The apps are “providing value” to the restaurants only in the most narrow sense, to the point of being meaningless. Obviously restaurants find it “worth it” in some sense or they wouldn’t do it. But that ignores how we got here, which is totally disingenuous. If someone legally robs you of 30% instead of 100% and you reluctantly agree on the principle that something is better than nothing, that doesn’t mean they “provided value” to you, or that you weren’t a victim of injustice. Sometimes you take the settlement even if you know you’re in the right but you can’t prove it in court, or worse, you can’t afford to prove it.
The value to the customer here is indisputable, and even the delivery logistics value proposition is clear (although at least here in NYC almost all seamless delivery people work for the restaurants), the “stolen” demand is completely shitty for restaurants. I don’t want to regulate these apps out of existence, just think we can find a better way to do this.
You're right that they're sort of structurally forced into using these, so it seems a bit weird to say they're adding value.
But maybe these delivery services have grown aggregate demand for restaurant food by making it more convenient for customers? Anecdotal, but I used Uber/Lyft probably >50x more than I ever used taxis outside of NYC, and I've gotten a lot more takeout than I used to since these delivery apps became available.
If I still lived in NYC, the differential would've been much smaller, but most of the country is waaaay behind NYC in taxi/delivery usage per capita, many people are coming from near 0 in those categories.
I do think they’re growing the overall pie by increasing total takeout and delivery spend, but restaurant margins were always razor thin, so losing 30% off the top will just drive many restaurants out of business.
I think the long-term here is probably just different, not worse. Many restaurants will go under, but new ones will arise that optimize for this. See the ghost kitchen phenomenon. And hopefully a combination of restaurant and user revolt, the threat of regulation, and competitive pressure from other delivery services will drive fees down to something more reasonable like 10-15%.
Oh no you’re perfectly right about the “stolen demand”. I just think it’s a feature and not a bug.
The “stolen” demand is a function of the fact that other restaurants refuse to stop using the platform, ostensibly because they also see value in continuing to use it. Consumers will only use the app if there is sufficient supply on the other end. Some restaurants have seen more value than others since the inception of these platforms. There is a spectrum of outcomes, which you would expect in a competitive market.
The “structural change” here is that restaurants have become commoditized and are now competing with each other. There will be some restaurants that emerge as winners, and some as losers. I don’t personally care about the losers if, in the aggregate, the restaurant industry is made more efficient, and consumers are better off.
other restaurants refuse to stop using the platform
But there is a useful feedback loop here.
1. Courageous Restaurant bans GrubHub, Doordash et al. Delivery-insistent demand shifts to Competitors 1-4, meaning they get substantially more of these revenue-neutral (or worse) delivery orders.
2. Competitor 1 gets sick of this is and likewise bans GrubHub, Doordash et al. Delivery-insistent demand shifts to Competitors 2-4, meaning they get an even higher percentage of their orders being these revenue-neutral (or worse) delivery orders.
By now, both benefit by word of mouth regarding ordering and traffic becoming more streamlined by the absence of the delivery service-specific retail point of sale system foibles, less traffic at entry and pick-up, and consistent quality. Also, some drivers abandon the services to do direct delivery as restaurant employees, at least during peak hours, and the saved 35% can be split between restaurant and employee.
3. Competitor 2 gets sick of this is and likewise bans GrubHub, Doordash et al. Delivery-insistent demand shifts to Competitors 3-4, meaning they get an even higher yet percentage of their orders being these revenue-neutral (or worse) delivery orders.
4. Competitors 3-4 are now drowning in low-profit delivery orders and the traffic impact (foot and vehicle) alienates what's left of first-hand customers. Every negative delivery experience costs both the delivery service and the restaurant another customer. One abandons delivery services, the other folds altogether.
The value to the customer here is indisputable, and even the delivery logistics value proposition is clear (although at least here in NYC almost all seamless delivery people work for the restaurants), the “stolen” demand is completely shitty for restaurants. I don’t want to regulate these apps out of existence, just think we can find a better way to do this.