Should we learn from Uber's innovative O2O model?

From Uber’s disruptive innovation to the vulgar and quarrelsome public relations of a domestic private car service, the “private cars” must have had enough.

The national online car-hailing management measures for "private cars" are expected to be launched this month. It is said that the "national online car-hailing management measures" will be launched this month, which means that after this, the money-burning subsidy war between "disruptive innovation" and "cultivating user habits" will gradually subside in the country, and causing social conflicts is an issue that Uber and others cannot avoid.

one. Entrepreneurs should understand the social environment they are in

In fact, in China, "the attitude of the top" is very important, but people in the domestic Internet circle often never mention it. There are two types of people: one is the old fox who knows but doesn't say anything, and the other is the young and inexperienced who doesn't realize it at all.

When most people were cheering for Uber for causing unrest in the once arrogant taxi industry, and when the public relations department of Uber was gloating over its marketing behavior of fighting and issuing coupons for special cars, it seemed that everyone had forgotten that we are living in an environment with a development culture of "seeking stability" and everything is based on not exacerbating social conflicts. Although "Internet Plus" is a national strategy, Uber and others have made traditional taxi supervision ineffective, making the operating license a dead letter. In this impact, some people were jubilant, some held up signs and cried, and in the end, who will clean up this mess? The answer is self-evident.

two. Tool attributes + money-burning subsidies, "disruptive innovation" is not innovation in essence

"Disruptive innovation" is the most commonly used term in the domestic Internet entrepreneurship circle, especially in the O2O circle. (Some Internet people grit their teeth when talking about the traditional economy, and seem to have some deep hatred for traditional industries). Is innovation destructive? The capital wolf pack in the Internet era firmly believes in a set of success logic within the circle: subvert the market through technological innovation, expand rapidly, monopolize the market, establish rules to exclude competitors, and plunder the users who were once regarded as gods. Harvard University professor Christensen calls this kind of innovation "disruptive innovation." Does it sound familiar? Before the outbreak of the Opium War, the foreigners also used this trick to destroy the natural economy. This kind of destruction is simply a zero-sum effect, or even worse.

Why am I not optimistic about Uber and these domestic "private car" services? It's because of the destructive nature of capital seeking profits. Once they are labeled as "innovation", "entrepreneurship" and "Internet", everything becomes legitimate. However, this type of O2O service still cannot be separated from its tool attributes. In essence, if there is no subsidy, most of the "private cars" cannot provide more complete commercial services than taxis, either in terms of service professionalism or safety.

three. Mobile payment and LBS have indeed partially locked up domestic O2O innovation

O2O entrepreneurs seem to be caught in a strange cycle. In the past, there was a well-known classic question in the Chinese Internet industry: before VCs decide whether to invest, the question they like to ask entrepreneurs the most is "What will you do if BAT wants to do it?" In fact, BAT has set up many barriers in China. These barriers have ensured that they are not afraid of small companies growing bigger and shaking their position.

The layout of mobile payment and LBS is the most powerful barrier set up by the giants. It is just like the sophon in "The Three-Body Problem" using interference physics to lock down the development of human technology. This is also the reason why most domestic O2O entrepreneurs only dare to start with the service industry, under the euphemism of "subverting tradition and creating demand!"

In fact, the question that entrepreneurs should think about is not "What if Tencent enters?" Your project is not perfect enough to attract imitation by giants. Many entrepreneurs themselves do not have a thorough understanding of the industry in which the project is located, so how can they change it? Entrepreneurs should think clearly about the following questions

1. Are the pain points of this industry really as big as imagined and do they require the intervention of the Internet?
2. After using subsidies and novelty to get users to install the product for the first time, will they continue to use or consume?
3. Whether the project has social value and whether it can be recognized by the superstructure and the general public. (This is something many entrepreneurs often don’t realize)

Four. Entrepreneurs who advocate "disruptive innovation" will not go far

Since the beginning of this year, various door-to-door services have sprung up like mushrooms after a rain. Big data, cloud computing, user needs, subverting XXX, and changing XXX are all on people's lips. But if you look deeper, you will find that most of the models are just to be an online intermediary. Few people delve into the potential policy and legal risks. For example, a certain home O2O product that has been exposed was exploited by criminals, and the home massage involved pornography. However, the team shirked and delayed regulatory responsibilities on the grounds of cultivating users. The last entrepreneur who played with the red line like this was called Wang Xin. How deep is the water in the offline service industry? The team itself doesn’t have a thorough understanding of the industry it’s in, so how can it change?

Characteristics of this kind of worthless O2O company entrepreneurs:

1. Born in BAT or other large Internet companies
2. Project model copied from abroad
3. Investing in O2O and relying on VC to burn money for subsidies
4. Always be prepared to sell yourself
5. The product has no social value

Conclusion:

If innovation really exists, it is definitely not in most of the current O2O fields in China. A friend once described the current domestic entrepreneurship as a "Great Leap Forward". I think the truth may be even more terrifying. It can be said that there are "retail" entrepreneurs. The previous ups and downs of the stock market have largely foreshadowed the future of this wave of O2O entrepreneurship. China's Internet ecosystem has always been firmly controlled by BAT. If a powerful fourth pole really appears in the future, it must be in the more valuable hardware technology field, not O2O.

APP Top Promotion (www.opp2.com) is the top mobile application promotion information sharing platform in China, focusing on Apple and Android application promotion and operation methods , experience and skills, channel ASO optimization , and App marketing information free sharing. Welcome to follow the official WeChat account (appganhuo).

This article is compiled and published by APP Top Promotion. Reprinting must include a link to this article. Violators will be held accountable.