After trying unsuccessfuly to buy Grubhub and ending up in despair after it was sold to European player Just Eat for $7.3 billion, Uber has announced the acquisition of another food delivery company, Postmates, for the much lower price of $2.65 billion, paid in full in shares. Basically, if you’re the third-largest food delivery company in terms of market share (22%) and you can’t buy the leader in your industry, DoorDash (45%), or the second one, Grubhub (23%), try the fourth (8%). And if instead of paying with money, you can do it with paper, even better.
在尝试购买Grubhub失败并最终陷入绝望之后 在以73亿美元的价格将其出售给欧洲玩家Just Eat之后 ，Uber 宣布以26.5亿美元的低得多的价格收购另一家食品配送公司Postmates ，并以股票形式全额支付。 基本上， 就市场份额而言 ，如果您是第三大食品配送公司(22％)，并且您无法购买该行业的领导者DoorDash (45％)或第二家Grubhub(23％) ，请尝试第四个(8％)。 而且，如果不用付钱， 可以用纸做的更好。
Uber’s CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, who handled more than a few acquisitions during his previous tenure at Expedia (41, which totaled $12.7 billion), was not going to miss the opportunity to grow in this way in a market that he sees as his lifeline in the face of a pandemic that in the United States looks set to remain part of the picture at least until the present occupant of the White House moves out and one capable of coming up with solutions that make a minimum of sense moves in.
优步的首席执行官达拉·科斯罗萨西 ( Dara Khosrowshahi )曾在Expedia任职期间处理过多次收购 (41次，总计127亿美元)，他不会错过以这种方式发展的机会，他认为这是他的生命线。在美国看来，大流行病的面貌至少在现任白宫移居者面前，并且有能力提出一种使意义最小化的解决方案的人，至少仍将留在图片中。
Postmates, on the other hand, seems to care little about being Uber’s second choice. In this environment, and after having postponed its IPO last year, an acquisition for $2.65, after the company was valued at $2.4 billion is no small thing.
另一方面，Postmates似乎并不在乎成为Uber的第二选择。 在这种环境下，在去年推迟了首次公开募股 之后，在公司估值达到24亿美元之后，以2.65美元的价格进行收购并不是一件容易的事。
Why is Uber so keen to increase its market share in the volatile food delivery market? Simply because it sees it as a solution to a very important problem: the strong decline of its core business, transporting people, during the lockdown. During that time, Uber Eats kept the company alive. Given that many Americans (who in in many states were never really under a proper lockdown and many of whom are even now still refusing to wear face masks) will still be living under the shadow of the virus for quite some time, the idea of propping up a counter-cyclical business, i.e. one that is favored by lockdown measures such as home food delivery, makes sense.
为什么Uber如此渴望在动荡的外卖市场中增加市场份额？ 仅仅是因为它认为它是解决一个非常重要的问题的解决方案：在锁定期间，其核心业务(运送人员)的强劲下滑。 在那段时间里， Uber Eats使公司存活下来 。 鉴于许多美国人( 在许多州从未真正受到过适当的封锁 ，甚至许多人现在仍拒绝佩戴口罩 )仍然会在病毒的阴影下生活相当长的时间，建立一个反周期业务，即受到诸如家庭食品交付之类的锁定措施青睐的业务是有道理的。
Where’s the problem? The food delivery business doesn’t add up. Look at Grubhub’s figures: during the lockdown, the company saw sales rise but that increment caused it to lose even more money. Indeed, the home delivery industry, as the famous and viral pizza arbitration experiment showed, is running at a loss: according to some analysts, UberEats is losing around $3.36 per order, a situation that is expected to continue for at least the next five years.
哪里出问题了？ 送餐业务没有加起来 。 看一下格鲁布(Grubhub)的数据：在封锁期间， 公司看到了销售额的增长，但是这种增长导致它损失了更多的钱 。 实际上，正如著名的病毒式比萨仲裁实验所显示的那样，送货上门行业正在亏损：据一些分析师称， UberEats每笔订单亏损约3.36美元，这种情况至少会在未来五年内持续下去。 。
Why try to expand aggressively and through acquisitions in a business where you lose money every time a customer places an order? Very simple: because it is expected that this trend, at some point and due to some kind of change in the environment, will be reversed, and the business will become profitable. Sound familiar? It is exactly the same as with Uber’s other business, the main one: for a long time, Uber — and Lyft, and many others like them — have lost money transporting us from one side of the city to the other, waiting for the main cost factor of those trips, the driver, to disappear from the equation. The only explanation for why supposedly rational investors like venture capitalists invest in a company like Uber is that they are capitalizing on the advent of a technology, the autonomous vehicle, which at the stroke of a pen makes no less than 70% of the operating costs of a taxi service disappear. From there, to the days of wine and roses and enjoy the hard-earned share of market during the losing stage.
为什么在每个客户下订单时都亏损的企业中尝试积极地扩张并通过收购进行扩张？ 非常简单：因为预计这种趋势会在某种程度上由于环境的某种变化而逆转，从而使企业盈利。 听起来有点熟？ 与主要业务Uber的其他业务完全相同：很长一段时间以来，Uber和Lyft，以及许多其他类似的公司，都在亏损，无法将我们从城市的一侧运送到城市。 另外，等待这些行程的主要成本因素(驾驶员)从等式中消失。 为什么所谓的像风险投资家这样的理性投资者向像Uber这样的公司投资的唯一解释是，他们利用了自动驾驶汽车这一技术的出现，而自动驾驶汽车的成本却不低于其运营成本的70％的出租车服务消失了。 从那里，到葡萄酒和玫瑰的时代，在失败的阶段享受来之不易的市场份额。
The same thing happens with food home deliveries: make the driver of the moped, bicycle or car who does all the work disappear, and automatically, the numbers add up. In fact, Postmates is a leader in this regard, with its robots, even if they have babysitters. But as long as you still have to pay for human drivers, the only thing to do is to get more of us to order food in — there is no other company, perhaps with the exception of YouTube and LinkedIn, whose aggressive promotions I have ignored more times than Uber Eats — and make sure people know who you are. As long as the picture is not clear, war is the only option, and this one in particular is expected to be very long and very bloody. Without a doubt, this is an area where we will see more acquisitions.
送餐回家时也会发生同样的事情：让从事所有工作的轻便摩托车，自行车或汽车的驾驶员消失，并自动将数字加起来。 实际上，即使有保姆 ， Postmates也凭借其机器人在这方面处于领先地位 。 但是，只要您仍然需要为人类驾驶员付费，唯一要做的就是让我们更多的人来点菜—除了YouTube和LinkedIn，没有其他公司了，我忽略了他们的激进促销活动比Uber吃的次数更多-确保人们知道你是谁。 只要情况不清楚， 战争是唯一的选择 ，尤其是这场战争将是漫长而血腥的。 毫无疑问，这是我们将看到更多收购的领域。
The question is whether in the future we’re all going to abandon cooking and order our meals in? How many times a week do you order food eat at home? I ask this not only to assess the potential business of such companies, but also for a number of other reasons, first of all, your health. Meals on wheels tend to be generally much less healthy than those cooked at home. Secondly, your finances: the same food cooked at home will almost always be cheaper, in many cases even if you put the time you spend on it into the equation, unless, of course, you have a six-figure salary and you intend to put that same salary into your cooking. And thirdly, for the planet: takeaways generate a large amount of waste.
问题是，将来我们是否都放弃烹饪并点餐？ 您一周要点几次在家用餐？ 我不仅要求评估此类公司的潜在业务，还出于其他一些原因，首先要评估您的健康状况。 通常，带轮子的食物比在家烹饪的食物健康得多。 其次，您的财务状况：在家煮相同的食物几乎总是会便宜，即使在很多情况下，即使您花时间在等式上，除非您的工资是六位数，而且您打算用同样的薪水做饭。 第三，对于地球：外卖产生大量废物 。
Everything can be changed. It is possible to prepare healthy and nutritious takeaway meals, prepared with carefully chosen ingredients, although they tend to be more expensive. Similarly, the problem of waste and intensive use of plastic can also be moderated. But as things stand, regular consumption of home-delivered food can be as much of a health or economic problem as an environmental one. And yet Uber’s move seems to show that it is not only here to stay, but that it believes it has plenty of room to grow and that many more people will stop cooking at home and instead order their food from one of these services.
一切都可以改变。 尽管精心挑选的食材往往比较昂贵，但可以准备健康又营养的外卖餐。 同样，也可以减轻浪费和大量使用塑料的问题。 但就目前情况而言，定期食用家庭自给食品与环境问题一样，既可能是健康问题，也可能是经济问题。 然而，Uber的举动似乎表明，它不仅在这里停留，而且它相信它还有很大的增长空间，并且更多的人将停止在家做饭，而是从其中一项服务中订购食物。
Only time will tell. But for the moment, Uber seems to be much clearer about how we will eat in the future than I am.
只有时间证明一切。 但是就目前而言，Uber似乎比我更清楚未来的饮食方式。
扫一扫
2310
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
