30% probably isn't that unreasonable in return for delivery, IT (including equipment) and also providing lots of customers.They are usually free to increase their prices on the platform or limit their menu to the dishes with the best margin. The issue is the market strength of Deliveroo compared to independent restaurants - they can dictate take it or leave it terms which they're not in a position to leave, they can bury their listings in favour of larger chains who've secured better terms and they own all the customer data.David's solution - and I hope he doesn't mind me paraphrasing my impression of it - is to insult all takeout delivery customers as lazy, feckless degenerates who hate their high street while pissing into the wind by trying to return customers exclusively to the high street.It isn't going to work. So what would? Well, more competition usually helps, but there's already some pretty fierce competition from Uber Eats, Just Eats etc. - and any market this big is bound to attract new entrants. However, if many restaurants are tied in by exclusivity deals to an effective duopoly, that could be something the Competition Authority could look at.If their market power becomes so large that it locks out competition, then Google is a good example of where competition can be reintroduced - for instance by insisting that Deliveroo's owned restaurants / kitchens don't have automatic preference.One of the bigger issues is the lack of negotiation power of the indie restaurants - so perhaps they should band together to negotiate terms via restaurant associations?In the meantime, getting Deliveroo to pay their staff properly would help to level the playing field.
Ed Saper ● 1899d