>E Umbrella doesn’t appear to charge users an unreturned umbrella fee so most users just end up keeping their rentals.
That's hilarious. They basically invented an umbrella shop. A loss making one by the looks of it.
That's hilarious. They basically invented an umbrella shop. A loss making one by the looks of it.
2. Umbrellas are just the first step. First it was umbrellas, but next they'll do water bottles, etc.
3. Amazon didn't make a profit for the first 10 years, they're just focusing on growth.
4. It's recurring revenue, so it's actually worth more than one-time sales.
5. They're not an umbrella company, they're a tech company.
Like I mean they all seem like stupid reasons that are used to justify loss-making companies that have no chance at success. At the same time, for the right company, they are pretty logical reasons. That said, loss-making umbrella shop really seems like a better explanation than a "a growth focused tech company with massive economies of scale, recurring revenue, and huge potential in a wide variety of other markets."
What if you had...VR umbrellas?
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!
Well given that their tech-y umbrellas seem to cost more than normal ones and aren't returning anyway maybe they should just use normal ones while they're working out the kinks in the business plan. Cost cutting measure so to speak.
--Management consultant
It doesn't mean they are going to replace it. The 60 yuan probably factor in cost like manpower etc rather than just the cost of the umbrella.
So like some of the readers pointed out, it could possibly be a good way to sell umbrellas whilst crying out wolf that they are losing money as a way to prevent copycats