by the millennial generation — insults us by skirting public policy meant to protect the very customers it woos. It places us at risk with each ride, rental and meal. And perhaps worse, it does not acknowledge these risks or work to ameliorate or “share” these risks. The danger posed by the share economy as it is right nowisn’t just in the transactions themselves: It is in the very blindness of the share economy to see and address the risk to customers, to public safety and public policy before it funds and fosters and puts another risk oriented business in front of an unsuspecting customer.
I’m all for disruptive models, just not dangerous ones that lack the very values that are purported. If you really want to be the tech rockstars you envision yourselves to be, then do the hard work of finding and building a solution that is safe and lawful, not just expedient. Doing so would not only be Silicon Valley smart, but honorable. (And let’s face it, if you put yourself out there as do-gooders, then you should expect people to hold you to it.)
My own company is focused on alignment: aligning people with purposeful work and corporate culture with outcomes. So, I’m pretty invested in the idea that what we do should reflect what we say, and what we say should reflect who we are. If the purpose of the share economy is to do more than connect people and unused resources, but to change the world in meaningful ways, then the purpose of this article is to call out those in the share economy on the misalignment. I’m pretty sure the intent was not to recreate the concept of stranger danger. And I’m pretty sure that when held to higher, more aligned standards, the new share economy entrepreneurs will deliver (I’m keeping the faith, anyway).
To push the point, I’m challenging values-driven millennial entrepreneurs to a Values Hackathon. Before you build another app or pitch another idea, query and code for these questions: What, if any, are the ways in which my business idea places the burden of risk on my customer? How am I taking public policy and safety regulations into account in my model? How have I thought about and planned for a worse-case scenario use of the model (what if bad people or sloppy people or uncaring people want to be part of my share model? Would my model be safe for my kid or my kid sister?) so that risk is reduced before it even goes to market? How have I made the risks transparent to my customer base? How have I figured out a way in my business model to share in any risk rather than leave it all to my customer? Rather than taking version 1.0 and putting it into the world with its potential stranger dangers, think hard about the repercussions. You are the future and you’ve shown us that you want to (and can) change the world — now show us you can DO IT BETTER.