People of a certain age refer to paper tissues as "Kleenex" and machines that clean rugs as "Hoovers". These may only be the brand names of the original products that dominated these markets but many of us will still pick up a Dyson and call it a Hoover.
The original successful developer of a product or service may always have a unique marketing position but that does not mean it will have a monopoly sales position.
And so be it with Uber.
Transport for London banned Uber in the city earlier this year because it was not "fit and proper" to hold a private hire operator licence but the ban will not take effect until all appeals have been rejected. A quick Google search reminds you that anti-Uber action is not just a UK or even European phenomenon. Existing providers of taxi services don't like having Uber in the market and are using all sorts of legal muscle to weaken it.
However, weakening Uber is not tantamount to reducing market demand for sharing economy solutions.
Carlson Wagonlit this week became the first TMC to sign an agreement with Lyft, the second largest ride-sharing service in the world, although it's not really the world — Lyft operates only in the States. While Uber's expansion strategy was to gain a footprint in as many countries in the world as possible as quickly as possible, Lyft has focused on increasing penetration into every corner of the US. Despite its size it does not at present operate outside the States although last week Lyft announced that it would begin next month to operate in Toronto.
The relationship with CWT should be huge for Lyft, especially as it looks forward to a float in 2019. Despite some multinational organisations having global agreements with the likes of Avis and Hertz most ground transport supplier partnerships have been locally based and therefore fragmented. According to GBTA figures 94% of all US business travel spend is on domestic trips — that's an awful lot of travel spending for any company before thinking of the need to provision in Burma, Benin and Bulgaria.
However, this is not the time for travel managers to forget about Uber. If nothing else the cases brought against Uber and, to a more limited degree, Lyft illustrate that traditional suppliers are not going to make the going easy for these disruptors without a fight. This is a good reminder of the need not to neglect ordinary corporate governance best practice which in the rush for savings can sometimes be forgotten.
Companies may be based elsewhere and operate from a different culture or to different regulations but what matters is what the corporate needs in terms of risk and operational checks and data requirements.
The larger the supplier, the greater the likelihood of rogue incidents but checking procedures need to be employed and followed whether suppliers are large or small, domestic or global.
It's not what a supplier chooses to tell you, it's what you incorporate as questions into your corporate governance.