Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work. This case is just one small example in their long and well-documented history of sociopathic behaviour, and they still are around and happily growing.
Some % of their customers did vote with their wallet, the Delete Uber campaign was measured to have a significant impact and it's most likely what motivated them to have a very large cleanup of their executives after all the scandals. Yes, still growing, but that changed their growing curve and gave larger marketshare to Lyft.
https://www.vox.com/2017/11/8/16617798/uber-delete-uber-lyft...
Customer activism can still have some impact at scale.
Why the OP did not decide to switch out of Uber after this incident also baffles me, but to each their own. Crazy how people will let a multi-billion dollar corporation do anything to them and will keep giving them money.
Uber is customers voting with their wallets... because they're cheaper than Taxis! Here, we're simply facing the unfortunatey reality of network effects / moats (barriers to entry).
>Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work.
How is this not a perfect example of the "customer voting with their wallet"? Maybe its not the vote you or I would have made. Clearly the customer values continued access to the network more than buying new clothes once. That is a vote for Uber's shitty [;P] business practices.
