While many marketers have struggled to show the return on investment potential of social media, its power was very evident this past weekend. After President Trump issued the Executive Order banning refugees and immigrants from seven nations last Friday, NYC taxi drivers went on a protest strike at JFK Airport from 6pm-7pm ET Saturday.
The ride-sharing service Uber decided they would not impose surge (higher) pricing during the strike. The Uber management team claims it was to assure people a ride would be waiting for them. But its ridership, which leans decidedly progressive, looked at this tactic as Uber trying to break a strike and cash in on the situation.
Uber riders responded by quickly bombarding their social channels with the hashtag #DeleteUber, alongside a call to delete the app from phones.
Uber’s competitor Lyft, by comparison, sat back and watched this Uber disaster unfold. By Sunday morning they issued the company would be donating $1M over four years to the ACLU in support of its many drivers and riders who are immigrants. They didn’t send out an impersonal Tweet; they sent a carefully worded email and blog post.
It’s crystal clear from a marketing perspective that Lyft understands its demographic, Uber does not. Ridesharing occurs primarily in large cities and blue states. Lyft also is sensitive to the thousands of its drivers who are recent immigrants, to the U.S. Uber appeared not to be. Lyft realizes that sometimes it’s better to be second to the market, and to strike when your big competition falters.
