Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Zipcar, Haringey's car club operator, to be bought by Avis
The global car hire firm Avis Budget has agreed to buy Zipcar, the world's biggest car-sharing firm, for $500m (£307m).
Avis hopes to complete the purchase of Zipcar during early 2013.
Although this buy out may have no effect whatsoever on Haringey's car club that is run by Zipcar, it may be worth noting for future reference.
Full story on the Avis purchase on the BBC website
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Having rentable cars handy to one's doorstep is a good idea, but I believe the council orginally misled about the character of the enterprise.
In Haringey People magazine, the idea was sold as a "club" and something that the council itself was promoting. Rather than some form of social enterprise, it was and is a variation on regular car rental.
It should have been made plain that it is a purely commercial operation, like Avis, and this is now clearer, the business having changed hands now twice.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, you say you "believe" that the Council "misled" residents by promoting the scheme "as some form of social enterprise". I assume you’ve dug through the original Haringey material about Streetcar and have some reference to this misrepresentation. Please could you post the link to the evidence?
I’ve been unable to find any suggestion that it was a social enterprise. Or even that you or anyone else were unaware this was a commercial operation.
In fact, looking at HoL for 29 November 2010, I came across this comment from you:
“Good luck to the original builders of the scheme: they deserve their good fortune for spotting the gap in the market. If crystalising their original investment is ‘throwing in the towel’, I'd be happy to throw in the towel in this way!”
"By all accounts of actual users, it is a good service. I suspect that it’s going to be much less costly for me.” And that: “As an occasional critic of Haringey, I would say that if they had anything to do with facilitating this service, it shows that occasionally, even our Council can get things right.”
Perhaps you’re offended by the mergers and acquisition process? Well that’s monopoly capitalism for you.
-
-
Hi Alan and thanks for your questions about the council's misleading on the nature of the business. I continue to think that its a good idea, but Haringey People magazine was misleading about this business and even though the form of words "social enterprise" were not used, that was the implication.
It's not really a "club" is it? I've heard of chess clubs and tennis clubs, but car rental "clubs" ?!
Since my original effusive comments, I joined the "club" and was a bit taken aback about the insurance cover, about which they don't go into detail at the outset. I remained a member for 12 months, I didn't use it once and left.
I don't rule out rejoining Streetcar/Zipcar/Avis at a later date. But honestly, it is not a club!
I assume you’ve dug through the original Haringey material about Streetcar and have some reference to this misrepresentation. Please could you post the link to the evidence?
Yes, here's a screen shot of the council's publication Haringey People, from February 2009 (page 7) at the time of the launch of the scheme:
-
Permalink Reply by LSquared on
-
Car club is the generic name for this type of business.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/smarterdriving/7549.aspx
I was a member of streetcar way before the Haringey deal and it was always called a car club. I don't think there is any intention to deceive - it's a club in the same way a snooker club is a club.
-
-
I'm not sure the TfL imprimateur is enough to create the genus "car club". Was not a key advisor to TfL or the Mayor a director of Streetcar? Could there be a connection?
It's an interesting suggestion that the clever marketing term car 'club' is a generic term. If generic means general or widespread, this seems at odds with the local exclusive monopoly awarded to a single franchise. (I suspect that no other model would have worked, but (a) "club" is misleading and (b) overall, the public may not be getting a great deal
There is not generic car club competition, only comptitition with established regular car rental companies, who don't have access to such sweetheart deals and may find the cleverly marketed car "clubs" to be unfair competitition.
Clubs tend to be owned or controlled by the members (and they tend not to be fantastically profitable). Zipcar is a club in the same way that Avis is a club: not at all!
-
-
What I am trying to explain is that this was the term in use long before the Haringey People article. Fair enough, it was new to you but that doesn't mean you were deliberately mislead any more than you would be if you signed up to a snooker club, wine club, night club or Tesco's club card. It's a club because it's members-only.
As to competition, while Zipcar may have the monopoly on on-street parking in Haringey, there is nothing to stop anyone with a private parking place offering it to another car club. In fact, before streetcar got the Haringey deal that was the only option. My nearest one was on a private drive near Hermitage Road.
Speaking as a non-car-owner and a long term user of both traditional car rentals and car clubs, they are quite different offerings and more complementary than competitors. Car clubs compete with taxis, man-with-a-van and private car ownership.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Good point, re different markets. Zipcar are expensive if you want to rent on a daily (or longer term) basis. But at £5 or £6 per hour including petrol they are often far better value than a Minicab.
Given Avis's traditional market it will be interesting to see if they come up with a local and economical longer term rental deal - for weekend rentals say. Maybe wishful thinking on my part!!
-
-
My point was not about how long the term "car club" has been in circulation, it was about the council's magazine mispresenting who owned the "club" - and whether they should have engaged in as much promotion as they did.
This is in the context of the original thread topic, of Zipcar being bought by Avis for $0.5 billion.
I suggest that "a new car club scheme being launched by Haringey Council" and "the council will be introducing more than 40 car club vehicles at locations around the Borough ..." is misleading as to the nature of the ownership of the business.
This wasn't just council endorsement of a private business: the council implied it was their own business. Should the council not have derived more from the benefit they bestowed on a single favoured operator?
An alternative to Zipcar/Avis, and possibly cheaper and better, is Whipcar, which doesn't enjoy council-subsidised parking. A friend is a member of both Streetcar/Zipcar and Whipcar. The owner of the Whipcar he rented said that he (the owner) got his motoring for free!
With Whipcar private owners rent out the use of their own car so its more like a club than traditional car rental.
I think car "clubs" are a thoroughly sensible idea and will suit many car users perfectly. But this arrangment with the council was surely a sweeter sweetheart deal than it needed to be?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Alan, do you know what the commercial arrangement is between Zipcar and the council? Clearly is a highly profitable business. Do they pay one way or another or running their business from our parking spaces?
-
-
No Idea. Try Cllr Nilgun Canver, whose remit includes parking and transport.
Alternatively this could be an interesting comparative Freedom of Information Act question or set of questions. Especially if someone's comparing different deals in different places.
Initially I thought commercial confidentiality may block that route. But clearly not. Here are the answers supplied by Westminster to an F.o.I. question in 2009.
-
-
The council's relations with business (including property developers) are often opaque and covered by "commercial confidentiality". I understand that advertising in Haringey People (delivered to every household in the Borough) is normally expensive.
I remember noting the contrast in advertising in the 2012 February/March issue this issue between two particular marketing promotions.
On the inside front page, there's a full page colour ad for a private hospital (attached). Although I was a little surprised to find such an ad in the Labour publication, the ad will surely have been paid for by the company concerned.However I note that that on page 22, there is a full page promotion for a commercial operation that appears to be part of the editorial copy. Should the council's blandishments for their favoured company not have included mention of the insurance aspects? Was all this fair to the company's competitors or to other potential advertisers? Was this in effect a subsidy to the business, now to be owned by Avis?
- Attachments:
![haringey_people_feb-march_2012 [2].pdf](https://static.ning.com/socialnetworkmain/widgets/forum/gfx/fileicons/pdf.gif?xn_version=539796025)
-
-
As far as I can see that ad has all the costs that from my experience a member is obliged to pay.
I am not sure what "insurance aspects" you are worried about. There is a potential charge of £750 in case of an accident for which one can optionally buy a waiver: this is absolutely bog standard for traditional car hire as well and you do not have to pay it. I have always chosen not to take it. i have had two very minor accidents (puncture, broken wing mirror, no one else involved) and was charged nothing in each case.
When it comes to the council subsidising businesses, I am far more concerned about planning decisions and the conveyor belt taking housing benefit directly into landlords' pockets than whether Zipcar could be squeezed down from £5 per hour to £4.93 if Haringey weren't giving them the local monopoly.
Frankly I doubt Zipcar is hugely profitable yet. A quick google suggests 2012 is the first year they have made a profit. Avis are buying to get in for the future and to prevent one of their competitors getting it.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
