I came across this interesting news which recently appeared in the Mint newspaper.
A person in Bengaluru ordered food delivery via #Swiggy. The Swiggy delivery partner, in turn, booked a delivery via #Dunzo to be sent to the person who ordered it!
The Swiggy guy even contacted the end customer and requested him to give him a five-star rating for delivery! 😄
On one hand this news is funny. On the other hand it raised in my mind few thoughts:
1. If the Delivery partner’s remuneration is consistently good enough to sub-contract it to another vendor, there is arbitrage opportunity. Soon Swiggy (or any one with superior charges for delivery) itself might directly start using Dunzo (or the cheaper delivery vendor). This suggests two things: (a) the business model of either of the two (or probably both) is questionable and not sustainable. Or (b) the one who is operationally efficient will eventually win
2. From customer’s point of view: Did it really matter to him if Swiggy delivered or Dunzo delivered? (Assuming that his expectations were met). If not then there is no value-add by the delivery vendor and hence there wouldn’t be loyalty or stickiness on part of customers.
3. From the point of view of the restaurant owner, would it make sense to switch from a high-cost delivery partner to a low-cost delivery partner and thus gain more customers (by lower overall prices) or better profit (by keeping their food prices slightly higher so that customer pays the same total price but the delivery costs are low)
4. And finally: If something had gone terribly wrong in the whole transaction, who would have been accountable and who would regulate in such cases? I’m not referring to the usual things that go wrong in such transactions (i.e. late delivery or customer returning the order etc), but something criminal or serious. I am not sure if Swiggy took a note of this and came out with a clarification on their policies.
Leave a Reply