Uber State College Market Research

© 2015 Penn State Consulting Group LLP, a Pennsylvania limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the PSUCG network of independent member firms affiliated with PSUCG International Cooperative (“PSUCG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 304443

1

Table of Contents

1. Background2. Management Decision Problem3. Objectives4. Approach/Data Collection5. Study Design 6. Data7. Analysis8. Conclusion & Recommendations

Background MDP Objectives Approach Study Design Data Analysis Conclusion


2

Background

•  Launched in February, 2015•  Minimal marketing towards attracting

new drivers (partners)•  Demographic analysis of current

drivers indicated the average partner age was 35 years old.

•  Despite having cars and meeting the requirements (21 or over, 4 door vehicle 2005 or newer, insurance) of a becoming an Uber partner, undergraduate and graduate students weren’t signing up.



3

Management Decision Problem

How can Uber create a scalable model for undergraduate and graduate recruitment to

take to other college markets around the US.



4

Objectives

Build an ideal profile of a potential student Uber partner considering factors such as:

•  Major•  Age•  Degree•  Course load•  Job preferences

While comparing them to:•  Socioeconomic factors•  Demographic factors•  Personality traits

Through mostly primary market research.



5

Approach

Survey conducted with a Typeform sent to 500 students (undergraduate and graduate/doctorate) via:•  Sorority and Fraternity Facebook groups•  Class Listservs•  Org/Club meetings•  Kern & MBA Commons

Total of 393/500 completions (78.6%) with 102 meeting Uber partner requirements (26%):•  21 or over•  4 door vehicle•  2005 or newer



6

Study Design

Survey to 500 students consisted of 38 questions including:•  Screening questions

•  Age•  Vehicle ownership

•  Personality traits•  Like/dislike of driving

•  Educational Factors•  Degree•  Course load

•  Socioeconomic Factors•  Household income•  Student loan amount•  Grants/Scholarships



7

Study Design



8

Study Design



9

Study Design



10

Data


Brand AwarenessQualification Rate

Total Respondents Vs. Qualified After Screening Questions:

•  102/393 Respondents Qualified (26%)


11

Analysis


Descriptive Analysis

Average number of hours worked:•  16.7 hours

Would you be willing to work weekends?•  Mean = .87

•  (0 indicates “Never”; 1 indicates “Sometimes” and 2 indicates “Always”)

•  Population are generally not willing to work during weekends or if they do, they are only willing to do it sometimes

Factor Analysis

Respondents Not Seeking Employment Vs. Course Load:•  Course Load Mean = 2.12

•  (1 being light, 2 being moderate, 3 being heavy)

•  Involvement Mean = 3.44•  (1 being very uninvolved, 2 being

uninvolved, 3 being neither, 4 being involved and 5 being uninvolved)

Above respondents compared above group to the question “Who pays for your tuition?”•  Mean = 2

•  (Scale of 1-3, 1 being scholarship, 2 being parents, 3 being both)

•  These students don’t need to worry about paying tuition, so they don’t need to seek additional income/employment


12

Analysis


Discriminant Analysis

Compared people pursuing a graduate degree versus undergrad and course load, and involvement level•  Course Load Mean = 2.27

•  (1 being light, 2 being moderate, 3 being heavy)

•  Involvement Level Mean = 3.50•  (1 being very uninvolved, 2 being

uninvolved, 3 being neither, 4 being involved and 5 being uninvolved)

•  Assume that grad students have a high involvement with more real world work or have families. Therefore, we assume that grad students do not have enough time or do not need the money.

Discriminant Analysis

Demographic Data (Gender, On/Off Campus, Degree, Course Load, Involvement) Vs. Personality Questions•  Provided the mean for each group•  Means compared to determine most important

factors•  Male and female mostly valued the same

things, namely monetary compensation•  Females valued job security over monetary

compensation

•  Discriminant analysis conducted to separate classes and examine their response to corresponding factors.

•  On versus off campus compared•  Monetary compensation was most important for

on campus with a value of 4.61•  Job Security (4.49) and Job Flexibility (4.39) were

most important for ff.


13

Conclusion & Recommendations


12.8% of people surveyed were aware of

Uber’s existence

28.4% of PSU’s undergraduate

population is eligible to drive based on Penn

State Fact Book

26% of survey are eligible to drive for Uber considering vehicle and age requirements


14

Conclusion & Recommendations


Target students that qualify to be employed by Uber, whose parents pay for their tuition, and who are not seeking a job.

Target students that do not have a job, however, are seeking a job.

Target students that have a job but want to take on more hours.

Target students that have a job, do not want more hours, but could possibly have a job change over if convinced.

PENN STATE CONSULTINGGROUP

© 2015 Penn State Consulting Group LLP, a Pennsylvania limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the PSCG network of independent member firms affiliated with PSCG International Cooperative (“PSCG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 304443

The PSCG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

Business

Uber State College Market Research