How to treat bicycle sharing?

If you don't do public welfare, bike sharing may just be a flash in the pan.

There is a term called "tragedy of the commons". That is, the embarrassing scene when individuals use free lunch-endless plunder, which becomes a tragedy because everyone knows the final common outcome, but they all ignore the long-term development, kill the goose that lays the golden egg for immediate interests, and finally destroy public resources. There are many phenomena of "tragedy of the commons". For example, the outdoor sunshine is bright and the indoor lighting is bright; The office is air-conditioned and the windows are open; Eating buffet is not about taking as much as you want, but taking a lot of good things first and stacking them in big plates and bowls. Excessive deforestation, overfishing of fishery resources, secretly discharging pollutants and seriously polluting rivers and air are all typical examples of "tragedy of the commons".

This kind of tragedy is staged over and over again, but it is difficult to eradicate. The root lies in the selfishness, greed and mob mentality of human nature. Today's bike sharing is also typical. It is selfish to take bicycle sharing for yourself, but when you want to use bicycle sharing at any time, you can't find it available and think, "MD, I also want to find a car to take it." At this time, you fall into the group psychology, that is, the mentality of "others are grabbing, if you don't grab, you won't have it". Before the appearance of bike-sharing, people may not have seen it clearly, but since the appearance of bike-sharing, this tragedy has been interpreted incisively and vividly, so that many people say that bike-sharing is looking in the magic mirror, exposing various shortcomings of human nature.

I am a typical pessimist. I believe that there is no way to solve these shortcomings of human nature. Unless our society can progress to a communist society, it is impossible to rely on quality. It is also difficult to pass government legislation. Not every tragedy of the commons can be solved. In view of enterprises fishing fishery resources and polluting the environment, the government may increase penalties, and it is easy to find clear targets. However, it is difficult to eradicate the phenomenon of large area and large number of people, and the damage and loss of bicycle sharing is also the primary problem that bicycle sharing must solve if it wants to make a profit.

We can look at the current situation of bicycle sharing around the world. On June 65438+1October1March this year, the Seattle municipal government officially announced that the Pronto bicycle sharing service would be terminated on March 3 1 March, and the income and promotion effect of Pronto bicycle sharing service were far below expectations. Last March, the Seattle municipal government decided to allocate10.4 million dollars to save this project. Although Citibike in new york is still running, its annual loss of millions of dollars is obviously a headache for operators. The star project, once sponsored by Citigroup with a capital of 4,654,380,000 US dollars, is now in a quagmire. In Barcelona, Spain, the Bicing public bicycle system, which was born in 2007, is given some funds by the municipal government every year for the start-up, operation and maintenance of the project. At present, the annual loss of this project is120,000 USD. In Denmark, the public bicycle project, which had been running for 17 years, was stopped in 20 12 because of profit problems; Velib is the only public transport project in France that earns a stable net income for the city, with an average annual profit of 20 million euros (about 65.438+0.5 billion yuan). However, the huge cost caused by loss and destruction still makes operators have a headache. In just 20 15 a year, 9,000 bicycles were damaged or stolen in the "Vélib" bicycle sharing system in Paris. By the summer of 20 16, 35 bicycle stations in the whole city were closed because of lack of vehicles or need of maintenance.

Judging from the bicycle sharing operation in some countries, it is a common phenomenon that the profit is difficult, and the huge cost caused by loss and damage is the main reason for the loss. The proponents of the tragedy of the commons also put forward solutions to the tragedy of the commons, one is privatization, and the other is to increase system construction through the intervention of the third party (government). As for the mode of privatization, some people proposed to adopt the long-term lease mode instead of the current one, but this mode obviously does not work in China. One of the main reasons why bike sharing is so popular in China is to solve the pain point of everyone's last mile. For example, when I go to work by bus or subway, it's still a little distance from the company when I get to the station. At this time, bicycle sharing can just make up for it. How does the long-term rental model solve this pain point? Another reason is that people can park their bicycles whenever they need them, and they don't need to maintain them themselves. They don't need to worry about where their bikes are parked or being stolen. I'm afraid this is also a sign that no one wants to be responsible. If they rent the car for a long time, they will have to bear many responsibilities for the car. It is better to buy a better bike that suits them. Therefore, the privatization plan violates the original intention of bicycle sharing and cannot be solved; Besides, the government can legislate to strengthen system construction and severely punish bicycle vandalism through the intervention of the third party, but how to track the vandalism? At least in the field of bicycle sharing, it is difficult to track, and it is too secret and random. It can be said that in the field of bicycle sharing, damage and loss cannot be solved, and the cost to the operating company is inevitable.

Look at the domestic 20 17, the huge financing event of bicycle sharing: On March 1 day, ofo announced the completion of the D round of financing of up to 450 million US dollars, setting a single financing record for the bicycle sharing industry; On February 28th, Yongan Bank announced the completion of Series A financing; On October 4th, 65438/KLOC-0, mobike announced that it had completed the D-round financing of $265438 +0.5 million ... In fact, from the current situation, these bicycle sharing is unprofitable, which I think should be recognized by everyone. If they can make a good profit, there won't be so much financing. Mobike CEO Wang Xiaofeng once said, "If I have a profit margin of 30%, why should I look for investors?"? The reason why we are still looking for investors is because there is no clear profit model. I hope that others will give me money, let me live, let us continue to develop, let us run fast, and then find a profit model together. " As for why it is chased by the capital market, it is nothing, because there has been no good innovation in the Internet field for a long time. Once you have a good idea, it is easy to be sought after. Those capitals can't always look at investment, maybe they still fail more and succeed less. Isn't the previous Didi Uber a realistic example? The previous competition was not unprofitable, and finally the capital behind them was unified? Therefore, don't think that being sought after by capital has a future.

Therefore, at present, there is no clear profit model for bicycle sharing to achieve profitability. It's just that 5 1 yuan an hour is not enough to support the company's operation, and doing public welfare is similar. There is no denying that bike sharing is a good product and should be a good public welfare product, but not every good product is profitable, and not a good product will certainly run continuously. Many people will see that the money generated by the deposit pool behind bicycle sharing has precipitated interest and income. Perhaps this is also the most promising capital. Let's take ofo as an example. 20 16, 10, C2 round of financing1300,000 USD. Together with the $450 million series D financing in March this year, these two rounds alone reached $580 million, equivalent to more than RMB 3.9 billion. Ofo said that the number of users we announced was 6.5438+million, including many registered users who refunded the deposit. The accumulated deposit pool is estimated to exceed 654.38+000 billion, and how much interest can be generated is not enough to make up for the principal of capital, let alone the capital gains. Mobike has a large amount of deposits, with an estimated deposit pool of more than RMB 3 billion, but the amount of financing for several times is similar. Therefore, it is difficult for the deposit pool to recover the principal, and the capital gains are even more distant. Moreover, the deposits of mobike and ofo are managed in cooperation with third-party banks. Especially with the attention of the state, the supervision of deposits will become more and more strict, and enterprises will not be so casual in the use of deposits in the future. Besides, there are already bicycles that don't need a deposit, such as Yonganxing. If the sesame credit exceeds 750, the deposit can be exempted. I believe that it won't be long before the bike sharing through the deposit will gradually disappear and there is no need for a deposit. There is no deposit pool at this time, and how to generate profits is a problem that must be faced.

The founder of mobike said, "If it fails, treat it as a public good". This sentence is really good. In fact, what bike sharing is doing now is a public welfare undertaking. If it is not treated as a public welfare undertaking, it will not last long and will soon disappear. However, regardless of the result of bicycle sharing, their personal success is beyond doubt and worth learning.