Post Top Ad

Post Top Ad

Saturday, June 9, 2012

9:49 AM

Membership fees - the competitive edge?


There's a story making the rounds of the blogosphere that Hertz On Demand somehow has a major competitive advantage over Zipcar because it doesn't charge any membership fee.  GigaOm said it most recently, Motley Food has repeated it and I've seen the argument in other places as well.
The argument for Hertz successfully competing with Zipcar goes like this: Hertz doesn’t require an annual membership fee (Zipcar charges $60), has no late fees (Zipcar charges $50 per hour), it allows one way rentals in some locations, and yeah, it already has a massive fleet of diverse cars.

Where does the idea come from?  Possibly, from a line item on Zipcar's SEC 10-K filing that show that "Fee Revenue" amounting 15% of total revenues.  Wow, that's huge!  


Or is it?  One doesn't have to dig very far in the filing to see that Zipcar reports that a significant part of this is because of "strong uptake in our damage waiver offering".   More power to Zipcar for developing a value added product that so many members want.  

A little background on fees

First, it's important to distinguish between Application (joining) fees and Membership fees.  In the US, most companies charge an Application fee that usually includes (by implication) the first year membership fee.  (Zipcar says it apportions the value of the Application fee over the estimated average 5 year life span of membership.)  And a quick perusal of web sites and Twitter indicates that Zipcar always has promotions going on that reduce this amount significantly and include a bunch of free driving to help the new member get acquainted.  

So, for most carsharing services it isn't until the second year that a member faces the payment of a membership fee.  By then, the company hopes that either the member sees enough value in the service that they're willing to pay the $50-$75 fee, or probably they had barely, if ever, even used a vehicle so they might not be a very valuable customer anyway.   And it's important that not all members pay the fee - only the Occasional Driving plan (Hourly) members, which is the largest pool of members.

Another fee likely included in this overall Fee Revenue number are Late Return fees to motivate members to get the back on time, or reserve an extra hour.  No company wants to make money by this method since it inevitably involves frustrated members.   Zipcar is in the middle of a lawsuit with one member about their $50 per hour fee.  But just about every carsharing company charges them, and often the issue is how strict or lenient the company is. 

It's not surprising that an up and coming competitor like Hertz needs to find some way to differentiate themselves and there's nothing like lowering the cost of membership to make a distinction.  But, eventually, they'll want to find a way to gain that revenue somewhere - either in usage rates or other charges.  And if Hertz doesn't charge a Late Return fee they must have a lot of extra cars sitting around ready for the next user of the car that's late.

What does it all mean?

One of the reasons that Zipcar can charge a Membership Fee is that they provide enough value that members are willing to pay it.  After all, in cities where they are competing with another service, Zipcar may have 100s more locations and vehicles that their competitors so they offer much greater choice for customers.  

FLASH: In fact, not only is Zipcar willing to charge a membership fee, they've just announced a test marketing in Chicago of a new $6 per month membership fee which (it appears) is charged from the month of membership approval.

There's no doubt in my mind that when Hertz On Demand or Enterprise (now that they've signaled that they're going to get into carsharing in a much bigger way by acquiring Mint Carsharing) will eventually charge a membership fee when they can. 

And it's worth noting that independent carsharing companies in North America, such as Autoshare, I-Go or City Carshare, almost always charge a membership fee, some even charge a monthly membership fee - the ultimate reminder to members.  But those "indy" carshares also have lower hourly rates than the "big guys" 

In my humble opinion, the biggest challenge to Zipcar (at least in New York City) would be if Hertz follows-through on their threat to install their access technology in all 35,000 of their vehicles.  (Actually, they would only have to wire a small percentage of 35,000 vehicles to be a threat.)  And if they did wire all 35,000 vehicles they'd be well on their way to executing a whole new hybrid car rental — car sharing business model that poses a threat to lots more than Zipcar.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

1:35 PM

Why Do We Tax Carsharing Like Liquor and Cigarettes?

This is the provocative title of any excellent article appearing on the Atlantic Cities website. It refers to excellent research of the effective tax rate of carsharing services in 82 US cities showing rates as high as 62% (average 17.9%)!

The research was conducted by Alice Bieszczat and Joe Schwieterman, of the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Studies at DePaul University, in Chicago which showed that cities, even supposedly enlightened ones, are taxing carsharing at rates for more than even car rental - a traditional cash cow for many cities.

I saw Mr. Schwieterman present this paper at TRB in January and was astounded, meaning to post something about it. As the authors are quoted in the Atlantic article, “In places like New York, where it’s 19 percent or more, it’s sin-tax levels,” says Alice Bieszczat. “We’re taxing car-sharing like it’s liquor or cigarettes, like it’s a carcinogen. And it’s quite the opposite. It’s a service or product that reduces carcinogens in the air.”

 The study, "Are Taxes on Carsharing Too High: A Review of the Public Benefits and Tax Burden of an Expanding Transportation Sector". The full report is available for download here (PDF). Part of the problem is that cities and states have tried to shoe-horn car rental taxes on to carsharing. And, to be fair, while effective tax rates of 62% are egregious, they're calcuated on a one hour trip - a minority of trips (and one sure to make a dramatic statement about how high the taxes are).



 But I don't think we should even be talking about taxing something we want more of, at least until carsharing becomes the new "normal" - which may still be a few years off. This is an excellent reminder of how desperate our cities are for revenues, and how poorly informed about the benefits of carsharing most are. That's our job, for those of us in the industry, and it would appear that most of us have been spending too much time on other things. But it's not too late and shouldn't be impossible if a few champions are cultivated within city councils.

 And let me again remind readers that there's been very little study about whether the well-documented benefits of classic "round trip" carsharing (e.g. Zipcar, City Carshare), such as reduced car ownership, reduced VMT, etc.) also apply to newer services, such as Peer To Peer Carsharing or one-way/on demand services (e.g. car2go).

The car rental companies think they're being unfairly taxed for years.  Although the American Car Rental Association was cited in the article as supporting lower carsharing taxes, my quick check of their web site didn't turn up anything specifically about carsharing. Don't get me wrong friends in the car rental industry, I agree that car rental taxes have far outlived their fairness of "user pays" for funding convention and visitors centers.

And pardon me, but why are magazine and newspaper editors SO entranced with those cute little smart cars, that they've just about stopped using pictures of a boring old Zipcar Mini Cooper to illustrate "caersharing"?  That was so yesterday!

Saturday, March 31, 2012

2:16 PM

Car2Go launches in Portland

I took my first trip in a Portland car2go vehicle this wet morning — a 10 minute trip from NW Portland over to my house in NE Portland.  Given the weather it was probably the least auspicious launch of any car2go city.  But by noon at least the rain had stopped and people were venturing out of the houses and condos and coming downtown.

Yes I could have done the trip by transit — 44 minutes by bus with one transfer (and we have frequent service) — or 22 minutes by bicycle, but I was soaked and, besides I had this brand new car2go membership cards that was itching to be used.

Portland must now hold some sort of record for the most number of carsharing vehicles per capita — a little over 700 vehicles from the 3 companies — Zipcar, Getaround and now car2go — for 500,000 people in the city.  With 3 services, each with slightly different niches, the choices to go car-lite or even car free have never been greater.


What are the niches for Zipcar, Getaround and car2go? This is my take:
  •  Zipcar is the premium brand for reservation-based, round-trip carsharing.  They've got a wide variety of new and late model cars, pickups and minivans.  The cars are parked throughout the close-in neighborhoods and, for regular users, they've got some membership plans that bring the cost down.
  • Getaround, the peer to peer carsharing option for reservation-based round-trips has slightly older vehicles (none older than 1995) in an almost infinite variety of types, with the older vehicles at considerable discount over Zipcar, making them the affordable carshare choice.  Accessing the fleet is a bit more complicated since you have to request most vehicles from the owner via text message and you may have to meet them to exchange the keys (depending on how they've set up their Carkit.  (It's worth noting that both Relayrides and Just Share It also have a few vehicles listed in Portland.)  
  • Car2go, of course, is on-demand carsharing with floating parking anywhere in a large (but not quite large enough) "home zone" + one-way trip option.  As long as a Smart car will get you and a friend to your destination it's an amazing service.  And, I think it will likely transform many peoples' trip habits as they get familiar with it.
I've put together a table comparing the services here.

One local, long-time industry observer (not me) predicts that zero car households in the close-in neighborhoods could be greater than 50% in the next few years — that's a long way from the current 16% we are now.  Of course that won't be solely because of carsharing — Portland has done many things right over the past 20 years — density, walkable neighborhoods, good transit.  And, it looks like we'll even get public bikesharing sometime soon!

And if you're interested in what infrastructure is conducive for households to actually start lowering their vehicle ownership, transportation planner Jarrett Walker has written a very interesting piece about it.  He thinks Portland has many of the right factors in place, even though we are not even in the top 50 cities for low car ownership.

So, I welcome car2go to Portland.  You're in good company here.  And thanks for the free coffee and Honkin' Huge Burrito (from one of Portland original food carts) this morning, too.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

10:29 PM

Carsharing Service Models (Wonkish)

Carsharing has blossomed into a variety of service models, which I've tried to describe in this list.  All these have implications for carsharing and for urban mobility in general.

Round trip 

Return to same parking location; although a few services (Zebramobil and one in Bordeaux, France) do not have fixed parking location but the vehicle must be returned to an on-street location with a few blocks of a center point in a neighborhood (before the next trip the user gets a text message with the exact location of the vehicle).

 - Scheduled start and end (pay for what you reserve)

 - Scheduled start but open end return (pay for what you drive) - a few services in Germany offer this on selected vehicles

 - On demand (pay for what you drive)

Open end and on-demand services require larger fleets to be able to execute.

One-way

To date, both car2go and Drive Now offer On-Demand and Open-End trips.  In fact, car2go has discontinued any reservation option in Europe (reason being that reservations are not for a specific vehicle, as in round trip carsharing, but for the closest vehicle to a point, which may be quite a distance away from that point at the actual start time of the trip.

Note that since the vehicle has no fixed location, even if it is returned to the same location if the trip was end at the destination and then started again and driven back to (more or less) the same location, it would be reported as 2 separate one way trips) 

 - Between stations only - with reservation or without (Autolib and formerly Honda DIRACC in Singapore)

 - Parking any legal parking space (including meters) within a large zone - with, but increasingly without, a reservation option

Companies may use a specialized vehicle, such as a Smart or small EV (offered byseveral companies in France and Spain) or standard sedan (DriveNow).

The challenge in one-way services is keeping the fleet distributed so users can conveniently find close-by vehicles; differential pricing can help but some rebalancing of the system will be needed.

Vehicle access — "classic carsharing" provides unattended access to vehicles 24 hours a day, usually via an RFID card, smart phone app or SMS/text message.  This level of convenience comes somewhat close to "grabbing the key off the hook" that a private car owner experiences.  Recently, RelayRides adopted the policy that Getaround and many P2P carshares in the rest of the world have been using - having to meet the vehicle owner at the start and end of the trip to exchange the ignition key.  While their may be some advantages to the personal connection between renter and owner (trust), it's a step down in convenience for the renter.


Bundled pricing — Usually includes full insurance and fuel in the hourly or minute pricing (but P2P carsharing no longer includes fuel and a few carsharing companies in the US may only includes basic liability insurance).  

Some implications

The impacts of each of these variations of service on other travel modes is likely to be different and could be significantly different depending on the level of convenience to the renter, or other factors.   As I have lamented previously, I think the adoption of key exchange as the dominant method of access to P2P vehicles from GetAround RelayRides is a major step backwards for carsharing.  Dropping the "gas-included", further reduces the convenience and puts them somewhat closer to car rental.  That said, it's possible that P2P, at least in urban settings, appears to be sufficiently convenient to continue to serve as an alternative to car ownership.

Another aspect of various service models I find very interest is the incredible rate of membership growth demonstrated by car2go and DriveNow (thousands of members before they even launch) suggesting that the high level of flexibility (on-demand and one-way within a large zone) is appealing to different user group than "classic" carsharing.   I think these on-demand/one-way services may be transformative to urban mobility.  I would be remiss not mention the other one-way/on-demand mobility system that is likely to have at least as great if not greater impact on urban mobility: public bikesharing systems.

There may be other service models and other implications - if so please Comment below.  Thanks.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

3:45 PM

Big Week for P2P Carsharing

During the past few weeks, we've seen a couple of big developments in peer to peer carsharing:

  • Zipcar announced significant investment in P2P startup Wheelz 
  • Getaround launches 2 new cities — Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas — and wins another award
  • RelayRides roared back to life announcing a national expansion strategy and new operating policies

Zipcar's investment in Wheelz answers the question many have been asking about what Zipcar's response to P2P was going to be.  Wheelz business model is focused on college and university campuses s it fits with Zipcar existing strategy. At the present Wheelz is operating on only one campus (Stanford), so Zipcar has certainly gotten in on the ground floor of P2P.  Exactly how (and indeed IF)  Zipcar intended to integrate Wheelz into their existing operation and marketing is the next big question.  At this stage I would expect them to let the P2P market develop for a while and concentrate on behind the scenes integration.

Meanwhile Getaround seems to be maintaining its PR lead against other rivals (RelayRides, JustShareIt and Wheelz among others) being bestowed the title "market leader" by consulting firm Frost and Sullivan.  They also announced that Getaround is the recipient of the 2011 Frost & Sullivan Enabling Technology Award, presented to a company that has "developed a pioneering technology that not only enhances current products but also enables the development of newer products and applications".  The press release notes Getaround's new member screening process, "carkit" technology and smartphone app. Just about every carsharing company has some version of all 3 of these.   Getaround, like Zipcar, has done a good job of staking out their claim to technology prowess.  (My 2¢: depending on how it develops, RelayRides partnership with GM/Onstar may ultimately prove to be a much more significant development.)


RelayRides announcement of a national strategy was their attempt to get back in the spotlight.  Another part of the announcement was that they were instituting personal key exchange as an alternative to installing in-vehicle technology (similar to Getaround).  Key swap enables customers to sign up and immediately start renting out their vehicles without the cost or delay of getting technology installed (even the Onstar system is not plug and play).  And it appears that some vehicle owners appreciate meeting the people who are renting their car (and it may even encourage a little better driving behavior on the part of the renters, as well).  As I've said before I've got no problem with "key swap" per se, only that I'd call it car rental, not carsharing, since I don't think key swap offers the customer a level of convenience (unattended access to the vehicle) that constitutes "real"carsharing (i.e. so that it can serve as an alternative to owning a vehicle for a significant number of people).

New York Times Skeptical of P2P

Meanwhile, New York Times writer Josie Garthwaite wrote a Wheels blog entry that raised doubts about RelayRides strategy of going national when only 2 states had personal vehicle carsharing laws in place.

While there certainly are benefits to having a personal vehicle carsharing law in place, I think the article overstates the risk of a P2P company operating in states that have not enacted laws defining personal vehicle carsharing.  The big risk is to RelayRides if they got embroiled in some legal morass about which insurance should apply in a particular claim situation (which is certainly a possibility). However, RelayRides insurance company has signed off on the national approach, so they're the one's really taking the risk, and if there's anyone who has figured out how to profit from risk, it's insurance companies!

In states without P2P laws, it seems to me the biggest uncertainty faced by the P2P company is a possible slower growth rate.  This might occur if vehicle owners worry that their personal auto insurance might be cancelled or what might happen in the event of an accident during a P2P trip.  Depending on how the P2P company addresses this concern, it's posible fewer people may chose not to enroll their vehicles in the service.  RelayRides used to post a video with a long testimonial by a customer whose vehicle was in a major accident during a P2P trip (not sure if it's still on their website or not?)

It's worth noting that no personal auto insurance company that I'm aware of has publicly stated their opposition to the concept of P2P carsharing.  I would like t to follow up with direct interviews with RelayRides members in Massachussetts, which does not have a P2P law, to determine if the risks and uncertainty are as great as are suggested in the article.

What will next week bring?

Saturday, March 3, 2012