Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 258 posts

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#71

Post by enumjorge »

> The redirect number can also appear higher in Google search results (including the Google panel for that business) than the restaurant’s own line.

This seems like a pretty fundamental failure on Google's part. The whole value proposition of Google is that they'll find you the best answer for you search, not just 'an' answer that could be misinformation. This is the problem with the way their ranking algorithms tend to favor information aggregators. It's easy for second-hand sites to out-rank the source of truth. It reminds me of the way Pinterest has degraded the Google image search experience by polluting the results with their own low-quality entries.

Now I get that automating the gathering of this information must not be easy. How do you verify the legitimacy of any one page claiming to be the site for a restaurant? What I don't understand is how Google can see that sites like Grubhub are exploiting the ranking algorithm to re-route users, but they don't do anything about it. Why don't they penalize those sites?

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#72

Post by Dylan16807 »

CharlesW wrote: post #46
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you can absolutely do your first businesses model as long as you don't claim to actually be McDonald's your fine. The issue here is they agreed to allow GrubHub to pretend to be them. You'd never get that deal with McDonald's since they'd just not agree to it since they know it's a horrible idea but tons of people running restaurants don't understand they are getting a raw deal.

> The issue here is they agreed to allow GrubHub to pretend to be them. Sadly, that's false. GrubHub is a bad actor. https://www.eater.com/2019/10/30/20940107/grubhub-to-add-res...

Those aren't the restaurants paying a fee. Non-partner restaurants are going to get full menu price.

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#73

Post by Nextgrid »

caymanjim wrote: post #52

It's possible to do this without resorting to the sleazy practices of Grubhub. I used to work for Slice, which provides order-taking (but notably not delivery) for mom-and-pop pizza shops. They don't add people to the platform without their permission. They only charge $1/order. They help restaurants digitize their menus, keep prices up to date, and they take orders digitally and over the phone. They have a large and…

The "problem" is that it doesn't "scale" and there is not much opportunity for "growth" and "engagement", so VC scum will never do something legitimate like this and will instead attempt fraudulent practices like impersonating the restaurant's website and outranking them.

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#74

Post by chongli »

julianeon wrote: post #31
MattGaiser wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The due diligence is because the restaurants offer a terrible experience. Most still do not have an independent online ordering function. They want me to call. Most still haven't set up meaningful profiles on Yelp and other review sites. So I would need to root around to find contact information. That is in addition to needing to give my credit card over the phone, not knowing how long the order will take, and needin…

I don't understand why this isn't treated like domain name hijacking, though. Suppose you want to go to McDonald's. I buy the McDonald's domain name. I put a credit card form on my site, and I "deliver" McDonald's to you. I charge a $40 surcharge for the privilege. There is no way in hell that McDonald's would have to go begging at realmcdonald's.com because of my shenanigans. They'd have no patience for this bullshi…

They'd get McDonald's.com fast enough to make your head spin, and I'd be pushed out of that business.

If McDonald's were a mom & pop restaurant and you were a multi-billion dollar, VC-backed startup, then you can be sure McDonald's would not be able to do this so easily.

That's the difference.

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#75

Post by ponker »

mrighele wrote: post #53
MattGaiser wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The due diligence is because the restaurants offer a terrible experience. Most still do not have an independent online ordering function. They want me to call. Most still haven't set up meaningful profiles on Yelp and other review sites. So I would need to root around to find contact information. That is in addition to needing to give my credit card over the phone, not knowing how long the order will take, and needin…

Why do they ask the credit card number? I would expect to pay on delivery on a portable POS with card or phone. Safer for both.

So they can charge you if you never pick your food and they have to throw it out.

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#76

Post by cwhiz »

obibring wrote: post #26

Its astonishing delivery services have the depravity to dupe customers trying to help a hurting industry. If you live in NYC or SF, I built a browser extension that will help you place delivery orders directly with local restaurants. It currently compares the price of your delivery across all delivery services, and within the next week, will link you to local restaurant websites if one is available. For those interes…

This is a great service also:

https://www.eatnyc.org/

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#77

Post by Dylan16807 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #22
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when you’re fraudulently impersonating a business The article suggests diners are calling numbers from the GrubHub app. If that’s the case, the commission is earned per the agreement. Practically, the app provided discoverability. When it appears on Google or Yelp results, assuming Google or Yelp aren’t being compensated and disclosing this relationship, that is a problem.

This is a fair distinction to point out. Edit: Removed an interpretation of the situation that was inaccurate

They can't both lack permission and charge a single business. If they're charging, they have permission (though possibly the contract was misleading). If they don't have permission, they have no ability to charge.

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#78

Post by mdoms »

schoolornot wrote: post #14

If GrubHub brings awareness to your restaurant that turns into an order why shouldn't they be compensated? You may not like the commission. Don't like it, leave. The only case I think is a step too far is if GrubHub uses their search rank to display results above a non-participating restaurant and attempts to extort commissions by displaying a proxy number anyway. Is there any evidence of this? If a customer decides…

So the only case where you think it's a step too far is if the company is doing the thing that this article is about them doing?

Re: People think they're calling restaurants directly but Grubhub is getting a fee

#79

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #77
toomuchtodo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fair distinction to point out. Edit: Removed an interpretation of the situation that was inaccurate

They can't both lack permission and charge a single business. If they're charging, they have permission (though possibly the contract was misleading). If they don't have permission, they have no ability to charge.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN