????就在我的老家紐約正從颶風桑迪的余波中逐漸恢復過來時，硅谷卻掀起了一場完全不同的輿論風暴：大家紛紛發出質疑，電子叫車應用Uber在紐約的“峰時價格”（surge pricing）到底是漫天要價，還是在試圖平衡供需。

????Uber是靠算法立家的公司，善于用數據和事實來回應輿情。不過，尤其是在災害肆虐的非常時期，人們更想聽到的是同情，而不是數據。我不覺得Uber會趁著颶風剛過就準備大發利市，但我確實認為，在以后類似的非常情況下，它應該考慮采取幾個舉措。

????Uber的企業文化中有些方面讓我想起了早期的谷歌公司（Google）。Uber也十分推崇數據和算法。就像其首席執行官特拉維斯?卡蘭尼克會強調的那樣，Uber的秘密武器就是能把響應時間縮短到最小值的算法。能做到這一點，靠的是“路徑規劃”（routing，即司機應該趕到何處）和一個定價模型。需求大增的時段，比如節假日和周末的晚上，這個模型能讓價格“迎峰上漲”（surge）。

????Uber的說法是，司機都是自由人。這點我覺得說的在理。如果他們私下接客能賺得更多，他們當然會為這些客人服務，而不會成為Uber的用戶。但Uber顯著提高了他們在高峰期的收入，因此激勵司機成為Uber圈子里的一員，甚至讓這些司機延長已經夠長的工作時間，多拉幾位客人（可以把這看成是加班費）。這就是供需規律怎么作用的原理，跟一個人是否讀過《阿特拉斯聳聳肩》（Atlas Shrugged，蘭德最著名的小說，是“繼《圣經》之后對當代美國人影響最大的一本書”—譯注）無關。

????Uber不是一種非盈利的公共服務。它是一家為愿意埋單的客戶提供增值服務的公司。因此，它需要在其運營的城市遵循不斷變化的各種規章制度。迄今為止，它已經在波士頓、華盛頓特區和芝加哥惹出過一些事端。這一點值得另文闡述，不過我的總體感覺是，有些管理工作是合理合法的，旨在保障乘客安全，維護公平的競爭環境。另外一些則純屬一些交運公司放出的煙幕彈，它們一直無需面對競爭，用差勁的服務也能混得不錯。

????所以，作為一家私營企業，“峰時價格”主要是為了讓Uber的用戶在路上能攔到更多的車。而Uber自己則既能從中直接（因為他們能從車費中分成）受益，又能間接獲益（提高其服務對司機和乘客的吸引力）。這是一個具有兩面性的價值主張，Uber需要好好管理：司機需要覺得付給他們的車費夠多，而乘客則要求獲得的舒適度和速度物有所值。如果需求足夠大，Uber就能成功。否則它就算失敗了。我本人經常使用Uber服務，多數是用來在舊金山和紐約叫車從市區去機場。但還是先回過頭說說桑迪吧……

????颶風剛過，紐約的Uber就開始執行一套旨在增加供應（司機）以滿足需求（乘客）的措施。可能對Uber來說，它就沒有一本“人類災情應急措施”手冊。所以災難當頭之際，它還是照老一套辦。其中就包括了實行2倍的峰時價格。由于公眾對這種漫天要價的做法大為不滿，公司只得一邊照舊付給司機2倍報酬，一邊只收乘客1倍的費用，致使公司每天要多花10萬美元的成本（實際上也就是補貼了市場）。隨后它又恢復了峰時價格，不過表示不會拿自己那份分成——多收的錢也都歸司機。

????While my hometown of New York City recovers from the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, there's been a different verbal maelstrom here in Silicon Valley: The question of whether Uber NYC's "surge pricing" is gouging or simply an effort to balance supply and demand.

????Uber's an algorithm-driven company which responds to emotion with facts. However, especially in times of distress, people want to hear empathy, not data. I don't believe Uber set out to maximize profits in the wake of a hurricane, but I do think there are several steps they should consider in future extraordinary situations.

????There are aspects of Uber's culture which remind me of early Google (GOOG). Uber believes in data and algorithms. Its secret sauce, as CEO Travis Kalanick will note, are algorithms that attempt to minimize response time. It does this through routing (where should drivers be) and a pricing model that allows prices to "surge" during periods of intense demand such as holidays and weekend evenings.

????The company's argument, which I believe to be valid, is that its drivers are free agents. If they can get better rates with their private clients they will seek to service that market and not Uber patrons. Uber effectively increases their take-home pay during surge moments in order to encourage a driver to work within the Uber pool, or even extend their already long day to pick up a few more passengers (think of it as the price of overtime). This is how supply and demand works, regardless of whether you've ever read Atlas Shrugged.

????Uber is *not* a nonprofit public service. It is a company selling a premium service to customers who choose to pay. As such it will need to play within the evolving rules and regulations of the cities in which they operate. To date this has caused some issues in Boston, DC and Chicago. It's worthy of a separate post, but my general feeling is that some of the regulatory efforts are legitimate and aimed at passenger safety and a level playing field. Others are purely smokescreens from incumbent transport companies who have been able to get away with providing crappy services in the face of no competition.

????So being a private company, of course, surge pricing is generally about getting more cars on the road for Uber customers. And Uber benefits from this directly (since they take a cut of fare) and indirectly (strengthening the general appeal of their service for drivers and riders). It's a two-sided value proposition that Uber needs to manage: Drivers need to feel like they're getting paid enough and passengers want enough comfort and speed for their dollars. If there's enough demand, Uber succeeds. If not, Uber fails. Personally I use Uber occasionally and mostly for city-to-airport travel in SF and NYC. But back to Sandy....

????In the storm's wake, Uber NYC implemented a set of decisions meant to increase supply (drivers) to meet demand (passengers). Uber probably didn't have a "what to do in a human tragedy" playbook and instead ran its normal operating procedures. This included putting 2x surge pricing into effect. In response to public outcry over gauging, it continued to pay drivers the 2x but charge passengers 1x, costing the company $100k/day (effectively Uber was subsidizing the marketplace). Then it put the surge back in place, but said it wouldn't take their share of profits -- all money would go to the drivers.