Ofo offline operation and maintenance recruitment

Production | track conversion innovation

Recently, People's Daily published a report "People's Direct Attack: Why should I wait for 736 years to refund the deposit?" ",let the little yellow car that once" disappeared "return to the public's field of vision again, and the former style has become disgraceful.

According to a report by China News Service on August 3, almost all public channels, from official website, official WeChat accounts, clients to offices and suppliers, can't find the trace of ofo, which seems to "vanish".

Behind the "disappearance" of ofo is a pile of heavy and lengthy debts.

As of August, there were more than160,000 users waiting to refund the deposit. According to the minimum 99 yuan calculation, the deposit owed by ofo to users is as high as 654.38+06 billion yuan. At the same time, the main operator of ofo, Dongxia Datong (Beijing) Management Consulting Co., Ltd., has a total execution target of about 536 million yuan, and the unfulfilled amount accounts for about 95% of the total amount.

Starting from a beautiful ideal, the popularity of bicycle sharing could have brought infinite possibilities to the sharing economy model because of the capital-driven explosion. But in just five years, once an entrepreneurial star and capital darling, ofo has fallen from the peak to the bottom like a roller coaster, ending in a fiasco.

In all business innovations, burning money is not terrible, and it doesn't matter if you try it wrong. The terrible thing is that there is still no breakthrough innovation in the end, and it will eventually lead to the end of the road.

Bicycle rental in "Internet vest"

A few years ago, Lei Jun had a tuyere theory: standing on the tuyere, pigs can fly.

As a pioneer of bicycle sharing, ofo is a lucky dog in the field of sharing economy. In 20 14, Dai Wei, a young man from Peking University, and his four friends put forward a beautiful idea of "solving the last mile trip problem with sharing economy and intelligent hardware", and jointly founded a new Internet company ofo, which operates campus bicycle business in a platform sharing way.

During the period when the sharing economy prevailed, ofo ran ahead of the wind, took the lead in seizing the market and became the leader in the capital spring.

In 20 17, ofo raised more than 7 billion yuan in just half a year, and laid out more than 30 cities across the country, quickly attacking the city. Dai Wei, the founder of holding capital, began to "spend money like water" and rented a whole four-story office building directly in Beijing Ideal International Building, which shows the heroism of ofo.

In the same year, when the domestic market set off a wave of national cycling, ofo began to enter overseas ambitiously and opened up markets in nine countries.

Ofo has not yet made a real domestic market, and it is obviously an unrealistic and crazy expansion to enter overseas with great fanfare.

At that time, ofo also won the "National Best Business Model Innovation Award" selected by relevant domestic institutions.

However, hidden dangers have surfaced.

On 20 17 and 10, many users complained that they had to pay a car deposit of 199 yuan for using ofo, but they bought a non-refundable "59-year-old card".

The ofo deposit page says "59 yuan car for one year", but it is optional. After clicking in, "59 yuan car for one year (free of deposit)" and "199 yuan deposit (refundable)" appear side by side.

Therefore, the user's complaint reason is: click to enter the deposit payment page, and you should not put the annual card on the deposit page and set the default options. Isn't this equivalent to kidnapping consumption?

Ofo's operation mode is to make profits through cooperative OEM (such as Tianjin Flying Pigeon, Shanghai Phoenix and other established bicycle manufacturers producing bicycles for it), and then put them on the market in large quantities, charging C-end users fees (deposit and time-sharing rental fees).

In the viewpoint of track transfer innovation, we should establish fruitful and benign relations with external partners, and, like real partners, encourage stakeholders to "build together" to realize new value propositions.

The cooperation between ofo and suppliers is still a traditional OEM, staying at the level of economic cooperation.

Since the birth of bicycle sharing, this model has been questioned as "pseudo-sharing economy". Chase, the "originator" of the sharing economy, defines the sharing economy as an economic phenomenon in which idle physical resources or cognitive surplus are shared through a social platform, services are provided at a marginal cost lower than that of professional organizers, and the right to control and use resources is separated.

The concept of sharing economy lies in sharing without possession, maximizing the use of resources, thus creating more social value.

But in essence, what bicycle sharing does is actually a traditional lease, not a real sharing model. As far as "idle resources" are concerned, bicycle sharing is not the case. Ofo and its main competitor, mobike (later acquired by Meituan) both adopted the asset-oriented model of renting their own bicycles.

The essence of sharing economy is to connect the two ends of supply and demand, which is itself a light asset model. For example, Didi, sharing taxis, express trains, and hitchhiking. They are not the assets of Didi, but idle vehicles from society. Didi is just a platform connecting the two ends of supply and demand.

In any Internet company, no one wants to be "heavy". However, driven by capital and stifled by competition, ofo and mobike both go astray and invest more bicycles to support the B2C rental model. In fact, it "violates" the real logic of the sharing economy.

After financing, the car-making shared by bicycles has become more and more crazy. Because it must constantly put in the number of bicycles to occupy the market, and then get more financing from the capital market to continue to write its own entrepreneurial story.

When the capital began to retreat, the entrepreneurial story disappeared. Before the success of the bicycle sharing revolution, it fell into an infinite cycle of "pseudo-sharing economy".

Compared with the sharing modes such as shared travel (such as Didi), shared office (such as Youke Workshop) and shared rental (such as Airbnb abroad), ofo people are like bicycle rental in the "Internet vest", but they are just "variants" of the traditional rental mode, which is not much different from the public bicycle rental scattered on the streets of cities in the past.

Orbit change innovation believes that ofo has not achieved real "orbit change" and has not made breakthrough innovations in business models and ecosystems.

Breakthrough innovation is essential to create the market. China enterprises need to change from market penetration to market creation in order to establish new competitive advantages.

Investors "have no income" and there is no solution to their profits.

Success is quick and failure is quick.

When bicycle sharing is bathed in rainbow-like scenery, the crisis of ofo has already begun-at the end of 2065438+07, Dai enthusiastically pushed bicycle sharing to overseas markets, and investors began to "eat too much".

After burning money for several years, investors are impatient. At this time, ofo has not found a profit point.

"At the beginning, everyone rushed forward and harvested the market and users at the fastest speed. During this period, everyone is actually looking for a balance between cost and income. In addition to charging users, they also tried other ways, such as advertising. Regrettably, everyone did not find the answer. " The resignees of Ofo reflect on this.

Can bicycle sharing be profitable? This problem has not been solved.

For the sharing economy model itself, it is necessary to share idle resources and make profits at the same time. Any enterprise, profit model is the key to survival. But for ofo people, making money or not seems less important.

At first, many bicycle sharing brands started with blood transfusion from investors. But mixed together, you have to pay it back. A business model that never makes money is unsustainable after all.

In fact, when ofo was popular in the university campus, someone counted the operating cost of ofo on the unnamed BBS of Peking University, and found that each car needed to invest about 3 yuan's management cost every day.

According to its calculation, if the daily turnover rate of each bicycle is about 6 times, the daily income of each vehicle is 3 yuan, which is equal to the management cost, and calculated according to the 0.5 yuan of each vehicle. If damage, loss, etc. are included. Then ofo will definitely lose money. The actual operation and maintenance cost is much higher than that of 3 yuan.

If it is feasible in theory to alleviate the operation and maintenance cost by raising the price, it may actually lead to the loss of users and it is difficult to increase profits.

Investors seem to realize that the profit model of bicycle sharing has no solution in the short term. However, the arrogant Dai Wei still sticks to his ideals and refuses the opinions of investors. In any case, he will continue to do ofo.

20 18 1 1 When ofo was caught in internal and external troubles, Dai Wei still said tragically to employees, "Even if you kneel, you must live." But the fact is that ofo was seriously short of money at that time.

Later, in the face of huge supplier arrears, unpaid user deposits, large-scale business contraction and layoffs, Dai Wei finally realized that "money" was really a big problem.

What is terrible is that ofo has never found a suitable profit point in the exploration of the sharing economy model and cannot digest the high cost in the process of bicycle operation. However, the large-scale expansion failed to bring enough scale effect to ofo, and naturally failed to support bicycle sharing.

A seemingly beautiful business model cannot create new value.

Orbit-changing innovation believes that if model innovation can't excavate and construct new value propositions, which often appear in unknown fields, so that enterprises can achieve quantum growth and inclusive growth, then the real orbit-changing innovation practice can't be realized.

Mode innovation, no "combination boxing"!

Does the sharing economy have a future?

2065438+In August 2009, WeWork, an American shared office space, launched its initial public offering-so far, this unicorn with a valuation of 47 billion US dollars wants to go public. It has been burning money for many years before.

However, WeWork still said that it is not expected to make a profit in the foreseeable future. If we want to make a profit, we may need to spend more on increasing the cost of leasing and controlling, which will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the growth rate of WeWork.

Undoubtedly, seeking IPO also means circling money. However, more importantly, under the asset-oriented model, profit is still the biggest problem that plagues the shared office industry.

Is there a better way to explore when the sharing economy is shrinking?

Mao Daqing, a real estate celebrity, founded Youke Workshop on 20/0/5. After several years of exploration, it is focusing on the strategy of ignoring assets. Instead of being a "second landlord", try the model of "light assets+ecological connection".

It is understood that Youke Workshop has completed cooperation in more than 30 light asset projects nationwide, covering Beijing, Shijiazhuang, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Xi 'an, Urumqi, Hulunbeier and other cities, expanding business cooperation in the fields of Internet, artificial intelligence, design and culture, and serving customers such as medium-sized enterprises and international companies.

Its operation logic is: based on management output and service customization, it incites the expansion of industry model and transforms it into the service fission of the whole value chain of office.

It can be seen that Youke Workshop relies on the shared ecology and related rich formats to create profits that outperform the market average for the asset side, and also shorten its own profit cycle.

By the end of 20 18, Youke Workshop had participated in more than 50 enterprises through incubation, merger and investment, and initially formed an ecological community with shared office space as the core and industrial chain partners.

This is actually in line with the essence of the sharing economy: weakening ownership, releasing the right to use, revitalizing idle assets in a more efficient way, and maximizing the use of every social resource.

In the first half of 20 19, Youke Workshop also completed the integration of wedo Lianchuang and Songhe Incubator in Shenzhen, and its annual revenue exceeded 1 100 million yuan, making a profit for the first time. This may bring a glimmer of light to the sharing economy.

Back to bike sharing. Ofo did not run the sharing economy model, and the most important problem was the lack of systematic innovation.

Originally, it found a market in bicycle sharing, but it didn't open a new track and history-except for a lot of burning money and excessive expansion, ofo has never found the "possibility" of sharing economic model in the subdivision of bicycle sharing. With the outbreak of problems such as capital fracture, supplier debt collection and management confusion, there is no way out.

Breaking the continuity of the development of things and leading the innovation of completely different organization and operation modes, including service mode, production mode, cooperation mode, business mode and operation mode, is the connotation given to mode innovation by rail transit innovation.

Looking back at the operation of ofo in these aspects, there is almost no big innovation, and there is nothing to look forward to. It took off quickly with the upsurge of sharing economy, but then it fell rapidly.

It's not that ofo doesn't work hard and doesn't want to succeed, but that he lost himself on the journey of sharing economy and couldn't find the way forward!

When the capital ebbed, I found myself swimming naked. Now, Dai Wei, who is listed as a faithless person ("Lao Lai"), has completely given up and gone home to be a "dad"!

However, for many small yellow car users, going to ofo headquarters to queue up for refund, binding Alipay number and refunding deposit shopping has become an endless war: the phone can't get through, and the online customer service queue exceeds 65,438+10,000 people ... Some users joked, "At this rate, I have to wait another 736 years to refund the deposit."

"Now, ofo is still in charge? What can we do except wait? " Such doubts are equally helpless and unsolvable.

Planning/Implementation: Transition Innovation China Team

Editor/Coordinator: Julie

Typesetting/Design: Shao Zhen