If Grubhub actually took a stand and showed they not only did not do this sort of behavior, I would actually use it, and I would pay the premium for delivery (to make sure the restaurant makes money and the driver makes money).
Instead, I never use your service, and I never plan to. I go out of my way to call a restaurant (and because of shady behavior like that, I take the extra time to make sure it is that restaurant and not some call center) and I will physically go to a restaurant because to pick up my order, so I know they are not losing money on orders.
You may well faithfully adhere to this promise, but the reality is, most people simply don't know (and it would be generous for me to assume they would care even if they DID know).
So much of the GH/DD/UE model is reducing friction to drive transactions. Click button, throw some amount of money at the company, receive product. Just like Amazon.
Having to stay abreast of the news, the competitive landscape, the various companies' business practices, and then factor that all in when making an online transaction, is probably too much to ask of a consumer when the entire point of the service is not having to know or care too much about the details.
You could even argue one of the features of these services is abstracting away things that people don't WANT to know about- Tipping policies, labor practices, what the parking is like at the restaurant, how pleasant the staff is to deal with, how the owner's doing today, etc.
I'm with you- I almost never order anything delivery, I pick up my own orders on the rare occasion I takeout, etc. This whole delivery gig economy thing makes me pretty uncomfortable. But we're a rare breed. (and I'm not claiming to be better than most people; I order far too much from Amazon than I'd like to admit).
However, in truth they pay damage in reputation. If the delivery company delivers food slow, or lets it get cold, then the customer will blame the restaurant. On top of that, unpartnered restaurants will naturally get slower delivery times because the order flow involves grubhub delivery people walking in and placing an order (or calling in), whereas partnered restaurants get point of sale systems integrated with grubhub's backend. They get less accurate delivery time estimations. They might pay a much higher delivery fee or service fee. All things add up to a worse customer experience.
[a]: I.E. non-Prime purchases (ignoring the fact that Prime purchases can also just be late)
Some background reading: https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitra...
Be sure to also read this insightful comment left by a former GrubHub employee: https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitra...
That's why this is fraud.
> For restaurant inventory, we will rapidly expand our recent pilots of putting non-partnered restaurants on the platform. For reasons we’ve discussed many times, we believe non-partnered options are the wrong long-term answer for diners, restaurants and shareholders. It is expensive for everyone, a suboptimal diner experience and rife with operational challenges. With that said, it is extremely efficient and cheap to add non-partnered inventory to our platform and it can at least ensure that all of our current and potential new diners have the option to order from any of their favorite restaurants now, even if it’s not the best solution. By leveraging non-partnered options, we believe we can more than double the number of restaurants on our platform by the end of 2020.
> At the same time, because we know that partnered relationships are critical to the long-term success of this business, we will be investing aggressively in our independent restaurant sales organization to support converting as many of these non-partnered restaurants to partnered relationships as quickly as possible and to take advantage of other innovations in the restaurant space, like virtual restaurants.
https://s2.q4cdn.com/772508021/files/doc_financials/2019/q3/...
If the driver places the order without making it clear to the restauranteur that they are the middleman company (UberEats, Doordash, etc.) then the opt-out clause is meaningless. You can't opt out of something you're never aware of.
By using their name in commerce, restaurants have a trademark.
People complaining to the restaurant about delivery shows that consumers mistook the Place & Pay vendor for the restaurant. This is proof that the trademark was infringed.
I don't see how Place & Pay could survive a court case, or even prolong one.
Fixed that for you.
I was at the bar of a local restaurant when some delivery driver (not sure if GH) came in to pick up an order. The (super busy) server said "we told you we don't want to participate in this...", clearly exasperated at this happening over and over. This is a restaurant that does a lot of catering, where they set the terms/fees.
The driver started trying to "explain" how it's just the same as if he were a real customer and how would she know, etc. It was just gross.
This was a couple years ago.
Even if someone does eventually notice and takes corrective action, this is far from an optimal way to do it. Given that the server is acting like the drivers should just know that they wanted to be unlisted, it wouldn't surprise me if the "we told you before" means all they did was tell drivers they wanted to opt out and never actually did the opt out procedure.
I also never said that it is a good way to accomplish this. I'm just pointing out that refusing the driver can be a way to get them to leave.
It "competes" with any delivery service a restaurant runs, but if the restaurant offers takeout at all, it's hard for me to see why the market should care who is doing the taking out.
Last month the grilled chicken place gave me chicken which wasn't grilled. I called them (they have a national call centre), and the store manager called me shortly after, to apologise. Following day they sent me chicken.
Last week I was at a pizza place at night. An angry customer called, they got the other wrong. I listened to the store manager for about 4-6 minutes trying to explain that this was the 3rd-party service that got it wrong.
That service doesn't have an agreement with the store/chain, as they have their own delivery service.
Is the extra admin worth it? I don't think so. It's unethical behaviour from the tech companies.
Grubhub pointed the finger at the local restaurant, and the local restaurant pointed the finger at GH for not specifying the level of spiciness. In the end the only way to resolve the problem was to do a chargeback because neither merchant would take responsibility. We didn't have the business relationship with the restaurant. So I'll never use GH for anything because when something goes wrong they absolve themselves of responsibility.
And I'm skeptical of any other company that acts as a base middleman like they do.
I assume that hurt GH?
The service itself isn't illegal, but impersonating the restaurant is.
It’s not at all my issue if my client is frustrated at Microcenter because of the delay and it’s not my job to protect their reputation so long as I’m truthful.
If my order is delayed because the driver is stuck at the restaurant waiting for my order because the restaurant hadn’t stated yet then that’s on them. Had I driven there myself I would be just as annoyed.
If my order is delayed because they can’t find a driver or there’s a problem with the ordering then that’s on the delivery company.
The issue isn't when a restaurant drags their feet with an order, it's when they don't know the order even exists until the courier shows up. So not only do you have to play a game of telephone with your delivery driver placing your order, but that order is only paid for & made once that driver get there.
None of this is clear from the apps I've used. There's no indication whether you're ordering from a restaurant that has a backend receiving orders in realtime or if it's a "place and pay" order. Customers will reasonably think the restaurant is to blame, when it could've very well been the fault of the driver.
it says I'm ordering from the restaurant.
it is lying to the customer by misrepresenting the price and performacne of the restaurant. When GH messes up, the implications are rarely for GH, they are for the restaurant which gets a bad review by the customer.
If the driver is going to do multiple orders at once, I should be informed of this.
If they can hinge a case on whether the reasonable person can tell the difference, there's meat on the bones, but I don't see this case ending with Grubhub's business model being declared illegal (only with clarifications as to how to maintain the reputation protection aspect of trademark against the nominative fair use aspect of trademark).
I would never make a bet on peoples inability to be idiots.
As for actual fast food, while the process is optimized to the extent possible, that optimization usually involves the restaurants having their own supply chain of specific ingredients. Grubhub would have to gain access to the same ingredients to successfully impersonate chain restaurants.
What I can see them doing is just launching 100 different fast food brands selling the same food cooked in the same dark megakitchen, because why not, DDoSing consumer choice with fake brands is par for the course these days.
Some pizza is not fast food.
Market participants all care for different reasons.
As far as assuming the business identities of "non participating" restaurants, that sort of thing has a long history - it is a favorite of various organized crime rings.
So in that sense, it does seem a natural fit for GH.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/diners-discover-that-pasqual...
Except you know what your are doing. It isn't clear GH customers do.
Thank you!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216852
https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitra...
You're mixing up controversies - there was a separate "feature" Grubhub did years ago where grubhub would stand up online presence for restaurants to bring in web search traffic (branded websites, search results on grubhub.com, etc) and list a grubhub phone number instead of the real phone number so that grubhub could collect comission on the orderflow that they're raking in for the restaurants. These were partnered restaurants, so they were signing up for this and could opt out of any of these services, in theory anyways I wasn't part of this so I have no idea if it's really that easy to opt out
Separately, a practice pioneered by ubereats and doordash, "Place and Pay" is a new thing in the past 2-3 years where Grubhub will just list a bunch of restaurants without them asking for it ("non-partnered"), and when you place an order online the driver will go in and order takeout, then carry it to you. The restaurant can opt out of this, but they never asked for the service in the first place so it's kinda shitty. That's what this article is about.
Grubhub was against place and pay at first, when UberEats and Doordash began doing it (not because Grubhub is selfless but because partnered restaurants are way more profitable), but resisting place and pay turned out to be a recipe for losing market share so that's no longer the case.