Unlike Grubhub, DoorDash, and UBER Eats, Noco Nosh is owned and operated by local independent restaurants, not a large corporation taking advantage of restaurants. We have a local staff on the ground running the day-to-day operations and a Board of Managers (comprised of restaurant owners) who make the decisions for the company. Local is our name, fairness is our game!
Several local restaurants have stopped using Grubhub and the like and moved exclusively to this which I think is a great move on their part.
The idea that this is just GrubHub or DoorDash or whoever being greedy doesn't seem to jive with these companies losing money too.
It seems more likely that the economics of general delivery service just don't work out very well for most restaurant types. It ends up costing the restaurant too much, such that the prices to compensate themselves and the drivers fairly are higher than consumers will tolerate paying.
A nice, friendly co-op would probably work okay for restaurant types that were already known for delivery (e.g. pizza), probably not for others.
Wouldn't it hurt them that they're trying to service every resteraunt in every area simultaneously, with massive marketing budgets? Seems like it would be much cheaper to just service your local area
I mean okay, but I doubt the executive pay is really moving the needle in terms of whether these companies are profitable.
> Note that "not making as much money" is not the same as losing money.
I'm talking about the company being profitable, not whether employees are able to draw a salary or whatever. I would think this would be obvious. Both companies are currently unprofitable. Granted, the pandemic obviously isn't helping things.
> I mean okay, but I doubt the executive pay is really moving the needle in terms of whether these companies are profitable.
Sure, but executives being paid does jive with "[t]he idea that this is just GrubHub or DoorDash or whoever being greedy", which is what I was responding to. The executives being the ones who make the decisions for the corporation.
It doesn’t make sense to describe Grubhub as “rent-seeking”, though. It’s not like they are sitting on some monopoly with power over the restaurants. Restaurants are free to simply not deal with delivery apps, the same way that all restaurants operated 10 or 15 years ago.
Idk, Austin had a non-profit ride sharing app that sprung up when the big players left town for two years. As soon as Uber and Lyft returned, they undercut the non-profit and bled it using investor cash until the drivers stopped turning on the app.
VC-backed gig economy apps are a pretty significant threat to the cooperative model because they can operate at a loss in order to regain market share.
Preamble: I've been living almost exclusively on fast food deliveries since the start of the lockdown. Mostly because the only shop I'm able to get to easily has been an absolute nightmare, 30 minute queues and stuff.
I frequently order through takeaway.com, which is sort of centralized but most retaurants have their own drivers, but some seem to be shared across restaurants. I've had at least ten drivers ask me to order through the restaurant's own website in the future, buttering me me up with a 15% (!) discount. I can only take this to mean that takeaway.com is charging more than that as a fee, which seems like a lot.
There's probably a market for restaurant websites with an easy to use order management system and cheap payment integration.
The delivery apps are going to be hard to compete with. Restaurants have to get a base of people willing g to deliver for them. And even more difficult, they'll have to make a platform that makes it easy for people to see what the menu is and order. Have you ever seen a restaurant website? Even one that does delivery? I'm incredibly skeptical that a co op would have the will, desire, or skillset needed from its members to succeed
> The delivery apps are going to be hard to compete with. Restaurants have to get a base of people willing g to deliver for them.
This isn't a problem. DoorDash et al aren't particularly good to work for.
A local Pizza joint bootstrapped CarryOut Kings[1] off of their existing delivery staff after the pandemic started, and is now delivering for any business in town. They're making a killing, and I've got friends who work there who are making a lot more money than I was when I delivered from DoorDash. If I lost my clientele for my business I'd be driving for CarryOut Kings over the delivery apps without hesitation.
And even putting aside the numbers, there's a lot to be said for working for someone who has to look you in the eye if he screws you over.
I don't know exact numbers; I know one did make $150 in 5 hours on a Friday night. I am not sure if that's typical, but I do know it was not possible when I was driving for DoorDash.
> Its a good idea but the site is a tad messy.
Yeah--developing a slick app and web 2.0 webapp isn't always the value add that silicon valley claims it is. It's great for GrubHub or DoorDash because it puts you in front of clients everywhere, but it's not that great for users or restaurants. The website sucks because the business runs primarily over the phone: A phone call lets you interact with a restaurant and delivery service in a lot of ways that aren't possible in an app--there's a reason the apps fall back to the phone when something goes wrong.
Think of like a credit union: it’s not like the members of the credit union have the skillset; they hire people who do. The members just provide the will/desire and maybe some small amount of pooled capital EDIT: and most important, a pool of customers with an incentive to stick around (the customers ARE the owners).
Any time where you have a whole business segment subject to what boils down to rent-seeking tolls, there’s an opportunity for cooperatives.