How Do You Get a Car For a Loonie?

I'm not one to judge people by their kinks... but describing an ad-covered car as "sexy" is probably the reason why I'll never date an MBA.

Blogto is turning into a shilling operation like no other...this isn't exactly "news" but or going ons may as well be a press release.

As a cyclist, I always take note of really bad drivers in company cars. I then make a mental note NEVER to use that companies product or service.
If I was one of the companies advertising on these vehicles, I would be concerned about how the behaviours of some one driving a vehicle with my brand all over it might affect my business.

Although, we're so saturated with advertising as it is, these vehicles will probably just blend in with everything else.
What an assault on the eyes.

"It benefits the environment, the consumer and the manufacturer..."

Oh, the wisdom of the passerby! It benefits the environment to require users drive a minimum of 30km per day? It benefits the manufacturer to reduce the total number of cars required to provide mobility to a given population?

I am an AutoShare user right now. It costs more than $1/day, sure, but there are per-km charges with no minimum milage (an incentive to drive less), you can offset your carbon for a minimal fee, and gas is included if you need to fill up. There are sedans, hatchbacks, vans, and sportier vehicles to choose from at a variety of price points.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a car service designed with the primary goal of increasing the number of mobile billboards on the road with (apparently) no structure promoting conservation.

While I do think that the launch of CityFlitz is "news", I am confused as to why they are being called "auto sharing", and compared to us (AutoShare) or Zipcar, rather than traditional daily rental companies? I am flattered, of course, but please: car sharing, as the industry is known, has some basic, key elements that are simply not present (as far as I can tell) with CityFlitz:
- the goal is to reduce personal car ownership
- cars are available 24/7 self-serve
- fees are primarily per hour (and/or km), although daily rates are available
- insurance coverage is comprehensive and included ($2M for AutoShare, $1M for Zipcar)
- typical trips are 3 - 4 hours

While I understand the lure of ad-based rentals (Zipcar has had some in its fleet for a while, and we are in discussions), there is so much more to "auto sharing" than putting a couple of dozen "sexy" cars into a few parking lots in the city and collecting email addresses.

That said, there are many changes coming to our love affair with the automobile, and Cityflitz is another example (although not as I can tell of car sharing). I wish them all the best.

Publisher's note: We're definitely not shilling for anyone. Are you saying this because we wrote about CityFlitz? Or is it because Roger's review wasn't negative enough?

This comment disturbs me a bit, "It benefits the environment, the consumer and the manufacturer," said Anders Cullin, 32. "It's so much more accessible, appealing and practical." Yet...they have a minimum distance expected? I dunno. What if I just wanted to rent the car to go to Ikea and back, or do a big grocery trip? I have to drive around to meet the requirement? Not very environmentally friendly.

My god that car is ugly. They would have to pay me to drive it. Couldn't they find a paint scheme that was more tasteful?

@Tim: When M6J 416 says it "may as well be a press release", I'll wager that this refers to the piece's largely uncritical (which is different from not being "negative enough") announcement-style overview of the business, including an interview the the founder but no one else beyond a chipper vox pop blurb from a random passerby.

The reader participation question at the end about ZipCar and AutoShare mitigates this somewhat, sure, but fleshing out the comparison in the post itself would have helped.

At this point, you simply can't beat the convenience and intuitive structure of Zipcar. As Kevin stated above, Cityflitz can't really be considered as an auto sharing concept just yet.

I was a member of a similar service in Spain where they had a fleet of ad-plastered Smart cars available for 9 euros per day. The advertisers were mostly small, local businesses (landscaping and real estate outfits mostly) who benefited from having their ads parked in high traffic residential areas.

Not sure I understand the rationale around the 30km minimum. Doesn't this really just promote driving for the sake of driving? Not sure that really helps the environment in any way, nor does it help to get people to click on Yahoo! ads. Would you even notice a Yahoo! car zipping by on the 401?

@Greg - Fair enough. But I suspect Roger wasn't aiming to finish the conversation, but rather provide enough info to start it....which by the looks of it seems like he's done.

This is a great idea for those who live in teh city and don't really have vehicles and you can't really beat the price but I bet there are many people waiting to get on a list to rent one of these cars?

"Not sure I understand the rationale around the 30km minimum."

@Darlene: Cityflitz's rentals are subsidized by the advertising that envelops their cars. The 30km minimum is presumably to ensure that that the advertiser's message is out and about for long enough for that subsidy to provide a minimum value (in terms of exposure) to the sponsor. Make no mistake, this is first and foremost an advertising platform, not an environmental initiative.

@Tim: Starting the conversation is good, but providing more grist for the mill (e.g. getting comments from other services into the main article, or suggesting a basis for comparison) would make it seem less like a perfunctory gesture or a shortcut to avoid rounding out the article by assembling a broader perspective on the subject. Without this, the post is vulnerable to complaints (like m6j 416's above) of cheerleading.

This isn't new and not exactly a good offer! Forget about a $1 a day rental fees as there have been companies for YEARS that pay people to place ads on their own private cars, which is a much better deal if you ask me. I have an ad on my car that was attached by a company named BoldCar (www.boldcar.com) and they pay me a few hundred bucks a month to drive around with the ad. But that's not the only company out there.

I think this idea is wrong for a dense city like Toronto. I think it would be better recieved and more effective in the suburbs.

The people I know who use zipcars or autoshare use it to buy groceries or to go to ikea. Not 30 kms of travel.

Relocate to Oshawa, Mississauga, Brampton, Guelph, Kitchener, and open it up to younger people with six months of G2 driving, then you'll have a real success.

Presumably if you don't hit the 30km limit you don't get the $1 price. If you choose to drive around aimlessly to hit it, it is you who is being environmentally irresponsible, not the company.

Driving 30 kilometers in the city isn't that hard. A trip to Ikea on The Queensway in Etobicoke from Toronto Eaton Centre is 16 km, so you'd easily exceed 30 km in a day with one such return trip.

A similar distance and another likely scenario is a return trip from downtown to York University.

If you don't hit the 30 kilometer minimum requirement per day, you get a warning. The $1/day price still stands.

If you fail to meet the minimum requirements after three times, you aren't allowed to continue to use the service.

This makes sense. At least from an advertiser's point of view. People tend to rent cars when they need them. Not just for going to the grocery store and back. That's what taxis are for. :)

or maybe you can drive around in circle in loblaw's parking lot to hit the 3okm requirement

@ stef - good idea. Judge a company by their drivers. As a bicyclist who drives, and has a realistic perspective, that was just dumb.

@m6j 416 - BlogTO is a blog. They can do whatever the fuck they want. Go comment at the Toronto Star.

To rent a car, CityFlitz members must be at least 23 years old and have a valid "G" driver's license as well as a credit card that includes rental car insurance coverage. Damn! Not even Craigslist has Cars for a Loonie.

I don't think it's a dumb idea. I am a driver as well.

If you are driving a vehicle with a brand name/company logo, you are representing that name. If you drive like an asshole on the road, you represent that company in a negative way.

People tend to rent cars when they need them. Not just for going to the grocery store and back.

Umm. That's exactly what people rent Zipcar or Autoshare cars for.

And Wifi in the car = more idiots on the road not paying attention. Fabulous.

@Tim > Publisher's note: Are you saying this because we wrote about CityFlitz? Or is it because Roger's review wasn't negative enough?

Tim, what I am saying is that the story was incomplete at best, if not misleading (to call cityflitz "Toronto's newest auto-sharing company", so clearly a cut & paste from their press release. In fact, yes, it is bordering on a shill.)

I have invested my life into building AutoShare over the last 10 years, and before that the Co-operative Auto Network in Vancouver, to establish an alternative to owning a car in our city (and, to create a living for myself and my team). I take exception to the use of "auto-sharing" to describe something that is not car sharing, not yet operational enough to answer critical questions - and quite frankly, ya didn't fricken call me to discuss this either, so no wonder you cut & paste from their press release (check out the other stories online).

You react to my note, yet fail to address my points.

I am not against more competition, or someone doing something new & innovative - I'm just saying that cityflitz is not providing a similar service to that of AutoShare, nor Zipcar. They are renting cars by the day, like Budget (but for very little money). And you are helping them to appropriate the term car sharing, which they are not.

@Kevin: CityFlitz calls itself an auto-sharing company. If you've got a problem with that, take it up with them. It's car sharing or car renting, no matter how you slice it. Without getting into a debate over semantics, I think this city has room enough for all types of business plans, including your own.

I'm not merely reiterating what's on their press release. I hope to encourage discussion and provide a forum where our readers can judge for themselves how useful this new service is to them, what ever it's called.

Thank goodness there are fine companies like CityFritz to make sure advertising is *absolutely everywhere you look* or the economy would certainly collapse and we'd all be slaves in some Chinese-owned Export Zone.

(Yahoo is still around? Why?)

If you've got a dollar to spend and don't want to spend it "in a snazzy, souped-up ad-mobile plastered with obnoxious slogans for a day," as The Toronto Star suggests, check out some other ways to spend a dollar.

Any better ideas?