Close Ad

The Spoon

Daily news and analysis about the food tech revolution

third-party delivery

ShiftPixy’s Delivery Tech Promises Restaurant Chains More Brand Control

If the last year was was all about restaurants realizing they must do delivery, the next 12 months will be about how they’re doing it, and this question in particular: Do you go with a third-party service à la Uber Eats, or go it alone?

Those in favor of third-party delivery cite increased visibility, lower costs (you don’t have to hire your own driver fleet), and fewer technical responsibilities. Others say they will never use it because of the lack of control over service and brand integrity that happens when one signs on with a third-party service.

Over the phone last week, ShiftPixy cofounder and CEO Scott Absher seemed to agree with the latter argument: “How could a brand that has spent maybe billions of dollars over decades or generations to curate their brand suddenly surrender that brand and their customer experience and data to a kid in a red golf shirt and cap?” he asks.

He went into detail with me about how a restaurant’s choices no longer have to be the kid in the golf shirt or no delivery program at all. There’s a new middle ground afoot, and ShiftPixy is helping to establish it.

The Irvine, CA-based company makes a software stack for restaurants that was originally designed to help businesses combat high employee turnover. According to demos shared by ShiftPixy, when a restaurant signs up with the company, they are given access to a network of workers, called “Shifters.” The ShiftPixy app uses AI to rigorously onboard these Shifters, who undergo the same vetting any job candidate would, including background checks and providing proof of citizenship, driving records, and other details. Once approved, these Shifters become W-2 employees not of the restaurant but of ShiftPixy. When the restaurant needs to fill a shift, they can notify their network of nearby Shifters, who pick up work in much the same way Uber drivers pick up people to drive to the airport.

But Absher, who helped found the company in 2015, says ShiftPixy quickly became acquainted with what he calls the “dark side” of third-party food delivery: incorrect food orders, cold or poor-quality food, orders never arriving, and angry customers galore, to name a few. More importantly, users were getting frustrated with the brands themselves, though none of the ordering or fulfillment took place within a restaurant chain’s ecosystem.

“All of that anger was rolling back on those multi-unit operators,” he says, referring largely to national chains. But, he adds, these chains, “didn’t even know when a customer [was] angry so they could fix it.”

So ShiftPixy built a delivery component for its technology. For restaurants that use it, the ShiftPixy architecture works behind the scenes of a restaurant’s consumer-facing app to notify drivers of potential orders. This isn’t terribly different from the way any other third party operates the last mile of food delivery. It’s still a kid in a golf shirt picking your food up and dropping it at the door.

What is different is the slew of potential benefits restaurants — larger chains and their franchisees in particular — could reap from this arrangement. Through the deal they set with ShiftPixy, they’re not paying a fee on each and every delivery transaction made on a given day the way they would with Grubhub or Uber Eats. Most big-brand franchisees are locked into certain pricing structures and policies — having to choose a specific food distributor, for example — they can’t just dump to offset the cost of those fees. So a system that does away with them entirely could mean these restaurant operators reap the benefits of delivery without incurring the financial setbacks of working with traditional third-party services.

And while restaurants still can’t control what happens to the food when the driver picks it up, they can at least control the brand, and be aware of potential issues. When a restaurant uses ShiftPixy, customers don’t leave the brand ecosystem to order and pay for their meal, or to leave feedback or contact customer service. It all happens within the restaurant’s own mobile app, with ShiftPixy in the background, powering the last-mile logistics aspect. This, Absher reasons, could go a long way towards helping brands with their image. “The issue is brand integrity and the customer experience. As soon as that order goes out the door you’ve surrendered your customer experience,” he says.

This is a larger trend we’ll start to hear more about as delivery becomes, pardon the pun, baked into daily restaurant operations and more companies come to market with solutions aimed at national brands and their franchisees. Olo, whom Absher references during our talk, is another such company looking to help restaurants drive more delivery orders through their own in-house ecosystems and maintain more brand integrity in the process.

Absher can’t yet name these larger brands ShiftPixy is currently in talks with, though Denny’s and Carl’s Junior come up in conversation. He also says the company is “getting a lot of viral introductions” as franchisees jump onboard and encourage other nearby franchisees from the same brand to do likewise.

“When you talk to the operators, that’s where it really gets interesting,” he says. “There are a lot of mixed opinions about third party [delivery]. It’s a very confusing landscape. It looks to me like we’re entering the market at the right time in the midst of confusion. We’re hopefully being a source of help and clarity.”

How the Uber Eats ‘Dine-In’ Feature Could Affect Restaurant Operations

Uber Eats now wants to streamline more than just your food delivery order. The company made an addition this week when it announced it will also speed up your experience when you eat in the actual restaurant, too.

A tipster dropped a line to TechCrunch detailing the new Uber Eats Dine-In feature, which lets customers order their food ahead, so there’s very little wait from the time a person enters the restaurant to when they get their meal.

To use the feature, customers log into the Uber Eats app and choose the “dine-in” option. The app shows how long the food will take to prepare and notifies you when it’s nearly ready, which is your cue to head over to the restaurant and take a seat. Users can leave a tip for the server in the app. For this feature, Uber Eats also waives the usual delivery and service fees.

Image: Jenn Marston/The Spoon

The whole process is very much like Allset, a competitor that also offers a streamlined process for dining in-house.

Beyond how Uber Eats’ entrance into this area might affect Allset’s business, the move also raises questions about how an uptick in these sorts of apps could affect restaurant operations. Within Uber Eats’ Dine-In option, users are shown how long the food will take to prepare (see screenshots above). It’s unclear if that time calculation factors in how busy the kitchen is at the moment or, for that matter, if the restaurant has the seating to accommodate the order. The app seems like an ideal way for a person to speed up a lunch in the middle of the workday or a pre-movie dinner. But those are both times restaurants tend to get heavy traffic anyway, so it remains to be seen if adding another sales channel to the mix will make restaurants’ lives easier or more hectic.

One area Uber Dine-In could provide a boost is for off-peak times. As TC pointed out, restaurants could use the Dine-In feature to attract more customers during less busy times by running promotions through the app itself or by subsidizing an Uber ride to the restaurant. In theory, at least, these kinds of promotions could provide a small revenue boost for a restaurant.

Restaurant operations aside, apps like Dine-In and Allset do raise the question of why you would go out to eat in the first place if you don’t have the time or patience to wait 11 minutes for your food to arrive after ordering. There does seem to be something about these features that would make, say, a pre-movie meal feel more like just-another-transaction rather than an evening out with friends or family. That’s in the eye of the beholder, of course, and as we see more apps like these coming to market, we’ll hear plenty more pros and cons from both side of that argument.

Teriyaki Madness Expands Delivery Through Olo Partnership, Doubles-Down on In-House App

Fast-casual chain Teriyaki Madness announced this morning it has expanded its delivery program to include most major third-party services. The Denver, CO-based company has also inked a deal with Olo, whose technology makes working with multiple third-party delivery services easier, not to mention cheaper, for restaurants to handle.

For many restaurants — even national chains like Teriyaki Madness — the cost of doing delivery in house is too high to reach for now. Third-party services a la DoorDash, Postmates, and others may come with steep fees for restaurants and a certain amount of operational chaos, but they’re still the most economically viable delivery option at this point for many.

Dispatch, Olo’s main delivery product addresses some of those issues with third-party services by streamlining the order process. For one, it integrates all orders into a single ticket stream, regardless of where they come from. As we wrote in January, “Olo doesn’t compete with third-party delivery services; it more or less partners with them, so DoorDash or Grubhub orders placed via Olo go right into the regular queue of tickets, without an employee having to manually input them.”

For Teriyaki Madness, part of the reason behind the partnership with Olo is to drive more delivery orders through the chain’s website and in-house mobile app. As noted in the press release, by year’s end, the company would like to see an even split between orders placed in house and those placed with delivery services: “TMAD’s goal is to have 50 percent of digital orders come in through its app and the other 50 percent originate through third-party delivery vendors.”

In terms of realizing that goal, Olo is an appropriate match as a partner. In a blog post from March of 2019, Olo founder and CEO Noah Glass noted that his company’s goal “is to help our restaurants optimize for that future, and that means getting as many customers as they can to keep ordering directly through them, where they can have a profitable transaction.” That said, Olo isn’t the only restaurant-tech company working to make restaurant operators’ lives easier. Chowly, OrderOut, and Ordermark are all creating different versions of the same concept.

Olo’s system in particular also addresses those controversial commission fees third-party services charge restaurants. Rather than inking a direct deal with, say Uber Eats, then paying a fee per transaction, companies like Teriyaki Madness ink the deal with Olo, and costs owed to third parties are baked into to that deal. (It may slightly raise the delivery fee for the customer.) Teriyaki Madness noted that this process is especially good for franchisees: “The customer pays the delivery fee and the commission goes away, combatting profit erosion and ultimately protecting our franchisees’ bottom lines,” Michael Haith, CEO of Teriyaki Madness, said in the release.

Teriyaki Madness launched its mobile app in 2018 and has been rapidly expanding ever since. The chain has said it plans to double in size by the end of 2019, with delivery and pickup being a big part of those plans. Ensuring a more frictionless delivery process that’s also affordable for every unit in the chain, franchisees included, will be an important part of making that expansion a reality.

Now the Top Food Delivery Service, DoorDash Stands Behind Its Controversial Pay Structure

While Grubhub made a lot of headlines this week as the poster child for controversial restaurant fees, DoorDash was all over the news for its controversial stance on how it pays its drivers.

Once considered the underdog of third-party delivery, DoorDash has spent the last year or so doubling down on its expansion efforts. The service became the first of the top four (which includes Grubhub, Uber Eats, and Postmates) to be available in all 50 U.S. states, and it’s seemingly made its way into every nook and cranny of suburban America through high-profile partnerships with major chain restaurants like The Cheesecake Factory, Chipotle, and the ubiquitous Chili’s. It’s also raised lots and lots (and lots) of funding.

So far those expansion efforts are paying off. In the last week, news surfaced that DoorDash now holds the number one spot in terms of marketshare for third-party food delivery services, unseating longtime leader Grubhub. Currently, DoorDash is valued at $12.6 billion, which is almost double the $6.5 billion market cap of the publicly traded Grubhub.

The growth isn’t without controversy, however, because in addition doubling down on its expansion plans, DoorDash has also, it seems, continued its controversial pay structure for drivers that many feel is unethical. TechCrunch reminded us of that point yesterday when it called out a blog post by DoorDash CEO Tony Xu that was meant highlight DoorDash’s commitment to “transparency” but really just wound up highlighting the fact that despite its $12 billion-plus valuation, the company seems to be barely paying its drivers.

“With our current pay model, Dashers see a guaranteed minimum — including tips — prior to accepting a delivery,” Xu wrote in the post.

For every delivery the DoorDash driver (also called a “Dasher”) takes, they are guaranteed a minimum pay amount. (Dashers see this number before they ever accept or decline a job.) Unlike a serving job in a brick-and-mortar restaurant, that guaranteed minimum pay isn’t derived from any kind of hourly wage. Rather, DoorDash pays a $1 base fee then uses the tip from that order to count towards that minimum guarantee. If tips plus that $1 aren’t enough, DoorDash makes up for the rest:

Image via DoorDash.

Where this becomes really problematic is when drivers (which the company calls Dashers) get an especially large tip that winds up not being a tip, but instead subsidizing the minimum guarantee:

Image via DoorDash.

It’s the same pay structure that made waves a few months ago for services like Instacart and Amazon Flex. Instacart wound up changing its structure and apologizing to workers. Amazon stood firmly by its policy, and it seems DoorDash has as well. If Xu’s blog post is anything to go by, it seems that rather than backpedal on its controversial model, DoorDash is just taking further steps to make sure the pay structure breakdown is 100 percent apparent — to Dashers, at least. One small step for transparency, one giant leap backwards for the ethics of the gig economy. Or as labor rights group Working Washington said in a statement to TC, “Talking about transparency is good. And admitting you pay $1/job is better than denying it. But $1 is still $1.”

So what do we do about it?

The easiest solution would be for more customers to just skip the “tip” option in the DoorDash interface and tip in cash. That’s unlikely, given how integrated digital tipping is in both our apps and our lives at this point. Plus, consumers shouldn’t have to go searching through FAQ pages to find out exactly where their tip money goes during a transaction. If DoorDash really wants to tout transparency as one of its priorities and values, it should be making clearer to its customers, within the digital transaction process, where their money goes. Leading someone to believe they’re paying a gratuity when they’re really just subsidizing a base pay is just flat-out deceptive, and it’s the sort of thing that could erode customer trust over time.

Including customer relationships in those transparency goals should definitely be a priority for DoorDash. But at the end of the day, giving Dashers a fair wage rests on the shoulders of the company itself, not its paying customers. Some, like Working Washington’s Pay Up Campaign, want a minimum pay wage for workers of $15/hour plus expenses. That’s a larger conversation that’s making its way around many parts of the gig economy right now, and it’s one we’ll likely hear more debate around in the coming months.

Even if DoorDash doesn’t adopt that policy, you’d think a company valued at over $12 billion could find some kind of middle ground between $15 minimum wage and $1 to pay its workers, and to do that without roping unknowing customers into the process. Perhaps amid plans to tackle the whole of suburbia, DoorDash should tackle how to treat the people building that empire more fairly.

What to Expect at Today’s Oversight Hearing for Third-Party Food Delivery in NYC

Today, New York City will hold its first-ever oversight hearing for third-party food delivery apps and the effect they have on local restaurants.

The hearing, set to take place this afternoon, will focus specifically on the fees Grubhub and other companies charge restaurants for use of their services. Perhaps even more significantly, as the NY Post reported recently, it could set the stage for potential government action that would impact third-party delivery operations in NYC.

Titled “The Changing Market for Food Delivery,” the hearing, held by the council’s Committee on Small Business and chaired by Bronx Councilman Mark Gjonaj, invites comments from all stakeholders in the business: restaurateurs, representatives from delivery services, and customers. Grubhub, who also owns Seamless, has already confirmed that a spokesperson will be present. There’s no word on whether people from Uber Eats, DoorDash, or Postmates will attend. The hearing starts at 1 p.m. at 250 W. Broadway in Manhattan.

Having a food delivery strategy is at this point table stakes for most restaurants. But not every business has the brand reach, money, and resources to go it alone à la national chains like Jimmy John’s or Olive Garden. For many, it makes more sense to pay Grubhub et al a fee and let them handle not only shuttling the food from restaurant to customer 24/7, but also the back-end logistics (like order processing and tracking) and even some marketing aspects.

Now, however, many are calling these fees into question. Depending on the terms of the deal and the specific delivery company (e.g., Grubhub versus Uber Eats), third-party services charge the restaurant anywhere between 12 and 30 percent of the final check on each order. It’s why you’ll sometimes see a restaurant charge a little more for an item to be delivered as opposed to eating in house. Third-party services often tout the uptick in orders as a way to offset these costs, which is fine if you’re McDonald’s but less effective if you’re the independently owned deli down the block.

Atop those fees and the concerns surrounding them come reports of late of third-party delivery services charging restaurants hidden fees, such as calls made through the dedicated phone numbers Grubhub and other service set up for restaurants. A class-action lawsuit filed in May of 2019 claimed that Grubhub has been charging for calls made to restaurants via Grubhub’s app, even when the calls didn’t result in an actual order being placed and fulfilled. While that lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania, the NY Post reports that New York restauranteurs have made similar complaints, with some businesses being charged $9 and more for phone calls that didn’t result in orders. Calls for things like dinner reservations and general customer complaints are also being quietly charged, the Post said.

In turn, restaurants have been demanding refunds from delivery partners, only to be told said refunds are only good on orders going back 60 days (though one unnamed restaurant got a refund from Grubhub to the tune of $10,000 for charges dating back to 2014).

Will all these matters be discussed this afternoon at the hearing? Undoubtedly. Will they make a difference in how third-party delivery companies do business? It’s too soon to tell, but depending on how the discussion advances, the hearing could have serious effects on third-party delivery operations in NYC.

“There is always the potential that this hearing will lead to an investigative hearing from the public advocate, the city comptroller or the state attorney general,” Councilman Gjonaj told the Post in an exclusive interview.

Such action could result in legislation that limits the percentage third-party services can charge restaurants. Or, as the Post noted, it could require Grubhub and other companies to get “disclosed and fingerprinted” for the thousands of restaurants they work with, since NYC law requires anyone who shares revenues in a restaurant to be listed on the liquor license.

And there’s always the possibility of a ripple effect. The tone set by today’s gathering could influence whether other cities hold similar hearings, as well as what those hearings mean for the way third-party services will operate in the future across the country.

One thing is certain: the volume has been cranked up on this side of the delivery conversation, and it’s not going to soften any time soon as more stakeholders in the restaurant business call into question the line between a right and an abuse when it comes to doing business.

We’ll be keeping an eye on today’s events and updating our coverage accordingly. Stay tuned.

Uber Drones to Drop Fancy In-N-Haute Burgers on San Diego

“Uber,” “drones,” and “delivery” are three words we’re going to see a lot of in future. Late last week, word got out that the company has been testing food delivery via drones in San Diego, dropping McDonald’s meals off at set locations.

This week, we learned Uber has also added some fine dining to the drone delivery menu from Juniper & Ivy. The upscale restaurant, which is the brainchild of Richard Blais and Mike Rosen, will make its “In-N-Haute” burger available through Uber Eats for drone delivery once the program kicks off. As the name suggests, item is a $21 take on In-N-Out’s signature “double-double” burger, complete with brioche bun and a fancy take on In-N-Out’s famous “animal-style” sauce.

Once these overpriced burgers hit the air, supplies will reportedly be very limited, with no more than a dozen orders available on any given evening, according to Sandiagoville.com.

For the Uber delivery program, food isn’t dropped via drone directly on your doorstep. Rather, the drone flies it to a set drop-off location where an Uber Eats driver will retrieve it and take it the rest of the way. As my colleague Chris Albrecht pointed out when he wrote about the program last week, “This may seem overly complicated, but Uber says a drone can travel 1.5 miles in 7 minutes versus 21 minutes by ground. So a drone could fly past city congestion to shave off delivery time, even with a pick-up car involved.”

Shaving time off the delivery process will be especially important for expensive burgers that could go cold very quickly while in transit.

The In-N-Haute will be Juniper & Ivy’s only menu item available for drone delivery once Uber’s program kicks off, which will be in either late summer or early fall 2019. No word yet as to whether the restaurant will add more items as Uber’s delivery programs gets its legs.

What will be most interesting about this test is whether people will actually pay $21 (plus delivery fees and tip) to get a high-end burger delivered and, more important, if they’d do it on a regular basis. That’s presumably why Uber’s chosen to test its drone deliveries via two extremes: haute cuisine and fast food. Whichever is more successful in terms of both quality of the food when it finally arrives at your door step as well as overall customer satisfaction with the experience, will tell Uber a lot about where to bet its hand in the upcoming drone delivery race.

Dunkin’ Is Testing Delivery, Geofencing in New York City

Dunkin’ announced this morning it is now available for delivery in all five boroughs of New York City.

Dunkin’ is already in select cities in the U.S. through partnerships with Grubhub as well as DoorDash. For the NYC test market, Dunkin’ will be available exclusively through Grubhub and Seamless (Grubhub’s NYC-specific brand).

Grubhub isn’t a surprising choice here. In major urban areas — like NYC, LA, Philadephia, Boston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. — the company is still the leader of third-party delivery when it comes to market share.

For the Dunkin’-NYC partnership, Grubhub will integrate orders directly into each store location’s POS system, a feature that’s getting more and more important with each new delivery partnership that surfaces.

But Grubhub didn’t stop there in terms of using technology to enhance the Dunkin’ deal. It also drew a geofence around each Dunkin’ location in NYC (there are over 400) in order to monitor traffic in surrounding areas and where couriers are in relation to the store making their order.

Seth Priebatsch, the head of enterprise at Grubhub, referred to this as “our ‘just in time delivery flow’” when he spoke to NRN this morning. Thanks to the technology, Dunkin’ will start a delivery order based on how far away the courier is and how large the order is. For bigger orders, Dunkin’ starts making an them when the courier is 10 minutes away; for smaller orders, the store will probably need just a few minutes to time an order with a courier’s arrival.

This geofencing method is something we’ll see more of as restaurant chains look to improve both timeliness and quality of their delivery orders. And Dunkin’ isn’t the first — McDonald’s already uses it, and Burger King pulled a well-publicized geofencing stunt late last year that wound up highlighting the value of the technology when it comes to attracting and retaining customers.

Packaging is the other aspect of the Dunkin’-Grubhub deal that bears noting. Grubhub said all couriers are equipped with insulated bags with which to deliver drinks, whether hot or cold. But it seems time and temperature are still the two major hurdles when it comes to coffee delivery, even for a chain as large as Dunkin’ (or, for that matter, Starbucks and Uber Eats). Even Priebatsch noted that Dunkin’ is currently trying to walk the line between serving a large delivery radius without making travelers go so far that the quality of the product gets diminished in the process.

While there was no news of Grubhub using anything beyond the standard insulated bag, packaging seems an areas ripe for disruption in food delivery, especially as as more and more goods like hot coffee and frozen smoothies go mobile.

DoorDash Inks Exclusive Delivery Deal With Chili’s

DoorDash’s breakneck expansion across the U.S. continues this week, with the the third-party delivery service announcing an exclusive deal with casual dining chain Chili’s.

According to a press release sent via email, the partnership takes effect immediately at over 1,000 participating Chili’s restaurants in the U.S.

Chili’s, who is something of a poster child for the fast-casual American dining scene, has been vetting third-party delivery services for some time. At the end of April, the company said it was looking for a delivery partner that could adequately cover the suburban markets, where Chili’s has a substantial presence. In that light, DoorDash seems the obvious pick, as it currently holds 30 percent of the market share in sales and is the only third-party delivery company currently operating in all 50 U.S. states (as well as in 50 Canadian cities).

But DoorDash’s ability to integrate with Chili’s existing POS system might have been the real determining factor. Chili’s, along with its parent company, Brinker Internatoinal, has been skeptical about third-party delivery services overall. Brinker CEO Wyman Roberts said back in January that his company was “. . . cautious on business model implications and significant fees, but more importantly, the impact it has on our systems isn’t great.” In the same interview, Roberts added that, “From a technology standpoint, given that so many of these third parties are really priding themselves on being experts, we’re challenging them to integrate better.”

Integrating DoorDash directly into the restaurant chain’s POS system means all DoorDash orders are sent directly to Chili’s, without a server needing to manually input the information. As well, a direct integration means it’s easier and faster for Chili’s to onboard more of its locations onto this new delivery program.

This ability to integrate almost seamlessly into existing restaurant systems may be key for third-party services in future as they rush to gain and retain customers. All of the top services — Grubhub, Uber Eats, and Postmates along with DoorDash — offer POS integration capabilities. The question at this point appears to be more around who can offer it at the best price point for restaurants, and do so without introducing a lot of disruption to day-to-day operations. Might operational efficiency be yet-another area in which DoorDash can stand out?

DoorDash raised another $600 million in funding this past May, bringing the company’s total funding to $2 billion. This came on the heels of a $400 million Series F round raised in February of 2019. DoorDash has also said that since that Series F round, its business has grown 60 percent. Pair those numbers with the company’s continued and aggressive push across North America, as well as high-profile restaurant partnerships like the Chili’s deal, and there’s reason to suspect the company could be well on its way to nabbing the top spot in the market for third-party delivery.

DoorDash Launches Kitchens Without Borders to Assist Restaurants Owned by Immigrants and Refugees

With delivery, it’s easy to forget there are human beings behind the food you just ordered with the push of a button. DoorDash wants to change that by reminding us of the stories behind your Tuesday night dinner.

Today the third-party food delivery service announced Kitchens Without Borders, an initiative that supports restaurants founded by immigrants and refugees. The goal is to highlight the entrepreneurs’ stories behind these businesses while also building awareness for what are often resourced-strapped businesses.

Kitchens Without Borders will kick off in the San Francisco Bay Area, DoorDash’s hometown. The service will give 10 immigrant- or refugee-owned restaurants credits for free delivery for up to six weeks, extra marketing and promotional opportunities, increased visibility on the DoorDash site, and a spot in a video mini-series that looks at the backstory of each business. The videos are available on the Kitchens Without Borders website.

The initiative comes at a time when political debate around immigration is hotly debated, and one’s Twitter feed might lead them to believe the American Dream is as dead as the VHS machine. But DoorDash CEO and cofounder Tony Xu clearly believes otherwise: “DoorDash’s mission has always been to connect people with possibility by creating valuable opportunities for entrepreneurs to reach new audiences,” he wrote in a blog post published this morning. “For immigrant communities facing heightened barriers to success, that goal has become even more important — and for me, it’s at the heart of the company’s story.”

Xu himself is an immigrant, having moved to the U.S. from China at age five. Working in his mother’s Chinese restaurant, which she ran in order to save enough money to go become a doctor, Xu “saw firsthand what it takes to make it in this country.”

Now, Xu and DoorDash want to highlight other stories of people working to make it in a country. DoorDash’s first round of Kitchens Without Borders profiles immigrant and refugee entrepreneurs from Chile, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Turkey, Sudan, Thailand, India, Vietnam, Mexico, and Japan, highlighting their backstories as well as relevant business information. Restaurants include Besharam, ZZoul Cafe, Onigilly, LosCilantros, Sabores Del Sur, WestParkFarm&Sea, Little Green Cyclo, Afghan Village, D’Maize, and Sweet LimeThai Cuisine. All restaurants are based in the SF Bay Area.

According to the press release, DoorDash expand Kitchens Without Borders to other cities in future. Given that the third-party delivery service is now in over 3,300 cities across the U.S. and Canada, there are a lot of potential customers out there for the companies chosen. More importantly, there are a lot of opportunities to share with audiences what seems like the real message behind the initiative: that the “American Dream” isn’t dead (regardless of what your newsfeed tells you), and there are a lot of people in this country still working hard to inch closer to it.

Checkers & Rally’s Launch “Franchisee Friendly” Delivery Program

Burger chain Checkers & Rally’s announced via press release a delivery program this week that enables delivery from multiple third parties and is also, according to a company press release, “franchise-friendly.”

To service multiple third-party delivery partners at once, and perhaps also to avoid putting franchises through the kind of franchise McSaga McDonald’s currently finds itself in, Checkers & Rally’s have integrated delivery from five major players into a single point-of-sales system. Customers can order from Uber Eats, DoorDash, Postmates, Grubhub, and Amazon Restaurants, and that order will appear as any other ticket item in the system.

Enabling third-party delivery with multiple partners can and does often create operational issues for restaurants. There’s the pileup of hardware devices that come with using multiple services, often referred to nowadays as “tablet hell.” Plus, multiple new ticket streams from these third-party providers means someone has to key in the different orders from different devices, which would slow even the most well-oiled machine down while simultaneously raising the potential for error.

Checkers & Rally’s sought to avoid these pains by enlisting digital ordering platform Olo, who raised $18 million earlier this year from Tiger Global Investment. For the Checkers & Rally’s partnership, Olo helped implement a system that funnels all orders from third-party services into one channel that goes directly into the main POS system. While this approach isn’t exactly new — Chowly and OrderOut both provide this type of integration — Olo’s platform is specifically designed for larger chains (Checkers & Rally’s has around 900 restaurants currently).

The program also offers a benefit to franchisees in the form of a single point of contact for business. Everything from contract negotiations with the third-party services to tech support to training is addressed through the same contact. I’ve spoken with enough restaurant operators in the last year to know that getting support from third-party delivery services can make a call to the IRS seem fun.

Rick Silva, President and CEO of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, said in a press release that the company wants “to provide our franchisee community with a fully integrated platform that would make it easy and profitable to fulfill delivery orders.”

That’s an important point: delivery is more or less a mandatory part of business nowadays, but the economics of working with third party services don’t always make sense for franchises. Paul Flanders, CFO of Burger King franchisee Carrols Restaurant Group, recently noted that “The economics [of third-party delivery] are probably marginal for the [franchisee] operator.” Meanwhile, the aforementioned McSaga has McDonald’s franchisees questioning some of corporate’s decisions around the exclusive partnership McDonald’s has with Uber Eats, arguing for a better commission split with third parties, and, in some cases, the ability to work with more services than just Uber Eats. A post by the National Owners Association, a McDonald’s franchisee group started late last year, stated that, when it comes to the many changes franchisees have to face, “simplification needs to be priority one.”

Simplification appears to be what Checkers & Rally’s is after with its newly launched delivery program. Of course, making it easier to take multiple orders from multiple services is only one element of doing cost-effective, operationally efficient delivery. But Checkers & Rally’s appears to be making franchisees an integral part of the process when making decisions about delivery, rather than an afterthought you throw technology at.

The numbers will tell how effective this strategy is, and we’ll have to wait for those until the next round of earnings calls. In the meantime, the new program will serve both delivery and pickup orders.

Postmates’ New Party Feature Is Another Way to Waive Delivery Fees

Yesterday, Postmates launched a new feature called Postmates Party, which lets customers in the same vicinity opt to share drivers and in return get food delivered for free.

As TechCrunch pointed out, the feature is a lot like Uber’s POOL feature. Postmates Party lets you see where others in your neighborhood are ordering from at that exact moment and essentially piggyback off those orders. Postmates waives the delivery fee and any peak time pricing when you order from those restaurants at that time.

There is a five-minute window from the time you select Party to the time you must checkout in order to get the free delivery:

The feature is clearly aimed at price-conscious customers who might not want to pay a delivery fee for every single order they place via Postmates, and it’s one of many new ways third-party delivery services are trying to stand out in the competition and also retain customers. Those moves include ghost kitchens from Uber Eats, DoorDash testing out self-driving cars, and Postmates experimenting with a delivery rover that looks like Minion.

Big moves and technologies like those above are great, and may even be necessary. But what’s interesting about Postmates Party is that it’s a small addition to the service that offers a solution to a big problem: fees. A Technomic forecast that explored off-premises restaurant trends recently honed in on per-delivery fees with third-party services as a barrier to consumer adoption. While the forecast was specifically talking about subscription models (another appealing new feature of most services), pooling orders with nearby strangers is appealing because it requires no additional steps from the customer, so long as they get that order in within the five-minute window Postmates has provided.

For Postmates, the feature could also streamline its operations a bit because it can cluster orders in the same neighborhoods and save on how many drivers it has to pay, how many trips those drivers take, etc.

Interestingly, Postmates unrolled the feature just as Uber Eats came under fire for a confusing new pricing structure that has Reddit users the world over calling bullshit on the service for actually marking prices up.

Also this week, CNBC reported that Grubhub is losing customer retention and, according to analysts, “will have to add three times as many new diners in the third quarter of this year compared to 2018 to make up for expected churn.”

While we don’t have any numbers yet on how Postmates’ new Party feature is performing, the service may be wise to focus its efforts on iterative changes to its app that cost the customer nothing (in terms of both money and time) and might even make the service more efficient in some places.

Postmates Party is currently only available in select U.S. cities: NYC, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix, San Francisco, Long Beach, CA, Miami, San Diego, Seattle, Orange County, CA, and Philadelphia.

Eatsa Unveils New Features for Virtual Restaurants, Powers Deliveroo’s Food Hall

Restaurant automation company eatsa announced yesterday a new suite of products aimed specifically at virtual restaurants and delivery-only restaurant concepts. Third-party delivery service Deliveroo is the first to use the technology, at its new food hall in Singapore.

This is eatsa’s first foray into virtual restaurants, also called ghost kitchens, which are basically restaurant-grade kitchen spaces with no dining area and, most of the time, not even a pickup area. More and more restaurants are using these to offload delivery orders from the main kitchen or test out new food concepts. Some restauranteurs also use them to kickstart a brand in a cheaper, less risky way than would be with a full-service operation.

To that end, eatsa’s new tech suite is all about making the prep, pickup, and delivery of food more efficient. New software, called the Omnichannel Intelligent Queue Software, calculates the exact status of an order based on kitchen throughput. With that capability, the eatsa app can give a customer a minute-by-minute status update. For drivers, this more precise ETA helps them know exactly when to get to the restaurant to pick up the food, so it doesn’t sit for too long.

Drivers also get some directional help via the new features — literally. Eatsa’s already known for its digital status boards it has up in restaurants. A version of these will be in the virtual kitchens, along with pickup stations. Eatsa’s shelf-like surfaces that are controlled by sensors and can display the name on the order as well as branding for the third-party service delivering the order.

The first customer for eatsa’s new features is Delveroo, who just opened another Editions site, at Alice @ Mediapolis in Singapore. Customers can order delivery or pickup from the food hall, which features 10 kitchens serving Korean, Vietnamese, Greek, and Japanese food (among other types). In the case of pickup, customers order at self-service kiosks in the hall and retrieve it from one of eatsa’s cubbies, which function much the same way as the aforementioned shelf system.

Companies across the delivery chain are now involved in virtual restaurants and ghost kitchens, from companies like Kitchen United, who rents out kitchen space, to Uber Eats, who might start peddling its own restaurants and food concepts via ghost kitchens.

Eatsa has already teamed up with a few notable names over the last couple years, for traditional restaurants, including Wow Bao in Chicago and MAC’D in San Francisco. The eatsa tech’s popularity is said to be soaring, and expanding overseas and teaming up with a high-profile company like Deliveroo seems to prove that point.

It’s smart for the company to move into the virtual kitchen space, where it’s tech could help it stand out quite a bit. As CEO Tim Young told me a while back, the company’s system is designed to make restaurant operations easier and more efficient, and it’s end-to-end, which means you can roll up every step of your operation into a single system. As restaurants large and small adjust to a world where mobile order and delivery needs to be as efficient as in-house dining, an all-in-one automated platform like eatsa’s could solve several problems at once.