Leave it to human ingenuity. Or perhaps I should say corporate genius. It seems that for every process, law, or method, there is a hack to work around it. Never mind that things were probably good enough the way they were. It’s just that, in our zeal to have an edge over others, we look for the loopholes.
Like all of the ghost kitchens and virtual brands we have discussed earlier this term. While I lauded them early—and correctly so—for leveraging their physical locations so they could test out new concepts and menu items on Uber Eats, DoorDash, and others, it has now become apparent that some of these players have simply duplicated their menus and slapped on a different brand name just so it could grab another line on the list of restaurants we see on our phones.
And now Uber Eats is fighting back, saying that in order to get those multiple listings, the virtual brand must have at least a 60% different menu. Who would have thought it would all come down to this?
But it is a good response from Uber Eats, because they have been taken advantage of in all this by those restaurants and ghost kitchens—which we define as an establishment with no indoor seating, and often located in an industrial park or even parking lot—who are trying to simply boost their odds of making online sales.
Whoa. That may very well qualify as the longest sentence I have written this semester. But I digress.
It is fair conclusion jumping to agree that the kitchens being accused of such chicanery are just being smart. They can try different price points, names, and a slew of other marketing variables, without having to actually create new products. And they are betting that most consumers will never notice. Just imagine, though, a Little Caesars—for example—also selling Bigga Pizza Pies, but they all come out of the same oven with the same crust, sauce, mozzarella, and toppings. Could you tell? And would you even care?
Uber Eats, et al., all want to make money, to be fair, but they do not want their service to be scammed like this. Getting two listings is little different form somehow managing to wrangle two display ads in a newspaper when you bought one, or any number of other of duplicative examples.
But wait, there’s more! Uber is also raising the bar on those it does list, requiring each establishment to have at least a 4.3 out of 5 rating on their app, have fewer than five-percent of orders canceled, and have fewer than five-percent delivery and order errors.
Thus far, Uber has removed more than 5000 entities it attests are simply clones of their parent, finding, in one instance, that a New York deli had 14 such clones under its umbrella. Can you imagine submitting 14 resumes for a job, each with a different name, but the person were the same? Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but that doesn’t work so well in job hunting or restaurant listings.
Uber says, though, it counts 40,000 virtual listings. Its internal police department is going to have its hands full enforcing its latest policy decision.
I know. You’ve probably already started thinking of a new hack in the wake of Uber clamping down. Why not simply give different names and/or plating variations so that the items are still pretty much the same, but look different on your screen? That would likely be easy. Imagine a meal of the Monster Burger and French Fries also being listed under a different brand as the Hamburger Monstre and pomme frites. Pretty much the same thing, but one sounds so cosmopolitan and worldly.
I’m pretty sure the ghost kitchens are already preparing their workarounds, because that’s the way we all roll. The spoils go to those who can hack the best. Meanwhile, just be careful placing your food orders. You might just be a victim as well. I can see that international burger fetching a higher price tag if only because it uses French words.
And I can imagine you looking like a ghost when you find out you’ve been duped, too.
Dr “Or You Could Just Cook At Home“ Gerlich
