Taxi Drivers In Europe 'Protest' Uber, Creating Astounding Media Attention, Massive Jump In Signups

from the best-promotion-uber-could-get dept

Wed, Jun 11th 2014 1:03pm — Mike Masnick

As you may have heard, cab drivers across Europe did the European-thing to protest the rise of disruptive services like Uber: they went on strike, snarling traffic in many European cities. Uber long ago learned that every attack on its service is a fantastic promotional opportunity, but this "strike" may have been the best by far. In other words, it appears to have completely backfired on the strikers, with Uber signups in London jumping an astounding 850%. Basically, the "protests" have pissed off people at cab drivers and made them more aware of Uber. I don't see how that benefits the cab drivers.

In fact, Uber had been hovering around the 100th most popular app in the UK over the past few weeks, but it has suddenly jumped to number 3.

This may be the least successful mass protest in history. Not only does it fail to accomplish any of its goals, it appears to have massively helped those it was targeted against. As the EU's Neelie Kroes points out, this is really part of a debate about the wider sharing economy, and the recognition that innovators are building new and disruptive services that are, quite frequently, much better for the public, even if they may be disruptive to existing businesses and employees.

But denying reality and trying to break the machines doesn't work. Ever. And, as in this case, sometimes it actually benefits those they're fighting against.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: attention, cab drivers, disruption, europe, london, protests, streisand effect, taxi drivers, uk
Companies: uber

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael, 11 Jun 2014 @ 1:08pm

Uber-Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 1:16pm

Didn't think this through
They chose exactly the wrong circumstance to strike, perhaps out of reflex for striking to get what they want. What did they think would happen when people need transportation and they aren't available? That everything would just shut down? Hell no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 11 Jun 2014 @ 2:35pm
  
  Re: Didn't think this through
  This wasn't a strike in the conventional sense of refusing to work, it was daylight sabotage. The surface messages, "Apply the law equally!", "Don't destroy our livelihood!" was for public consumption (and for the less intelligent cabbies to believe). The real message was to government: "Suppress this new competitor, protect the monopoly you sold us, or we'll damage the economy."
  
  It doesn't matter how much business they send Uber's way, if they succeed in getting Uber banned.
  
  And I'll bet the smarter cabbies are talking very quietly to people in city government: "You know all those big, fat license fees we pay you? Who's going to pay you if Uber forces us out of business?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 2:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Didn't think this through
    They could have done that without this. The fact that there was no catastrophe due to the fact that Uber picked up the slack meant that their threat really didn't have any teeth. And simply because they attempted it, the government might be more inclined simply to give Uber what they want just to spite them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 1:17pm

Those stopping traffic to protest competition should be arrested and taken to jail for breaking (traffic and/or other) laws. It's perfectly OK for govt. established monopolists to hold secretive meetings with govt. officials and to break laws to get what they want and get away with it but when normal people protest government corruption they get water cannoned, arrested, etc...

The irony here is that govt. established monopolists complain when people break laws (the laws they wrote), proclaiming the virtues of following the laws, but then it's perfectly OK for them to break laws to get what they want whenever it's convenient to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 3:15pm
  
  Re:
  As far as I understand it is a little more complicated. As far as I know the rules for running a "car for hire" is pretty strict. Since Uber use ordinary people it is unfair competition.
  
  But here is the catch: Trying to demonstrate against it is abysmal and propably strenghtens Uber in the short term. Cabbies has gotten Uber illegalized in some places by appealing to a law on taximeters, but that seems more vindictive than a real concern. It is obvious that some deregulation is the only somewhat reasonable solution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 4:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Since Uber use ordinary people it is unfair competition."
    
    Since the laws are written to serve the interests of incumbent taxicab companies and to restrict competition then it's not a matter of 'unfair competition'. It's more a matter of 'unfair laws'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 11 Jun 2014 @ 7:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When you buy the laws to make sure no company can come in and disrupt the gravy train, any competition is 'unfair competition'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 12:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      To some degree those are the same thing.
      
      Laws are written to assure a minimum standard of service. Unfair competition is a result of laws not getting evenly applied.
      
      As much as you can buy laws, the enforcement of them has to be even to avoid 'unfair competition'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 2:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But you're still missing the point. The laws are explicitly designed to limit competition by limiting the number of people that can drive taxicabs. The laws are written and intended to be unevenly applied. You need a taxicab medallion to drive a taxicab and the laws explicitly limit the number of taxicab medallions available.
        
        It's not a issue of 'you must meet this safety requirement to get such a license' it's an issue of the laws expressly saying 'there will be no more than xxx number of taxicab medallions".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 3:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Laws are written to assure a minimum standard of service. Unfair competition is a result of laws not getting evenly applied."
        
        Except you are being dishonest here. The laws here are not written to assure a minimum standard of service. They are intended to limit the number of taxicab drivers. So it is not a case of unfair competition it's a case of unfair laws and they are not the same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tom merle, 11 Jun 2014 @ 8:30pm
  
  Re: strike
  What the hell are you talking about? Government is the only monopoly and the only unions left standing are public employees who are always going out on strike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 1:20pm

Wow, the intelligence level of that stunt rivals the that of something the RIAA or MPAA would try. WTF did they think was going to happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 1:47pm

Logic Fail
1. Taxi drivers afraid of competition
2. Taxi Drivers go on strike
3. Taxi users flock to the competition

So, who feels safe riding with Taxi drivers who are a few cards short of a full deck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re: Logic Fail
  1. Taxi drivers start to carry guns.
  2. Taxi drivers pull out said guns and point at their own feet.
  3. Taxi drivers pull trigger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - T. Bickell, 11 Jun 2014 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Logic Fail
    You talking to me?
    You talking to me?
    
    There's no one else here so, wait, sorry? You're talking to Uber? Oh, okay.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 11 Jun 2014 @ 3:03pm

So... Uber are definitely serious about the "compliant with local law" part, right? Background checks, insurance, clearly-identified vehicles and so on? Because that's the only reason I have concerns about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re:
  No, the real problem is that Uber hasn't paid the ($200,000) medallion fee for each driver. That's the ONLY reason the cabbies are raising a fuss.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jake, 12 Jun 2014 @ 1:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    What the hell is a medallion fee?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 3:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Most state governments require that you own a medallion to operate a taxicab and they expressly limit the number of medallions available. Apparently many of the stupid shills around here are lost and clueless and keep missing this point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ed (profile), 12 Jun 2014 @ 5:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And a lot of "stupid shills" ignore the fact that the ordinances concerning taxi medallions and fees were instituted at the behest of the taxi companies themselves in order to limit competition. Now, they're whining about the very idea they asked for. Wait... what's that I hear?... could that tiny little sound be the world's smallest violin playing a mournful tune?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Case, 12 Jun 2014 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did it ever occur to you that this "Europe" place might not be a US state?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I read the article and am aware that it is in reference to Europe. But many similar medallion laws that limit competition exist there too so the comment is still relevant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (but feel free to actually address the comment instead of just changing the subject like the rest of the shills around here)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 6:42pm

Barbara rides again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 7:53pm

There is a reason postal service has monopoly. If you apply "free market" price of postage between NYC and DC will go down to 2c, but price to sent a letter from Nome Alaska to Ponce Perto Rico will cost $150.

If uber guys want to do business, let them do. Including all the crappy costs at a loss, just like regular cabies.

So far, Uber and airbnb business model is to scoop the cream, and screw everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 8:34pm
  
  Re:
  No.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Call me Al, 12 Jun 2014 @ 1:15am
  
  Re:
  Wait what? When do regular cabbies do crappy jobs at a loss?
  
  The typical thing you hear in London is someone hails a taxi, says where they want to go and the cabbie responds "No I'm not going that way" as if they were asking for a lift.
  
  They aren't required to offer their service to you so they are quite different to the postal system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 7:20am
  
  Re:
  Wow, when you don't know what's going on just make things up. No, taxicabs are not required to offer service to anyone.
  
  and, really, the mailbox delivery monopolies should also be abolished. The claim that UPS charges a whole lot more to serve some distant location that USPS charges much less for is a lie you made up and UPS doesn't even benefit from the economies of scale that the USPS benefits from.
  
  and you know what else should be abolished? Govt. established cableco and broadcasting monopolies. Because the arguments there are equally as stupid made by equally ignorant, stupid, bought and dishonest shills like yourself and they have no evidence in their support.
  
  How do you like being a dishonest shill?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    In fact, that probably won't be a bad thing to research. Lets put on a map all the locations that USPS serves that are either
    
    A: Not served by either USPS or Fedex or
    
    B: UPS and Fedex charge substantially more than USPS for the exact same package being delivered in the same amount of time.
    
    I suspect we will find little difference between the price that USPS charges and their competitors in just about all locations and while USPS and Fedex do generally charge a little more that can easily be explained by the fact that they don't benefit from the economies of scale that the USPS benefits from due to their govt. established mailbox delivery monopoly position.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
textibule (profile), 12 Jun 2014 @ 2:22am

Uber in Europe
I need clarity here. Is Uber another one of those multi-billion California startups that don't pay taxes anywhere and have made their founders rich from the 'sharing' economy? Or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 5:58am

They used traffic jams in London as a means of protest? I'm surprised anyone noticed in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuart Colley, 12 Jun 2014 @ 7:18am

taxi protests
Neelie Kroes is wrong if she thinks this is about the sharing economy. Taxi operators are already using digital innovation to offer more convenience and better services to customers. This is about taxis being subjected to regulation by politicians and then politicians allowing others to operate without regulation and then blaming the taxi industry when it objects.
Neelie Kroes is not calling for unregulated use of radio frequencies or unregulated mobile phone operators so why taxis?
I want my taxi to be insured, safe, with a driver that has not been convicted of any sexual offences, and at a price that is regulated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 12 Jun 2014 @ 7:54am
  
  Re: taxi protests
  
  I want my taxi to be insured, safe, with a driver that has not been convicted of any sexual offences, and at a price that is regulated.
  
  Why would you not want market pricing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 13 Jun 2014 @ 7:42pm
  
  Re: taxi protests
  "I want my taxi to be insured, safe, with a driver that has not been convicted of any sexual offences, and at a price that is regulated." [emphasis added]
  
  I want all that plus leather upholstery and Dom P�rignon on ice, and I want you to pay for it all.
  
  You can describe the service you're willing to buy at a free market price, or you can say that you want Someone Else to pay for your ride.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 12 Jun 2014 @ 7:56am

Sharing?
As the EU's Neelie Kroes points out, this is really part of a debate about the wider sharing economy,

How is this part of a sharing economy? People are getting paid to perform a service. Is selling stuff I no longer need on Craigslist "sharing" too? I really don't understand the application of that word to ordinary transactions involving money for services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 12 Jun 2014 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re: Sharing?
  I think it's being considered part of the 'sharing economy' because it's not people creating businesses taxi-ing people around, they're not forming companies with a set list of execs and employees, but instead it's just a bunch of people who are using their everyday cars to taxi people around, and get some side cash because of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 12 Jun 2014 @ 3:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Sharing?
    Seems like "informal economy" would be a much better term for that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2014 @ 9:17am

even if they may be disruptive to existing businesses and employees.

Don't you mean exploitative to employees? Most of these big "sharing" companies exploit their workers. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]