????現(xiàn)在至少有三家公司宣稱從優(yōu)質(zhì)投資者手里拿到了投資,，用來發(fā)展P2P汽車分享模式。它們分別是RelayRides,、GetAround和Wheelz,。我想有人可能認(rèn)為，這些公司是ZipCar模式的進(jìn)一步演化,。ZipCar模式已經(jīng)存在很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間了,。不過它與P2P孰優(yōu)孰劣，這是一個(gè)比較困擾我的問題,，因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為P2P模式能夠提供的只是一個(gè)中期的解決方案,，而ZipCar提供的才是一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期解決方案。我的想法如下：
????1．無論是ZipCar也好,，還是那三家公司也好,，它們要解決的都是同一個(gè)問題——汽車是一種昂貴的資產(chǎn)，但是利用率卻較低,。兩者采用的解決方案都是相同的：也就是將資產(chǎn)的成本分?jǐn)偟蕉鄠€(gè)用戶身上,，同時(shí)提高這項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)的利用率。讓我們大膽設(shè)想一下,，在最理想的情況下,，這一理念的未來會(huì)是什么情形：人們是否還會(huì)買車，自己仍舊很少使用,，然后把它租出去,？抑或人們不再自行買車，因?yàn)榇蟛糠謺r(shí)間都用不著,，而是轉(zhuǎn)而與很多人共同使用共享的汽車資源,？我認(rèn)為后者更有可能，而這也正是ZipCar努力的方向,。
????2．P2P模式會(huì)不會(huì)被自身的成功所累,？（如果它成功了的話）我們?cè)賮矸治鲆幌拢喝绻@種模式成功了,，那么下次消費(fèi)者在考慮購(gòu)買新車的時(shí)候,，由于現(xiàn)在有了別的用車來源，他們就可能選擇放棄買車,。不過如果很多人都這樣想的話,，那么社會(huì)上共享的車源就會(huì)越來越少，而且可使用的車源也大都是年久失修的老爺車,。服務(wù)的質(zhì)量必然會(huì)下降,，除非這些公司開始擁有和投放自己的戰(zhàn)略儲(chǔ)備車源。那時(shí),，這些做P2P的公司就變成ZipCar了,。
????3．我認(rèn)為房屋分享公司AirBnB的成功促成了汽車P2P的興起,。不過我認(rèn)為兩者存在很大區(qū)別。原因如下：首先,，我認(rèn)為AirBnB的用戶更容易感受到安全感和掌控感（盡管最近媒體也報(bào)道了一些諸如租客將房屋洗劫一空的慘?。?。房主可以直接與租客見面，甚至如果租客租用的是閑置的單間，租客入住后,，房主還可以繼續(xù)待在自己的房子里。而汽車就不同了,，只要讓別人開了你的車,，你就會(huì)覺得存在一定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。車主對(duì)租客篩選得越嚴(yán)格,，潛在的租客就越少,，汽車資源的使用率就會(huì)降低。
????4．另外,，這些P2P的汽車公司還得算一本與AirBnB不同的經(jīng)濟(jì)賬：如果車主把車分享出去,，每年可以賺到多少錢？值不值得費(fèi)這個(gè)事,？比方說某人每年把車出租100次,，每次出租3小時(shí)，每小時(shí)租金7美元（假設(shè)車主自己可以拿到6美元）,，那么車主一年可以獲得1,800美元的租車,。也不算很少了，但值不值得,？而且這個(gè)利用率已經(jīng)算很高了,。我想，對(duì)于資產(chǎn)的所有人來說,，按15到20美元的價(jià)格把自己的愛車出租一次,，和以100多美元的價(jià)格把房間出租一晚，感覺是非常不同的,。另外,，房屋和汽車各有各的租金上限，這是它們的屬性決定的,。比如對(duì)于短租來說，ZipCar的10美元/小時(shí)就是最高的了,。如果長(zhǎng)租的話,，就是Hotwire公司等租車機(jī)構(gòu)給出的價(jià)格。而如果房主在AirBnb上出租房屋,，長(zhǎng)租房的最高租金上限可能達(dá)到每周5,000美元以上,。也就是說房屋的租價(jià)上限遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于汽車,。
????5．也許P2P模式在某些小眾市場(chǎng)上的確是行得通——比如專用車輛或者豪華車，此外它還可以滿足部分地區(qū)的需要,，它們因?yàn)槿丝诿芏炔蛔?，無法支撐ZipCar等公司的服務(wù)?；蛟S這個(gè)市場(chǎng)空間已經(jīng)足以容納汽車P2P的發(fā)展和擴(kuò)張,。此外，我們也得承認(rèn),，P2P業(yè)務(wù)的資產(chǎn)成本的確要低得多,。因此，在某些ZipCar因成本問題而難以開拓的地區(qū),，P2P模式可能的確會(huì)有市場(chǎng),。
????總之，我的上述論斷也可能全然錯(cuò)了,，完全看走了眼,。汽車P2P可能會(huì)在低端市場(chǎng)形成某種顛覆。但是與傳統(tǒng)的買車相比,，ZipCar的租車成本已經(jīng)低到了讓人難以置信的地步,。我并不確定這種顛覆是否會(huì)改變汽車分享業(yè)的發(fā)展方向,，我這里不敢妄下斷言,，不過我正在試圖更深入地理解這個(gè)商機(jī)。當(dāng)年Netflix公司剛剛起步時(shí),，我覺得他們簡(jiǎn)直是瘋了,；此外，我還認(rèn)為教科書租賃網(wǎng)站Chegg也只是一項(xiàng)中期創(chuàng)新（但是現(xiàn)在看來,，他們?cè)跀?shù)字化轉(zhuǎn)型的道路上走得都很成功）,。所以請(qǐng)大家各抒己見,，以便我可以深化對(duì)這個(gè)問題的思考。
????本文作者Rob Go是投資公司NextView Ventures的共同創(chuàng)始人,，該公司是一家種子投資公司,，主要關(guān)注互聯(lián)網(wǎng)創(chuàng)新,。他曾供職于星火投資公司（Spark Capital），博客地址是www.robgo.org,。
????譯者：樸成奎 |
|
|
????There are now at least three companies that have announced funding from excellent investors pursuing a P2P car sharing model: RelayRides, GetAround and Wheelz. I think there is a sense that these companies are the next evolution of ZipCar (ZIP), which has been around for a long time. But, this is a confusing case for me because I actually think that what P2P models propose to do is much more of an intermediate solution vs. a long term solution. And the long term solution already exists in ZipCar. Couple streams of thought on this:
????1. The problem both companies are solving is that cars are expensive and under-utilized assets. The solutions are the same: Spread the capital expense across multiple users, and increase the utilization of the asset. Let's fast forward to the "ideal" future of this vision. Is it one where people still buy cars that they rarely use and rent it out? Or is it a world where no one really buys a car they don't need, and just utilize shared resources with lots of people? I think it's the latter, and that's what ZipCar is trying to do.
????2. Doesn't the P2P model become a victim of its success (if it is successful)? Again, if it works, then the next time consumers are thinking of buying a new car, they will decide not to because other options are available. But if that's the case for lots of people, then there will be fewer and fewer shared options available, and the ones that are available will be older clunkers. The service will inherently degrade, unless the companies start owning and operating their own strategically placed vehicles. And then, presto! You have ZipCar.
????3. I have to imagine that the rise in these models is brought on by the success of AirBnB. But I think it's very different for a couple reasons. First, I think there is a bit more perceived safety and control with AirBnB (even after some of the disasters that have been reported). You can actually meet the person you are going to be renting to, or you may even still be in your apartment while they are sharing the spare room. It feels like a bit more risk to give someone the ability to just drive off with your car. The more screening that you enable, the smaller the pool of potential drivers, which will reduce utlization.
????4. The economics are pretty different from AirBnB. How much money can you really make sharing your car, and would that be enough to make it worth your while? If someone rents our their car 100x per year, 3 hours per time, $7/hour (assuming the owner keeps $6), that equals: $1800. Not nothing, but is it really worth it? And that is very high utilization. I think it's very different to assume people will rent their cars for what might be $15-$20/session vs. renting out a spare bedroom for $100+/night. There is also a pretty natural price ceiling on these rentals. For short-term rentals, it's ZipCar's $10/hour prices. With long-term rentals, it's what you can Hotwire with the rental agencies. With AirBnB, you have the potential for long term rentals that can be $5000+ per week. The price ceiling is just much higher.
????5. Maybe there are niches where this makes sense – like renting specialty/luxury vehicles, serving geographies that aren't dense enough for services like ZipCar to exist. And maybe that's enough to get scale and expand. Also, it's true that the capital expenditure is much much less in a P2P business, so again, maybe there are areas where this model will work that are cost prohibitive for ZipCar.
????Anyway, I could certainly be wrong here and just missing it. Maybe it is a low-end disruption of some sort. But the total cost of utilizing a ZipCar is already ridiculously low compared to the cost of owning a car. Not sure if this disruption is really going to move the needle. I'm not placing a stake in the ground, but I'm trying to understand this opportunity better. I thought Netflix was crazy when it started, and I also think Chegg is a intermediate innovation as well ( but they seem to be transitioning to digital pretty well). So please discuss so I can further my thinking on this.
????Rob Go is co-founder of NextView Ventures, a seed-stage investment firm focused on Internet-enabled innovation. He previously was with Spark Capital, and blogs over at www.robgo.org |
