Uber is on the defensive after the New York Times claimed that it manipulates drivers using techniques from behavioral science in order to reduce costs and increase corporate growth. The company did not refute that it uses psychological incentives, but instead focused its response on a claim in the April 2 article that faster pickup times for riders require a greater percentage to be idling unpaid.

This is simply not trueand had the Times asked us whether it was, we would have explained the reality of what happens when Uber grows in a city: riders enjoy lower pick-up times and drivers benefit from less downtime between trips, Ubers director of policy research, Betsy Masiello, wrote in a blog post.

In order to avoid long wait times for customers and surge pricing (which automatically kicks in when demand for rides is higher than usual in an area), Uber has to make sure enough of its drivers are workingand does so using techniques that are sometimes ethically questionable, the New York Times said.

The article claimedthat Uber engaged in an extraordinary behind-the-scenes experiment in behavioral science to manipulate them in the service of its corporate growthan effort whose dimensions became evident in interviews with several dozen current and former Uber officials, drivers and social scientists, as well as a review of behavioral science.

According to the article, Ubers tactics are similar to ones used by video game designers and have included:

Even though drivers can decide when they want to work, Ubers techniques are potentially problematic because they can manipulate drivers into working longer hours or undesirable locations without guaranteeing higher income, while benefiting the companys bottom line.

Furthermore, becauseUbers drivers are contractors, they lack the protections and benefits that employees get, and are therefore more vulnerable to exploitation.

Masiello writes, however, that Ubers practices have actually resulted in less idle time for its drivers:

First, as the number of passengers and drivers using Uber grows, any individual driver is more likely to be close to a rider. This means shorter pickup times and more time spent with a paying passenger in the back of the car. In addition, new features like uberPOOL and Back-to-Back trips have meant longer trips, while incentives to drive during the busiest times and in the busiest locations help keep drivers earning for a greater share of their time online. And that should be no surprise: drivers are our customers just as much as riders. So although the Times article suggests that Ubers interest is misaligned with drivers, the opposite is true: its in our interest to ensure that drivers have a paying passenger as often as possible because theyre more likely to keep using our app to earn money. (And Uber doesnt earn money until drivers do.)

Though other tech companies, likeLyft and Postmates, use similar tactics to get more work out of their contractors, the New York Times article comes at an especially bad time for Uber. The company has never been viewedas a paragon of good corporate practice, but its reputation has arguably reached an all-time low over the past few months after a deluge of PR crises.

These include the revelation that it used a software tool called greyball to prevent regulators from taking rides, the #deleteuber social media campaign, reports of rampant sexual harassment, a video of founder and CEO Travis Kalanick berating a driver who was upset about dropping fares (Kalanick later apologized and promised to seek leadership help) and its ongoing court battle with Waymo, which claims Uber stole trade secrets.

Read more:
Uber responds to the New York Times article about how it psychologically manipulates drivers - TechCrunch