什麼都不做就能掙錢 Uber和Airbnb的故事

Uber is much in the news recently, for mostly the wrong reasons. One of its senior executives threatened to investigate journalists who wrote negative things about the taxi service platform. An Uber passenger was allegedly attacked by a driver. And an Uber-affiliated driver ran over a pedestrian in San Francisco. And the company’s CEO has been accused of fostering a frat boy culture.

打車應用Uber最近吸引了很多媒體的關注，但引發關注的可不是什麼好事。該公司一位高管近日威脅稱，要對一位給Uber寫負面新聞的記者進行調查。另外據稱，一位用Uber打車的乘客被司機毆打。在舊金山，一位在Uber上提供服務的司機碾壓了行人。而且，Uber的CEO因爲據說培養了一種“兄弟會文化”而受人詬病。

Without downplaying the seriousness of these events, I believe the fundamental issues posed by Uber have less to do with the company’s specifics and more to do with a business model that works by offloading responsibilities, something that many other platform companies—businesses that make money by making connections rather than providing a real product or service—do as well. I am not sure people fully appreciate the many problems inherent in this type of business.

我無意淡化這些問題的嚴重性，不過我認爲，Uber帶來的這些基本性問題，與該公司一些具體的經營手法並沒有多大關係，而主要是由於它採用了一種自身不承擔責任的商業模式。除了Uber之外，其他很多做平臺的公司——也就是通過扮演中介的角色賺錢，而不是自身提供某種產品或服務——也有同樣的問題。我不知道人們是不是充分意識到了這種模式的許多內生性問題。

This summer, I used Airbnb to rent a house in Claremont, Calif. The booking fee was $79—more than 10% of the rental cost. Did the house have a king-sized bed, I inquired of the owner? She would put one in time for our rental, she assured me by e-mail.

今年夏天，我用租房應用Airbnb在加州克萊爾蒙特租了一套房子。預訂費用是79美元——超過了租金的10%。我問房東，房子裏有大牀嗎？她在電子郵件裏回覆說，等到我們入住的時候，她就會放一張大牀進去。

Four weeks before the reservation date, I tried to reach her. No response. Airbnb provided only modest help, with a long lag between e-mailing them and getting any reply. In the end, no king-sized bed, so we stayed at the Sheraton in Pomona as hotels in Claremont were fully booked by that time. Airbnb did, with some prodding, refund our entire booking fee, but they didn’t have to. As the company’s terms of service clearly state, this is an online platform and “Airbnb is not an owner or operator of properties.”

在入住日之前四個星期的時候，我試圖再次聯繫房東，但是沒有得到任何回覆。Anrbnb只是提供了非常有限的幫助，從我聯繫他們到收到回覆之間隔了很長時間。最後，那間房子裏沒有大牀，我們只好住進了波莫納的喜來登酒店（Sheraton in Pomona），因爲克萊蒙特的旅店當時都已經訂滿了。經過一番催促，Airbnb的確返還了我們所有的預訂費用，不過其實他們不必這樣做。正如該公司的服務協議明示的那樣，這只是一個在線平臺，“Airbnb並不是房產的擁有者或運營者。”

What a great business model. Airbnb collects money for providing a matching service on a highly scalable IT platform but faces none of the normal operating costs entailed in providing accommodations. The company is not responsible for maintenance and repairs, cleaning (or cleanliness, an issue that has caused a colleague of mine in Berkeley to stop using them)—or anything, really.

多好的一個業務模式啊！通過在一個具有高度可擴展性的IT平臺上提供一種對接服務，Airbnb就能坐收大筆收入，它也無需承受與任何常規住宿服務相關的運營成本。Airbnb不用負責房子的維修和清潔工作（或者乾淨程度，這個原因讓我在伯克利的一個同事不再使用Airbnb），其實它什麼都不用做。

Making a business out of not being responsible

做一門不用承擔責任的生意

Of course, Airbnb is not alone in perfecting a business model in which companies take fees for doing nothing other than facilitating transactions. As it makes abundantly clear in its terms of service, Uber does not function as a transportation carrier nor does it provide logistics services. Passengers and drivers, and maybe even pedestrians in the way of Uber cars, are pretty much on their own.

當然，Airbnb並不是唯一一家通過賺中介費掙錢的公司。Uber在其服務協議中也非常清楚地闡明，Uber既不是運輸商，也不提供物流服務。所以無論是乘客也好，司機也好，甚至擋了車輛的行人也好，出了問題只能靠他們自己解決。

Similarly, eBay is not a retailer. As it explains in its user agreement, eBay does not “guarantee the existence, quality, safety, or legality of items advertised.” I bet the retailers who get stuck with toys with lead in them or with inventory they can’t sell wish they had thought of such a clever out.

與之類似，易趣(eBay)也不是一家零售商。就像它在用戶協議中闡明的那樣，易趣並不“保證所展示商品的存在、質量、安全性或合法性。”我敢說，那些因爲銷售含鉛玩具而倒了黴的零售商，或是那些有大量存貨賣不出去的零售商，肯定希望他們當初也能想到一個如此絕妙的生意。

The list of companies that build platforms but eschew responsibility for the quality or even availability of goods or services grows daily, and why not? Margins can be enormous if you don’t have to deliver anything other than a website.

現如今，通過構建中介平臺來賺錢的企業越來越多，因爲這樣能規避爲產品和服務的質量甚至可用性承擔風險，所以何樂而不爲呢？如果你除了網站之外什麼都不用做，利潤當然是非常可觀的。

Give these companies credit for learning from experience. Remember Webvan, the startup run by a former Accenture executive that ran through $1 billion in an effort to build a business delivering groceries to homes? Webvan hired employees to drive trucks that the company purchased to haul products from its own distribution centers operated by extraordinarily complex software. Dumb business plan. Today, companies such as Instacart use contractors, not employees, to buy products at existing grocery stores and deliver it to people. Much less investment and risk.

要說這些公司還是學到了不少經驗的。不知大家是否還記得Webvan，這是一家前埃森哲公司（Accenture）高管創辦的企業，這家公司砸了10億美元重金，試圖提供日常生活用品送貨上門服務。Webvan僱了很多人駕駛該公司自己購買的貨車，然後利用非常複雜的管理軟件，讓司機從該公司自己的配送中心提貨。現在看來，這個商業計劃還真是蠢到家。如今像Instacart等公司使用的都是承包商，而不是自家的員工，從現成的食雜店裏購買產品，然後遞送給消費者。這種運營模式的投資和風險都小得多。

Amazon could follow suit and raise its profit margins significantly. Why should it have warehouses or warehouse employees? It, too, could turn itself entirely into a transaction facilitator and simply take a cut for bringing buyers and sellers together—never needing to house a book or anything else it sells.

亞馬遜也完全可以跟個風，顯著提高自己的利潤水平。它爲什麼要搞自己的倉庫並且僱那麼多工作人員呢？它完全也可以把自己改造成一箇中介，通過介紹買賣來提成——完全不需要儲存書籍或其他商品。

No responsibility, greater profits

無責任，大利潤

So, what’s wrong with this? Nothing, if you don’t mind a sort of Wild West business ecosystem. The nice thing about big companies with substantive physical businesses is that you can collect taxes from them, regulate them, enforce employment laws, and do all the other things that go out the window in the “new economy.”

那麼，這種業務模式有什麼不對的地方？其實沒有任何問題，只要你不在乎它猶如“狂野西部”的商業生態系統。對於那些擁有大型實體業務的企業來說，最妙的一點是你能向他們徵稅並且監管他們，要求他們遵守勞動法，做所有其他你在“新經濟時代”逐漸無法做的事情。

For example, while Airbnb posts requirements for its “hosts” to adhere to disability and anti-discrimination laws on its website, enforcement is obviously much tougher than it would be in dealing with a hotel chain. Many cities and counties that have passed hotel and occupancy taxes aren’t going to collect from Airbnb, which has finally agreed to collect taxes only in a handful of cities and leaves it to the individual “hosts” to comply with tax regulations.

比如，儘管Airbnb在網站上明文要求“房東們”必須要遵守殘疾人法和反歧視法，但相較於一家連鎖酒店，讓他們執行這些法律的難度要大得多。很多已經通過旅館稅和佔用稅的城市和縣都不會向Airbnb徵收這些稅，該公司最終只同意在極少數城市代收稅款，而履行稅法的義務則完全在個體“房東”一方。

There are regulations that govern how long people, particularly in transportation, can work. These regulations seek to protect drivers and others from accidents. Good luck enforcing those rules on thousands of independent contractors. And say goodbye to unemployment insurance and employer contributions to Social Security—because most of the people working for these companies are independent contractors, not employees.

有些法律規定了人們的工作時間（特別是交通業）。這些法規旨在保護駕駛員及他人免於遭受交通事故。但願政府能夠督促個體承包商遵守這些法規。另外，不要指望這些公司繳納失業保險和社保金，因爲大多數爲這些公司工作的人都是獨立承包商，而不是僱員。

The other nice thing about real businesses providing real products and services is that if there are problems, there is an entity that can offer remedies. The old Webvan would be responsible if it delivered rotten produce or bad meat from its warehouses, but not the new delivery services. Retailers like Nordstrom guarantee their products’ quality, not eBay. Limousine companies have established liability for hiring and supervising their drivers, and paying when things go wrong. Not Uber, although that remains to be seen as cases wind through court. Hotels carry liability insurance and have the financial wherewithal to protect guests who are assaulted by their workers or otherwise harmed by building safety problems. Not Airbnb, which certainly has plenty of financial resources but, as a “non-operator,” has shed any responsibility for what happens to you in your temporary rental.

提供實際產品和服務的企業還有一個好處，就是一旦出了問題，畢竟會有一個實體出來採取補救措施。比如，如果Webvan給消費者提供了變質產品或肉類，就得爲此負責。諾德斯特龍（Norstrom）等零售商會給產品質量提供質保，但易趣不會。有一些租車公司在僱傭和管理駕駛員方面已經建立了良好的信用，一旦出了問題也願意賠錢。而Uber就不會這樣做——不過如果打起官司，會是什麼結果還不好說。酒店一般都交了責任保險，也有必要的財務手段，一旦住客受到員工侮辱、傷害或其它安全問題，酒店會出面賠償損失。Airbnb則不會這樣，雖然該公司有大量經濟資源，但是作爲一家“非運營商”，不管你在短租期內出了什麼問題，它早已把任何責任推卸得一乾二淨。

Offloading responsibility, including the responsibility for liability insurance, compliance with government regulations, and payroll taxes, saves costs, lots of costs. This gives new economy companies an inherent, and maybe even unfair, advantage over the competition.

這樣推卸責任，包括推卸責任保險、遵守政府法規和繳納工資稅等責任，的確會節省大量的成本。這使得這些所謂“新經濟”公司得以獲得天生的、或許也是不公平的競爭優勢。

Company attempts to shed responsibility for their employees—and costs—is an old story. Many years ago, some employers decided that having actual employees was a pain. There were the payroll taxes, the expense and time of hiring, legal exposure to wrongful discharge and discrimination suits if you fired people; all in all, too much trouble. So, employers offloaded employees and their work to temporary help agencies and contracting organizations, which is one reason that “nonstandard employment” has grown so rapidly and there are even associations representing the interests of the many companies operating in this industry.

企業推卸對員工的責任，削減成本，早已是老生常談。很多年前，就有僱主覺得僱傭員工是件頭痛的事。既要繳納工資稅，又要花時間去招聘，如果你炒了人家的魷魚，還要小心人家以不當解聘或是歧視爲由把你告上法庭。所以有不少企業裁掉了不少員工，把他們的工作交給臨時性支持機構和承包商來完成，這也就是所謂“非正規僱傭”發展得如此之快的原因之一。現在市場上甚至出現了一些協會，代表的正是這個行業中許多公司的利益。

The IRS and state employment services feared that they were going to lose out on unemployment and payroll taxes from independent contractors. So, they developed a checklist to ascertain whether “nonemployees” doing work for some company actually were or were not employees, and they conducted audits to ensure employees were treated as such.

美國國稅局和各州就業服務部門擔心，他們將無法掌握個體承包商的失業率和工資稅情況。所以他們制定了一份清單，以確認爲某些公司工作的“非僱員”究竟是不是僱員，然後進行審計以確保僱員獲得合理待遇。

The jig may soon be up

好日子即將到頭

Cities and states are beginning to try to impose some oversight on at least some of the new economy companies, although such efforts are often met with derision and characterized as stifling innovation. I am not sure that avoiding responsibility and legal liability is really as “innovative” as is sometimes claimed. Bypassing zoning regulations on where hotels can be located and negating licensing requirements related to who can pick up passengers poses risks that, if you believe the terms of service agreements, truly should make the buyer beware.

美國各州和各大城市已經開始對至少某些新經濟公司實施監管，儘管此類努力經常會受到人們的嘲笑，並且背上了扼殺創新的罪名。我不知道推卸責任和法律義務是否真的屬於“創新”。規避旨在監管旅館位置的區劃法規，對誰有資格開車載客的規定不管不顧，必然會帶來一些風險，被服務一方真的應該警覺這些風險，如果你相信服務協議的話。

For those people who worry about income inequality, there is another reason to think twice about these new business models. In a careful analysis of 53 countries from 1960 to 2006, University of Michigan business school professor Gerald F. Davis and a colleague found that the higher proportion of employees who worked in large companies, the lower the level of income inequality. This makes sense because internal labor markets and the greater social contact among employees reduces variation in wages much more so than in market-like arrangements.

對於那些擔心收入不均的人，還有一個理由讓他們重新審視這些新商業模式。密歇根大學（University of Michigan）商學院教授傑拉德oFo戴維斯和他的同事對53個國家在1960-2006年之間的數據進行了仔細分析。他們發現，人們在大公司裏工作的比例越高，收入不均的水平就越低。這一發現是有道理的，因爲內部勞動力市場以及僱員之間更密切的社會交往，比市場安排更易於減少員工的收入差異。

Call me old-fashioned, but I actually like a company whose “terms of service” entails providing the product or service I am purchasing rather than stating all the things it is not responsible for. I prefer to buy from a company that stands behind its products, with management that cares enough about its customers to provide oversight of its employee workforce and quality assurance for its services.

你可以說我“老套”，但我的確更喜歡一家公司的“服務協議”裏寫明它究竟提供哪種產品和服務，而不是說它對任何事都不負責。我喜歡光顧的公司，是那種有自己的產品、有嚴格的管理、關心它的顧客、對員工提供監管、爲服務提供質量保障的公司。（財富中文網）