Close Ad

The Spoon

Daily news and analysis about the food tech revolution

DoorDash

Alt-Meat, Fancy Wines, and Chili’s: Black Friday/Cyber Monday Direct-to-Consumer Deals

So far, 2020 has been the year of the direct-to-consumer boom when it comes to food and beverage products, with major CPGs, restaurants, plant-based meat companies, and others setting up their own e-commerce sites to better serve homebound customers.

It follows, then, that this year’s enormous crop of Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals is chock full of offers from these companies’ sites, along with deals for meals, booze, and even groceries. And since we’re all stuck at home this year and going out to shop on Friday seems like a terrible idea as far as the pandemic is concerned, here’s a rundown of some of our favorite e-commerce food and bev deals happening over the next few days.

All Beyond Meat products on the company’s newly launched direct-to-consumer e-commerce store will be 20 percent off from 6 a.m. EST to 11:59 p.m. PST on Cyber Monday, Nov. 30. Bonus: if you’re one of the first 500 orders, you get a free Beyond Meat apron.

DoorDash just launched a gifting feature on its app that lets users send a food gift to another person. From now through Black Friday, Nov. 27, every customer that gives a gift of $20 or more gets $10 off their next order on DoorDash or Caviar.

Meat subscription service Crowd Cow is offering 20 percent off on a variety of meats and fish you can order via the Crowd Cow website. At the moment, there’s a healthy variety of shrimp, crap, steak, ground beef, cod, halibut and more available, and the company is adding new items to the sale every day. 

If you’re curious about testing out a meal kit, now might be the time to do so. A number of services are offering Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals this year. A couple notables are HelloFresh, which will give you $90 off your first five boxes, and Hungryroot, which will will offer 30 percent off your first delivery of $99 and throw in a free pack of almond chickpea cookie dough.

For all you winos, plenty of online retailers and subscription services are offering deals on vino. First-time buyers on Winc get 50 percent off their first order. Usual wines has a 21 percent discount going on orders of 12 bottles or more. Vinebox, meanwhile, is offering a 20 percent discount off its 12 Nights of Wine package through Nov. 30.

BonBowl, which makes an induction cooktop and accompanying bowl, is running a $50 off sale on Black Friday for orders placed via the BonBowl website. If you need further convincing this is a good purchase, check my full review of the device.

Finally, restaurants, especially chains, are always offering deals, and Black Friday/Cyber Monday is no exception. The folks at Delish have a solid rundown of these deals, which include chains like Peet’s Coffee, McAlister’s Deli, and, of course, Chili’s. Because it’s not a holiday if Chili’s isn’t somehow involved.

DoorDash to Pay $2.5M to Settle Lawsuit Over Former Tipping Policies

DoorDash will pay a $2.5 million settlement to the Washington, D.C. attorney general’s office over a lawsuit filed in 2019 about the delivery service’s controversial tipping policies. Attorney General Karl Racine announced yesterday that DoorDash has agreed to the settlement “to resolve allegations that it mislead D.C. consumers and used tips left for workers to boost the company’s bottom line.”

Racine filed the suit in November of 2019, not long after DoorDash changed its much-maligned tipping policy where it used workers’ tips to contribute to their base pay. The lawsuit alleged that “the only thing the consumer’s tip changed was DoorDash’s share of the worker’s pay.” Most of the buying public, meanwhile, had no idea their tip money was going towards, well, not tips. Racine sought to recover millions in that tip money.

Which he has. According to the press release from the attorney general’s office, DoorDash will pay $1.5 million in relief to delivery workers in D.C., $750,000 to the District, and donate $250,000 to District charities. DoorDash will also “be required to maintain a payment model that ensures all tips go to workers without lowering their base pay” and provide transparency around its payment policies.

“Today’s settlement rights a wrong that deceived D.C. consumers and deprived workers of monies that they should have been paid,” said AG Racine.

Color me cynical, but it doesn’t feel like as much of a victory as it might have even few months ago. It’s great workers are getting some of those tips back that were originally put towards their base pay. But $2.5 million ain’t a lot of dough when you consider that DoorDash (along with other gig economy companies) bankrolled Prop 22 for $200 million, the most expensive ballot measure in California’s history. It passed, meaning DoorDash drivers will remain independent contractors and the company is not on the hook to give its workers minimum wage, paid sick leave, and health care. 

In other words, the Prop 22 saga showed us that gig economy companies will pay hundreds of millions to effectively not take care of the folks on whose backs these businesses are built. DoorDash may have changed its tipping policy, but I doubt a $2.5 million settlement will motivate the company to further alter its approach to handling its workforce anytime soon. 

The settlement also comes just a couple weeks after DoorDash filed for its IPO. In that filing, DoorDash said that if it fails “to cost-effectively attract and retain Dashers,” the company’s business, operations, and financials could be “adversely affected.” Having an open lawsuit about a worker-treatment issue would have been counterproductive to that point, so the timing of the settlement isn’t likely coincidental. DoorDash said in its filing that it has over 1 million Dashers across all its markets. Attracting and retaining them is a key part of the company’s growth strategy — so long as it doesn’t chomp away at DoorDash’s profitability.

Lyft vs. DoorDash

We knew a DoorDash IPO was on the way, and it arrived this past week packaged with news that the company turned a profit in Q2 and has enough cash stockpiled to float along for quite some time. Throw on top of that DoorDash’s recent win on Prop 22 and its popularity among U.S. consumers, and it seems as if the company and its controversial business model for restaurant delivery are are unstoppable.

Or are they? The other big news this week came from rideshare service Lyft. Cofounder and president John Zimmer said on the company’s earnings call this week that Lyft had spoken with restaurants about many issues plaguing third-party delivery, including the sky-high commission fees companies like DoorDash charge per transaction. 

“These businesses want to partner, someone to help them move their goods from point A to point B, but one that does not step in between them and their customers,” he said. In other words, restaurants need someone to deliver the actual food but not necessarily own the order and payment process or the customer relationships (and data). Lyft more or less said it’s aiming to create that delivery model.

Even just one year ago, making this model a successful play for restaurants on a widespread basis would have been a long shot. The technical logistics of delivery are complex. A sophisticated mobile order app a la Starbucks would cost a restaurant tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. Apps have to allow users to browse a menu and order meals, and they have to be secure around processing payments and storing customer data. With a few exceptions, using a third-party delivery platform for this piece of the delivery stack has historically been the easiest and most cost-effective path for restaurants.

In the early days of the pandemic, restaurants had to either accept this situation and use a third-party delivery platform’s entire stack or risk going under. (A lot of them went under anyway.) But over the last few months, a number of different options have surfaced that allow restaurants to power their own digital storefronts and only rely on delivery services for the last mile. ChowNow, Toast, Lunchbox, . . . the list gets longer each month. Each of these services offers the ability to power a branded storefront through which the restaurant maintains the direct relationship with the customer but doesn’t have to go out and build a mobile order app from the ground up. Most of these services also partner with the major delivery platforms, who still handle the last mile. Restaurants would still have to pay a small commission fee for the actual delivery, but it’s drastically lower than the 30 percent it can reach to when using the full stack.

Don’t Miss Our Ghost Kitchen Event!

Join The Spoon and the leaders of Fat Burger, Wow Bao, Ordermark & more on December 9th for a free virtual event exploring the world of ghost kitchens & virtual restaurants.  Get your free ticket today!

Lyft’s comments at its earnings call this week suggest the company is ready to capitalize on this trend. Imagine a restaurant using a system like ChowNow’s to power its mobile ordering and payments. The restaurant controls the branding, menus, prices, and customer relationship. Integration with Lyft’s software would mean once an order is placed, a Lyft driver would retrieve the food and drop it with the customer. Lyft is also well-established across the U.S. and claims to have more than 1 million available drivers, so its existing user base could make it additionally attractive to restaurants and their customers.

The question is whether this approach could differentiate Lyft enough to make much of a difference. After all, restaurants nowadays can approach a similar delivery model by processing orders through a company like ChowNow then letting an established delivery player like DoorDash handle the last mile. Lyft would have to offer ultra-competitive rates on commission fees and an extremely wide delivery radius to make itself stand out.

Zimmer said on this week’s call that it was still “early days” for this concept, though Lyft already has a partnership with Grubhub for a separate initiative. But between the pandemic, Prop 22, DoorDash’s insane growth numbers, and all sorts of other controversies, the need for a new delivery system gets more urgent for restaurants each week. This one might be a viable option. 

Driving Towards a New Kind of QSR

Meanwhile, over in QSR realm, big-name brands appear to be ditching the dining room en masse for the long term. If you had any lingering doubts about that, look to the last few month’s developments in the space:

  • Wendy’s struck a deal with Reef to kickstart its ghost kitchen strategy. The brand is also considering drive-thru-only store formats
  • Chipotle announced plans for a new store format that is essentially a ghost kitchen with a pickup area. This follows the brand’s efforts to double-down on its drive-thru strategy.
  • McDonald’s unveiled a new store design that consists of a kitchen facility surrounded by drive-thru lanes and a few parking spaces for curbside pickup.
  • Restaurant Brands International, which owns Burger King, Popeye’s, and Tim Horton’s, will modernize its drive-thrus to encourage more digital orders and off-premises meals.
  • Burger King also has a new store design that features a kitchen hanging over drive-thru lanes and a conveyor belt that delivers the food to customers.

The credo behind all of these developments is the same: make it faster, more efficient, and as free of human-to-human contact among strangers as possible. As companies look to speed up wait times and pandemic-proof themselves, we can expect the modernization of the drive-thru — and the death of the QSR dining room — to continue.

The Leading Food Tech Expo is Back on January 11th!

Food Tech Live is back for its third year! This year we’re going virtual and will have a full day of product showcases and programming. Get your free ticket here and, if you want to grab a virtual booth to show off what you’re building for 2021, let us know!

Restaurant Tech ‘Round the Web

NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced new restrictions for bars and restaurants that went into effect on Friday. All establishments licensed by the State Liquor Authority must close dining areas at 10 p.m. Only curbside pickup will be allowed after 10 p.m. Cuomo also said that if these measures don’t slow the spread of COVID-19, NY will consider reducing indoor dining capacity.

Third-party delivery service Caviar announced this week it has expanded to three new markets. The Grubhub-owned service is now available in Austin, Texas; San Diego, California; and Miami, Florida, according to a press release sent to The Spoon. 

Dunkin’s line of holiday swag is back. This time it includes bedding, which may or may not be a sign that the world really is going to hell.

 

DoorDash Files for IPO, Could Start Trading in December

DoorDash unveiled its public S-1 filing this morning after confidentially filing to go public earlier this year. The San Francisco-based third-party delivery service is expected to begin trading on the NYSE in mid-December.

Reports of the service going public as soon as 2020 first surfaced in August, along with hints that the company was trekking towards actual profitability, which is still something of an elusive concept in the world of third-party delivery. Today’s unveil of DoorDash’s S-1 filing shows that the company reported a profit for the first time in its history during the second quarter of 2020. The company garnered $675 million in revenue and a profit of $23 million for Q2 2020. The company posted a net loss of $43 million for Q3, but still reported revenue growth of $879 million and has ample cash to fund itself — $1.6 billion, to be exact, though DoorDash has said COVID-related lockdowns played a significant role in its growth and that growth rates in revenue could decline in future.

DoorDash’s forthcoming IPO arrives at a time when demand for food delivery apps is thriving. Data from September shows that sales for these services grew 125 percent year-over-year during that month. DoorDash earned almost half, or 49 percent, of those sales — a significantly higher number than the 22 percent of Uber Eats or the 20 percent of Grubhub.

Restaurant delivery remains the biggest slice of DoorDash’s business, but it’s no longer the only one. Perhaps because of the uncertainty of the current restaurant industry, the company branched out into grocery and convenience store delivery this year, too. It even went as far as opening its own “ghost convenience store” facility in August.

Though all this cash and profitability comes at a cost of its own, a human cost in this case. DoorDash helped bankroll Prop 22, which California voters just passed and which allows third-party delivery services to continue classifying their workers as independent contractors. In other words, they’re saving a lot of money by not shelling out for benefits like workers comp, health care, and paid sick leave. The company also remains steeped in controversy around the high commission fees it extracts from restaurants at a time when businesses are shuttering in record numbers because of the pandemic. 

Unfortunately, money usually talks louder than any other issue on the table. DoorDash’s filing today shows that despite these controversies, the company’s growth is unlikely to slow any time soon. 

Prop 22’s Success Has Unsettling Implications for Third-Party Delivery’s Power

One certainty we woke up to yesterday is that California had passed Prop. 22, the controversial ballot measure aimed at keeping California gig workers independent contractors.

The success of the measure means that app-based companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart will be exempt from California’s AB 5 law, which requires businesses to classify gig workers as employees. And while tech companies’ Prop 22 victory is limited to California, it could have wide-reaching effects on how companies do business in other states and how they treat their workers.

Quick recap: Prop 22 was created in the wake of California’s Assembly Bill 5, which went into effect on Jan. 1 of this year. Under AB 5, employers must classify independent contractors as employees based on certain criteria, putting those companies on the hook to pay minimum wage, paid sick leave, health insurance, and other benefits. While AB 5 included some exemptions, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other app-based businesses were not among them.

Hence the fight. In the lead-up to Election Day, proponents of Prop. 22 — which was basically bankrolled by the aforementioned tech companies — argued that having to classify drivers as employees would reduce jobs, limit drivers’ ability to work for multiple companies and ultimately raise costs for consumers. Uber and other app-based businesses spent roughly $200 million on the ballot-measure, making it the most expensive in California history.

By contrast, Prop. 22 opponents spent less than $20 million. They have argued that Prop. 22 exploits workers and undermines job stability.

Had Prop. 22 been voted down, companies like Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, and others would have had to shift their business models, which have been essentially built on the backs of gig workers, or make good on their threats to leave certain states. Instead, Prop 22 passed, and now there’s concern of a ripple effect on laws in other states and on labor standards in general for delivery jobs. Contract workers save companies money, since employers aren’t having to shell out for benefits, so it’s an obviously attractive option for companies. But as EaterSF pointed out yesterday, there is concern that Prop 22 could “usher in a whole new era of businesses taking their labor disputes to voters, instead of resolving them with local or state agencies.”

In California, other industries may also see the successful passing of Prop. 22 as motivation to push for their own exemptions from AB 5. That would mean fewer protections for workers across more industries, and lower standards for labor and worker protections in general.

Speaking of those worker protections: As a concession, Prop 22 will grant some benefits, including a minimum earnings guarantee when a driver is engaged in a delivery or ride (not while they are waiting for a gig). However, Prop. 22 offers no protections to workers in terms of sick leave, unemployment, workers comp or the ability to unionize. 

This lack of protections was a major grief back in March, when the COVID-19 pandemic came Stateside. As one gig worker said at the time, “staying home won’t pay the bills,” even if making deliveries meant potentially spreading the virus or working while sick. That’s no less a catch-22 for gig workers now, with COVID-19 cases breaking record highs as we speak and many expecting the situation to worsen as we get closer to winter. 

Early in the pandemic, DoorDash, Grubhub, and Postmates set up financial assistance funds for workers diagnosed or quarantined because of COVID-19. However, those were short-term measures, and there is no guarantee these companies will offer a similar option if the situation around the pandemic worsens.

Looking ahead, does Prop. 22’s success this week embolden these third-party delivery services to continue their dominance over the future of food delivery? Will the deep pockets of Uber, DoorDash and others get to set the terms for what the delivery market becomes? After all, these companies haven’t exactly been beacons of trustworthy behavior. Do their policies get to become the long-term norm simply because they have more money to fight with?

Consider the commission fees restaurants must pay delivery services in order to use their platforms. These fees can reach as high as 30 percent per transaction and have been an ongoing source of grief since before the pandemic, eating into restaurants’ practically nonexistent margins. Right now, multiple cities across the U.S. have imposed mandatory caps on these fees for the duration of the pandemic. But those emergency measures won’t stay in place forever. And even were fee caps signed into law, it’s not unreasonable to assume delivery services would eventually fight them, via another ballot measure or some other means.

There are many other controversies involving third-party delivery, among them: listing restaurants on delivery platforms without their consent, worker tipping policies, bogus fees, and menu pricing. 

Above all else, Prop. 22’s success shows us that Uber, DoorDash, and the rest of them are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their existing business model — and therefore chances of profitability — intact. That Prop. 22 passed also shows that figuratively kicking and screaming, if accompanied by millions, can get you your own way. Given the untrustworthy history of these tech companies, that point doesn’t bode other areas of delivery that regulators and restaurant industry advocates are working to change.

   

California Passes Prop. 22, Leaving Gig Workers as Independent Contractors

In a win for third-party delivery services and other big tech companies, California has passed Proposition 22, ensuring gig workers will remain independent contractors rather than employees of these companies.

Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, and other tech companies that use gig workers to fulfill the last mile of food deliveries backed Prop. 22, which is the most expensive ballot-measure campaign in California history.

The measure, a response to California’s Assembly Bill 5, which was signed into law last year, exempts companies from having to actually employ drivers and in doing so pay for healthcare, sick leave, and other benefits.

Uber, DoorDash, and other companies that rely on gig workers have long said that classifying drivers as employees would drastically change the way the companies do business. Less talked about but just as obvious is the point that classifying drivers as employees would undercut delivery and rideshare services’ still-elusive profitability. In August, Uber and Lyft even threatened to pull out of California after a judge ordered the companies to reclassify their employees in keeping with AB 5.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi sent an email last night thanking drivers, saying, “The future of independent work is more secure because so many drivers like you spoke up,”

Prop 22. opponents, such as labor groups, argue that the measure allows Uber and other tech companies to skirt basic obligations to workers, including minimum wage, health insurance, and paid sick leave. That last item is an especially hot-button issue at a time when COVID-19 cases are on the rise once again.

Gig Workers Rising, which opposed Prop. 22, called the measure “a loss for our democracy that could open the door to other attempts by corps to write their own laws.”

In DoorDash We Trust?

It’s our weekly restaurant tech news wrapup!

Food delivery aggregators: love ‘em or hate ‘em, few would at this point deny that restaurants need them right now. Maybe that’s not where we’d like to be as a restaurant industry, but it’s where the pandemic has forced businesses — a point underscored by new survey data from tech company Raydiant. According to the new report, which surveyed restaurant operators and managers, 37.5 percent of restaurants would not have been able to stay in business without third-party delivery apps over the last several months.

But not all third-party delivery aggregators are equal in the eyes of restaurants when it comes to trust. Arguably the most interesting part of Raydiant’s survey is the breakdown of which delivery service respondents “associated most with trust and support.” DoorDash won in a landslide, with 58 percent, followed next by Grubhub at 18 percent and Uber Eats at 17 percent. Seamless, which is owned by Grubhub, came in last, with a whopping 1 percent.

The report does not go into specifics as to how it defines “trust” and “support.” But a quick comparison of recent developments from these services illustrates why the names stacked up as they did in Raydiant’s survey. 

DoorDash was quick to respond to restaurant shutdowns when the pandemic came Stateside back in March, waiving fees for certain restaurant partners and setting up a relief fund for businesses. Since that time, the company — which is trekking towards an IPO — has positioned itself as an ally to struggling restaurants. Just earlier this week, it launched its Reopen for Delivery initiative, which will help shuttered restaurants rebrand as virtual concepts. The company is not without its controversies, but it’s managed to steer clear of major ones over the last several months.

Grubhub also responded speedily to the restaurant shutdowns — by making an opaque announcement that initially seemed to say it was waiving commission fees when in reality the service was only delaying collection of them. Grubhub has also racked up numerous complaints from restaurants, including bogus phone fees, outrageous commission fees, listing non-partnered restaurants, and this bizarre saga. 

Uber Eats and Postmates generate fewer controversial headlines, though they, along with DoorDash, also charge restaurants unsustainably high commission fees for every order placed through their platforms.

All this doesn’t mean restaurants should ditch their partnerships with the others in favor of working with DoorDash. Many agree that more is better when it comes to delivery aggregators these days. And like I said, we can hate on delivery services all we want, but the complicated logistics of delivery in 2020 makes them cheaper and faster for restaurants than any other solution that exists right now.

Nor, however, should restaurants hedge all their bets on third-party delivery services, which are definitely not hedging all of theirs on restaurants. Recent moves by both DoorDash and Uber Eats into grocery delivery make clear that these services will go where there’s money to be made. Online grocery sales are expected to hit $250 billion by 2025. The restaurant industry, meanwhile, has already lost billions of dollars due to the pandemic.

Simultaneously, new approaches to restaurant delivery are emerging that bring ordering, branding, and sometimes even the drivers back into restaurants’ control. This will only accelerate with the rise of virtual restaurants and ghost kitchens. Restaurants may still need third-party delivery, but it’s only a matter of time before they need it, or at least pieces of it, less.

It all makes third-party delivery something of a fair-weather friend to restaurants. Despite the relief funds and press releases proclaiming they’re here to help restaurants, delivery services are also making clear that they are, first and foremost, tech companies in the business of moving goods. They’ll go wherever those goods happen to be most plentiful. Given that, trust around these services seems tenuous at best when it comes to restaurants.

Dive Deep Into Ghost Kitchen Strategy

Delivery isn’t the only thing that’s here to stay. Ghost kitchens and virtual restaurants have also proven themselves mainstays of the restaurant biz over the last few months. But what’s the difference between a ghost kitchen and a virtual restaurant? Does every restaurant need to invest in this space? Where the heck does one even begin?

On December 9, The Spoon will gather together restaurants, industry analysts, restaurant tech companies, ghost kitchen operators, virtual restauranteurs, and others to talk through the above questions and more. The day will provide a variety of perspectives on where the ghost kitchen and virtual restaurant sectors are headed as well as next steps for those wanting to get involved.

Register to join us for this event.  If you’re in the ghost kitchen space and are interested in sponsoring the event, let us know!

Dunkin Donuts

Restaurant Tech ‘Round the Web

Dunkin’ will close over 680 underperforming stores, according to the company’s Q3 2020 earnings release. The company said it will allow these franchisees to reopen in Dunkin’s “NextGen” store format or relocate to higher-traffic areas that can accommodate drive-thru.

Delivery integrator Chowly announced this week it has added Grubhub to its list of delivery partners. Mutual customers of the two companies can use both pieces of restaurant tech to streamline the management and fulfillment process of their delivery orders.

Chicago has shut down indoor dining again in response to rising COVID-19 numbers. No indoor service, including bar service, will be allowed, and outdoor dining must end by 11 p.m.

 

DoorDash’s Launches Its ‘Reopen for Delivery’ Program for Independent Restaurants

Today, the third-party delivery service DoorDash announced its Reopen for Delivery program. Through it, restaurants that were forced to close due to COVID-19 can “re-establish their foot print in their city” by reviving their businesses as virtual restaurants run out of ghost kitchens, according to a press release sent to The Spoon.

The program will select restaurants that were forced to close because of the pandemic and pair them with ghost kitchens and virtual restaurant facilities around the country. For example, Chicago-based Krazy Hog BBQ, the first restaurant to join the program, is operating its delivery-only concept out of virtual kitchen company Á La Couch’s space. Á La Couch is also home to restaurant brands like Wow Bao and Mac’d.  

DoorDash said it will use this model of pairing restaurants with kitchen providers for other businesses, though it hasn’t named any besides Krazy Hog at the moment. DoorDash operates its own ghost kitchen facility in Northern California but has not said whether the location will play a part in the Reopen for Delivery program.

In addition to kitchen space, restaurants will also have the option to cook and fulfill their own orders or outsource that work to the kitchen facility’s existing staff. DoorDash will, of course, provide the technical logistics for order processing and the drivers for the last mile of delivery. 

The program is reminiscent of Deliveroo’s “Restaurant Rescue Team” initiative from 2019, where the UK-based service would nab struggling restaurants and rebrand them as delivery-only concepts under Deliveroo’s ghost kitchen program. 

Like Deliveroo’s program, Reopen for Delivery is one way restaurants can continue serving customers without incurring some of the high overhead costs of running a full brick-and-mortar location complete with front-of-house space and staff. 

The deal, of course, comes with some compromises. Since DoorDash is powering Reopen for Delivery, restaurants that sign up with the program are to some degree locked into the delivery service’s infrastructure. And they’re presumably still going to pay the high commission fees that have caused so much controversy of late.

For many, though, there may be no other options right now. Ghost kitchens and virtual restaurants are currently being hailed as a lifeline for many restaurants struggling in the wake of the pandemic. But setting up a ghost kitchen operation requires a certain amount of demand and capital not every business has. Having a third party like DoorDash facilitate that process is, for better or worse, a cheaper, faster way to fulfill off-premises orders while we wait for the restaurant biz to get back on its feet. 

Uber Eats’ Revamped App Aims to Make Restaurant Discoverability Easier

Uber Eats today unveiled a newly revamped app and website the delivery service says will improve restaurant discoverability. According to a company blog post, this digital makeover will roll out “over the coming weeks.”

The revamp will include a number of new features, several of which are designed to make the process of finding one’s desired cuisine and restaurant faster. A shortcut toolbar will feature a user’s favorite cuisine types as well as quicker access to grocery stores, pet supply stores, flower shops, and other businesses that are relatively new to the third-party delivery space. These “discoverability” tools also include a feature Eats has dubbed Hidden Gems, which surfaces local restaurants in a user’s neighborhood and recommend restaurants based on past orders.

Enhanced pickup options are the other feature Eats is highlighting with this redesign. The new app and website will include “visual cues” on the map so users can see which nearby restaurants offer pickup options. The map will also show restaurant ratings and local deals. Finally, a group orders feature lets users order from multiple restaurants at the same time through one single order.

Uber said in today’s blog post that after talking to users, the company realized that while ordering, checking out, and tracking meals via its app is simple and streamlined, actually finding a restaurant is a time-consuming task for many. The features announced today aim to minimize the time it takes to find, say, a local pizza spot with a reasonably good reputation and good quality food.

Of course, having to scroll through a gazillion restaurant listings to get dinner delivered is arguably not a real problem. But in the micro-world of third-party delivery services, speed and efficiency reigns, and Eats, Grubhub, Postmates, and DoorDash now regularly release new features meant to shave a few more seconds off the overall delivery app experience.

Among the major third-party delivery apps, August sales grew 158 percent year-over-year collectively, according to recent data from Second Measure. At the same time, though, the third-party delivery sector remains controversial. In particular, the sky-high commission fees they charge restaurants are seen as nothing short of predatory at a time when permanent restaurant closures are increasing because of the pandemic. Others worry that the restaurant industry meltdown will leave us in a world where the bulk of our restaurant options come from chains. Last time I checked, enhanced discoverability tools and better map features can’t fix that problem.

DoorDash Launches Corporate Meal Program DoorDash for Work

Today, DoorDash announced DoorDash For Work, a corporate meal program designed to serve both remote employees and those who have returned to the office. According to a blog post from DoorDash, the Work program is a a suite of products that offers companies different options for feeding their workers in lieu of the old way of offering in-office catered meals.

Companies can choose from four main options. The first is DashPass for Work, which consists of employers paying for their workers’ DashPass subscriptions. The DashPass normally costs $9.99/month and gives members free unlimited delivery. Employers would be covering that $9.99 cost. Clients for this option already include Charles Schwab and Hulu, according to today’s blog post.

Companies can also choose to “purchase and distribute” DoorDash meal credits that employees can use at the office or at home. All credits can be redeemed through DoorDash and its subsidiary Caviar.

The third option is Group Orders. Employees in a single place can choose meals from a preselected restaurant. Think of it as a pandemic-friendly version of the employee buffets of old. All meals go into the same shopping cart and are delivered at once to the group’s location. The entire order can be charged to a company expense account. 

Finally, companies can purchase DoorDash gift cards for employees. DoorDash says that since remote work went mainstream, it’s seen “an increase in demand to use DoorDash gift cards in the corporate setting.”

DoorDash joins multiple other companies hoping to reinvent the concept of corporate catering in the wake of the pandemic. Rival third-party delivery service Uber Eats launched a Vouchers program in June that lets businesses customize meal plans for employees working remotely. The program can even service 1,000-person-plus virtual events. Elsewhere, Forkable now delivers to both offices and at-home employees.

DoorDash’s move into office catering also means the service is further diversifying its platform, a necessary move given the perilous state of the restaurant industry these days. DoorDash recently added grocery and convenience store delivery, and even launched its own “ghost convenience” store. 

Denver Cracks Down on Third-Party Delivery Practices

Denver, Colo. is the latest U.S. city to introduce mandatory caps on the commission fees third-party delivery services charge restaurants. The Denver City Council this week unanimously approved a 15 percent cap on the amount for delivery per transaction.

It’s the most recent development in an ongoing battle between delivery services like Grubhub and DoorDash and restaurants, regulators, and industry advocates. Delivery services, which normally charge as high as 30 percent per transaction in commission fees, argue that capping these fees undermine services’ ability to effectively operate. (A huge part of delivery services’ revenue comes from commission fees.) Advocates of the fees say the high percentages hurt the smallest restaurants most, and are predatory at a time when many independent businesses have little choice but to use delivery services to fulfill the uptick in off-premises orders. 

Fee caps were first introduced this past spring, just as the pandemic was intensifying and restaurants were closing dining rooms. San Francisco, Chicago, and NYC were among the first U.S. cities to introduce caps. Since then, more than a dozen other cities around the country have joined in, and as the number of COVID-19 cases has ebbed and flowed, some have even extended their caps. At the beginning of September, NYC and Los Angeles both extended their fee caps, while Alameda County and the city of Santa Clara, Calif. implemented them for the first time.

For now, Denver’s caps are set to expire on Feb. 9, though given the uncertain trajectory of both the coronavirus and indoor dining, that could change. Many cities have said fee caps will remain in place as long as emergency orders do, and Denver may yet renew its own deadline.

Nor did Denver’s attempt to regulate third-party delivery stop at fee caps. This week’s ordinance also bans delivery services from adding non-partnered restaurants to their sites. Previously, Grubhub et al. listed restaurants on their platforms regardless of whether the service had an actual contract with the eating establishment. It’s an understatement to say the practice has received some bad press, and California has even gone as far as to outlaw the practice across the state.

Denver may be the latest city to crack down on third-party delivery practices, but it won’t be the last. With more dining rooms closing permanently and virtual restaurants and ghost kitchens now the most popular kid on the block, regulations will multiply over time, rather than go away. With or without a pandemic, the fight for or against the third-party delivery model has only just started.

California Law to Ban Food Delivery Services From Adding Non-Partnered Restaurants

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a piece of legislation into law this week that hits at third-party delivery services listing non-partnered restaurants on their websites. At the tail-end of yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the first law will require delivery services to sign formal contracts with restaurants before listing those businesses on their platforms.

The law is likely to raise at least some controversy. Under it, third-party delivery services would have to have formal agreements in place with all the restaurants listed on their platforms. Up to now, restaurant listings on third-party delivery sites have been something of a free for all, with delivery services adding restaurants whether or not they have ever made an agreement or even spoken. Restaurants don’t pay the commission fees on these orders. Instead, those get passed to the customer.

Delivery services argue that this practice helps local businesses attract more customers. Restaurants, meanwhile, have complained about inaccurate prices and menu items on those sites, while others have said they receive orders for pickup or delivery items they can’t actually fulfill because they don’t offer off-premises options.

California’s law comes at a time when most restaurants have been more or less forced to take their business off-premises to even stay alive through the upheaval caused by the pandemic. But at the same time, a bunch of other restaurant tech companies are offering alternatives to third-party delivery services. So a restaurant getting listed on Grubhub’s website could be undercutting the businesses own separate efforts to fulfill delivery orders (and retain direct relationships with customers).

Third-party delivery services rely on these non-partnered listings to increase their share of the market and look attractive to potential investors. Having to sign formal agreements with businesses will slow these companies’ ability to some restaurants, and outright halt them from getting others. That in turn would further undercut the still-unprofitable model on which the market is built.

Rhode Island introduced a similar ban earlier this year that is still pending. California’s is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2021.