I used Zipcar for a couple of years but in the end found it too inconvenient for my use case (lots of high-mileage multi-day trips). Since I hate traditional car rental places as much as the author I ended up just getting a car, which has been considerably more expensive (but also more convenient) than the old Zipcar.
Near the end of my time with them, I really felt Zipcar was trying to reduce costs... the cars started getting older, they were poorly maintained, and as the service increased in popularity there didn't seem to be a commensurate increase in number of cars available. I wonder if this was just my local neighborhood experience or if those sorts of problems are widespread.
I think his suggestion #3 (more competition) is sort of the crux of all the problems. Zipcar is the only game in town, doing what they do. If you don't like them, your only resort is taxis or daily rentals (or owning your own car).
The solution is for someone to compete with Zipcar, but that might be made difficult by the sweetheart deals they've made in some metro areas (reserved parking spaces on streets in key areas). Municipalities should keep in mind the dangers of creating a monopoly when they hand out those deals -- not to discourage them from doing it, but making sure that they give any future competitor the same access to the market.
In San Francisco, there is a competing service called City Car Share. There was also FlexCar, which Zipcar absorbed.
I was initially a member of City Car Share because they had better prices. Also, they kept giving me bonus deals for cheap day long car rentals. I ultimately switched because Zipcar had far more locations and better cars.
As a counterpoint to this article, when I lived in San Francisco I had an amazing experience with Zipcar. Cars were always available and there were locations everywhere. There were cool cars like BMWs and useful vehicles like trucks. Once I ran out of gas on the 101 and Zipcar sent someone out to help, no questioned asked. The guy on the phone acted like it was Zipcar's fault that I forgot to fill the tank!
I've been less pleased with Zipcar in NYC because there aren't enough cars near where I live. However, there is so much public transportation, I've not had as much of a need.
I originally chose I-GO because of the insurance issue. I had read that Zipcar's included coverage was minimal and I-GO's coverage was more comprehensive. I generally don't have any of the problems that were mentioned in the article other than people returning a couple minutes late sometimes.
Without knowing how common these problems are, it's really hard to say how much this sort of stuff affects the average user. Reading through the list of problems, I had a momentary freaked out feeling that made me think I'd never use the service, but the author still loves zipcar, which makes me think these problems aren't all that common. Or, not common enough to outweigh the benefits of using the service.
Still, it's nice to hear a fan of a service talking about problems with it. It's very considerate to mention the problems with something whenever you recommend it.
Thanks for the kind words @rauljara. I do indeed love Zipcar and as I mentioned I gave up my personal auto for the service. I'd say the percentage of "bad experiences" for my usage is probably less than 10%, but it is significant enough that you should know that if you become a serious Zipcar user you will run into bad experiences more often than you might think (and they never come at a good time...)
"...if a Zipster before you didn’t report their scratch and dent (and the Zipster after you does), that you’ll end up on the hook for the $500 damage deductible for something you didn’t do since you didn’t do the walkaround and report the damage"
It seems like the author is really stretching for things to complain about. If you neglect to inspect the vehicle for damage prior to driving it, what do you expect?
Yes, but since Zipcar is meant for renting very often but for short lengths of them, I can definitely see how checking it every single time would get tedious. Imagine if you had to inspect your car every time you drove it.
Also, where I live, the Zipcars started to get really beat up and were generally in terrible shape (see my other comment). If you reported every scratch, dent, and problem you'd be calling in every car you rented.
I agree with you that it's inconvenient, but I can't think of an alternative that would be fair to both Zipcar and the renter. If I let Zipcar inspect the car and take their word that there's no damage, I'll be on the hook for $500 if they miss something. On the other hand if they trust me that I didn't damage it, they lose money if I'm lying.
As an aside, I generally do a quick walkaround on my car before driving away. Check for low tires, see if somebody banged their door into it, etc. For my motorcycle there are even more things I check each ride for safety reasons. It's inconvenient, but worth it I think.
Most of the complaints are about the Zipcar clientele rather than the service. For example, it is impossible to make sure that cars are returned in time with more than a quarter tank of gas unless you have some mechanism for controlling the vehicle remotely if a driver is deliquent...which would only drive up insurance premiums and make the service less attractive for a lot of people. I like the emergency Zipcar idea but that really hurts the margins (maybe they can actually afford it, I don't know.)
The only thing that seemed to be their fault was the reservation cancellation because of routine maintenance...but then again routine maintenance does not mean scheduled maintenance. So it is possible that the proximity card reader stopped working or there was a flat tire or some other urgent matter.
Maintaining and renting cars remotely is a crazy difficult service to provide and yet they pulled it off. I would hardly call these flaws Zipcar's "darkside" although they could definitely improve in some areas.
Competion would improves this space in two ways. The standard more innovation, better features, blah blah blah way. But for this type of rental car service the more companies there are the better selection for the consumer because you are more likely to have a car in close proximity. It isn't feasible to put a Zipcar everywhere, but if more companies start trying to compete then at least some of them will put cars where Zipcar is not, which means you don't have to walk 1+ miles if you live in downtown Palo Alto :)
14 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 26.0 ms ] threadNear the end of my time with them, I really felt Zipcar was trying to reduce costs... the cars started getting older, they were poorly maintained, and as the service increased in popularity there didn't seem to be a commensurate increase in number of cars available. I wonder if this was just my local neighborhood experience or if those sorts of problems are widespread.
The solution is for someone to compete with Zipcar, but that might be made difficult by the sweetheart deals they've made in some metro areas (reserved parking spaces on streets in key areas). Municipalities should keep in mind the dangers of creating a monopoly when they hand out those deals -- not to discourage them from doing it, but making sure that they give any future competitor the same access to the market.
I was initially a member of City Car Share because they had better prices. Also, they kept giving me bonus deals for cheap day long car rentals. I ultimately switched because Zipcar had far more locations and better cars.
As a counterpoint to this article, when I lived in San Francisco I had an amazing experience with Zipcar. Cars were always available and there were locations everywhere. There were cool cars like BMWs and useful vehicles like trucks. Once I ran out of gas on the 101 and Zipcar sent someone out to help, no questioned asked. The guy on the phone acted like it was Zipcar's fault that I forgot to fill the tank!
I've been less pleased with Zipcar in NYC because there aren't enough cars near where I live. However, there is so much public transportation, I've not had as much of a need.
http://www.igocars.org/
I originally chose I-GO because of the insurance issue. I had read that Zipcar's included coverage was minimal and I-GO's coverage was more comprehensive. I generally don't have any of the problems that were mentioned in the article other than people returning a couple minutes late sometimes.
Still, it's nice to hear a fan of a service talking about problems with it. It's very considerate to mention the problems with something whenever you recommend it.
It seems like the author is really stretching for things to complain about. If you neglect to inspect the vehicle for damage prior to driving it, what do you expect?
As an aside, I generally do a quick walkaround on my car before driving away. Check for low tires, see if somebody banged their door into it, etc. For my motorcycle there are even more things I check each ride for safety reasons. It's inconvenient, but worth it I think.
The only thing that seemed to be their fault was the reservation cancellation because of routine maintenance...but then again routine maintenance does not mean scheduled maintenance. So it is possible that the proximity card reader stopped working or there was a flat tire or some other urgent matter.
Maintaining and renting cars remotely is a crazy difficult service to provide and yet they pulled it off. I would hardly call these flaws Zipcar's "darkside" although they could definitely improve in some areas.
Competion would improves this space in two ways. The standard more innovation, better features, blah blah blah way. But for this type of rental car service the more companies there are the better selection for the consumer because you are more likely to have a car in close proximity. It isn't feasible to put a Zipcar everywhere, but if more companies start trying to compete then at least some of them will put cars where Zipcar is not, which means you don't have to walk 1+ miles if you live in downtown Palo Alto :)
There is a whole whack of competition in the one day plus trip markets - rental cars in general.