The Uber problem

Uber set its lighter to the news touchpaper last week. Thousands of people, me included, began shouting ululations to Zaamun Rul, lord of fiery outrage. This was not solely a reaction to Emil Michael’s unacceptable comments, but the latest page in the ‘Uber is evil’ story.

Whatever your take, Uber has a reputation problem. It seems intent on acting like a villain in an HBO drama. But the reaction to Uber seems increasingly disproportionate.

It’s surprisingly hard to separate truth from distortion. The details of any given ‘kerfuffle’ (he says, avoiding the word ‘gaffe’) are murky—a lot of ‘he said, she said’, but people are quick to buy into the ‘evil’ narrative.

I can't decide whether Uber is very bad or very good at PR. It's probably a mixture. Its handling of recent events doesn't paint a picture of competence and control in dealing with its audience. That said, confusion follows each issue, which could be intentional.

I don't believe 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'. Whatever the true intent behind Emil Michael's comments, I don’t believe they helped Uber (though it’s arguable how much it’s hindered), but it impacts our trust.

An Uber you can get behind.
Image: Scott Schiller cc by-nc 2.0

Over the past few months, we've seen sexism, threats against journalists, irresponsible use of customer information, suspect investment tactics, and reputed exploitation of  drivers. Quite the rap sheet.

Some of these—the French ad campaign, Emil Michael's comments—can be rationalised away as the actions of a few; not representative of whole company. I don't buy that. Yes, individuals can ‘go rogue’ and hurt the company, but that doesn't happen in isolation. There must be an environment in which people think it’s acceptable. Even giving Emil Michael the benefit of the doubt on intent, he should have better judgment than to make cracks about digging up dirt on journalists in front of journalists (especially if your company has a track record of creepy behaviour).

These investment tactics are hardly unique to Uber. That doesn’t make them ethically right, and if someone considers it sufficient reason to ditch the service, I won’t argue, but it's dissonant to do so while not applying the same principles to other services. Targeting Uber on this point demonstrates the willingness to accept this narrative—it’s what we’ve come to expect

Irresponsible use of customer's private information bothers me. 'God View' has a ‘legitimate business purpose’, but access is too broad, the name, understandable in the context of a ‘cool’ tech company, sends the wrong message; using it as a backdrop to a party is downright insane. I think it's more indicative of immaturity than Machiavellian intent, but a cavalier approach to this sort of power does not inspire trust.

Treatment of its drivers is the hardest nut to crack. The majority of the articles I have seen from the drivers’ side have praised the service as an enabler, offering a model differentiated from, restrictive existing systems, potentially benefiting consumers and drivers. I’ve seen plenty of criticism too, but it’s largely anecdotal and unsubstantiated. That’s not to say conditions aren’t bad, but there’s little solid information and a good amount that speaks to its benefits. I simply don’t know.

Image: David Holt cc by-sa 2.0

Is all this criticism just a smokescreen—FUD spread by those with an axe to grind? Clearly not, though I’m sure Uber have ruffled enough feathers that the narrative gets amplified.

What interests me the most is how quick we are to grasp the ‘Uber is evil’ angle. Much of what’s happened is typical for other companies. It’s a self-reinforcing effect—stories appear which lead us to distrust Uber; we frame every story that follows in a way that fits our perception.

We’ve seen erstwhile-beloved companies grow up and change the world—Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others—and go from our scrappy tech darlings to figures of suspicion. We saw the flipside to their services at a point when we were over-invested in their infrastructures. Now, the cost of extricating ourselves is too high, and they can act with, if not carte blanche, carte-really-really-light-grey.

In Uber, we see the potential for the same—an ambitious, fast-growing company with a powerful and commanding vision, looking to disrupt the world. But we’ve seen where that path leads, and are far less forgiving. We punish Uber for not only their own missteps, but the sense of violated trust we have built up.

I’m not looking to excuse or forgive Uber (I came to right this post with the opposite intent). We can and should be critical. They provide an amazing service, but we should judge the cost of use in terms of more than the monetary; we should do what we can do avoid being held hostage to a service because we didn’t look at the whole picture. That said, I don’t think the way Uber acts departs much from its peers.

I’m not going to tell you that you should keep using Uber, or if you should deleted it; boycott it; whatever. That’s for you to decide. What I’m telling you is to think critically—weigh it up and reach your own decision. Don’t buy into the ‘Uber is evil’ narrative just because it’s the obvious story that’s presented, but don’t give them a pass either.

That said, our actions matter less and less. Uber’s most recent valuation put them at around 40 billion dollars. I think they’re already past the tipping point, and it would take a pretty huge hit to dent their armour.