Uber case study questions and answers

Uber case study, detailed write up to the below questions
Subject
Writing

Question Description
Uber questions:

1. What were the options that Uber had at their disposal when dealing with the regulatory challenges they face when entering a new market? What are the pros & cons of each option?

2. How would you expect local taxi operators to Uber’s entry into their market(s)? Why?

3. If you were Uber, what would be your approach when entering a new market? Speak specifically to how you would you address (a) regulations, (b) competition, and (c) marketing.

For the exclusive use of I. Zharkoff, 2017. CASE: P-81 DATE: 9/25/12 UBER: 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGY CONFRONTS 20TH CENTURY REGULATION On July 9, 2012, Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber Technologies, had a decision to make—how to respond to a proposed regulation in Washington D.C. that provided some short-term protection for his company’s operation, but also imposed restrictions on its future product offerings. Uber provided a service that allowed customers to call for a limousine using their mobile device. A car would arrive within minutes, and the fee for their trip (including gratuity) would be charged to their credit card. Uber’s service was more expensive than a taxi, but cheaper and more responsive than conventional limousine service. Many customers were willing to pay for the quick availability, comfort, and ability to get service from parts of cities not routinely covered by cabs. Uber had service in 16 cities, mostly in the U.S. The immediate problem was a proposal expected to be introduced and voted on the next day by the Washington D.C. City Council. Uber began service in D.C. in December 2011, but it had a contentious relationship with regulatory authorities from the beginning. Uber’s operation was a hybrid of taxi and limousine service; regulations for taxis and limousines were different, and in some cases mutually exclusive, so the company was in a regulatory gray area. The pending proposal would establish a new regulatory class of limousine that covered Uber’s model, with a minimum fare per trip. While the proposed minimum was the same as Uber’s current minimum charge, the company was in the process of rolling out a lower-priced service. Kalanick thought that preventing companies from reducing prices was an odd way for the city council to serve the public. David Hoyt and Professor Steven Callander prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Publically available cases are distributed through Harvard Business Publishing at hbsp.harvard.edu and The Case Centre at thecasecentre.org, please contact them to order copies and request permission to reproduce materials.