Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Homejoy Failed

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 342 posts

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#181

Post by dkharrat »

cm2187 wrote: post #5

The difference with Uber is that it requires a lot more trust to give someone access to your home while you're away to clean it. Not sure I would want to subscribe to a service where I would have to trust any local dude to visit my home. It's like a nanny. Picking someone to look after your kid is a very personal thing. It's not a lowest bidder thing.

Doesn't Airbnb fall in the same category? Renting out your property for a few days to complete strangers requires a lot of trust, and yet from what I can tell, Airbnb seems to have overcome this hurdle.

I do agree there was a trust issue with Homejoy (I've personally tried them once and had similar concerns). But, I don't believe the issue was that they were in an unviable business where trust can't be gained, but rather they didn't have the right mechanics in place that help develop the necessary trust between the consumer and the cleaners.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#182

Post by yaur »

akshatpradhan wrote: post #152
zippergz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In reality, inviting someone into your home is a very personal thing, and people much prefer to build a relationship with someone that they might pay a little more on a regular basis, than get a different person each time." Yes, for sure. I've had professional home cleaners for nearly 10 years now. And over the course of those years, I've had many conversations with friends and neighbors who do as well (e.g. in givi…

>I can't imagine using a service that sends someone different every time, or even someone for whom I can't see reviews and receive references before the first visit. This is a service that requires putting a lot of trust in the service provider. The alternative is if Homejoy would have treated Cleaners as employees and properly trained them. A properly trained and paid Cleaner as an employee would have provided that…

No way.

If I'm paying someone less than 100$ to come in to a place where they could walk out with $10K+ worth of electronics, jewelry, etc I either need to be there to supervise or have a long standing relationship with the person. Ideally I would like to know enough of their other clients that a single robbery doesn't make economic sense for them. Once the relationship exists the agency brings minimal value.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#183

Post by mikeryan »

enraged_camel wrote: post #63
untog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know too much about it, but just from an initial glance it seems like it is better positioned, simply by offering things like plumbers, electricians, etc - again, they aren't services you fall into regular patterns with. They're very much on-demand when there is water leaking all over your apartment. That said , I'm sure "doesn't seem to be struggling from what I can tell" could have been said about Homejoy,…

Yeah, Homejoy's demise took everyone by surprise. Unless the company is public, it's almost impossible for a casual observer to tell how healthy it is.

Anyone who followed Exec can't have been surprised by Homejoy's demise.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#184

Post by dsl »

preinheimer wrote: post #88
zippergz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In reality, inviting someone into your home is a very personal thing, and people much prefer to build a relationship with someone that they might pay a little more on a regular basis, than get a different person each time." Yes, for sure. I've had professional home cleaners for nearly 10 years now. And over the course of those years, I've had many conversations with friends and neighbors who do as well (e.g. in givi…

I gave Handy(Book) a try, and consistency in who arrived was my issue. The first person they sent was absolutely fantastic, send her every week!. Trying to book her again was a nightmare, the docs didn't match the application, and support pointed me back at the documentation. Finally a month later, after several support calls and emails, I had the same cleaner booked. Success! The morning of my appointment I looked o…

Just had the same issue with Handy. They notified my girlfriend 20 hours before an appointment that our requested cleaner was unavailable, and when we canceled charged us $15 for canceling within 24 hours.

After 4 different attempts to cancel we gave up and called American Express. They blocked Handy from charging the card again and did a chargeback for every dollar we ever spent with them.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#185

Post by larrys »

Domenic_S wrote: post #180
mikeash wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also solved a problem that's more or less already solved. Uber is great because finding a taxi can be hard, and finding a good taxi can be really hard. Finding somebody to clean your house is really easy. I must get half a dozen flyers a week for cleaning services stuck on my door. If I don't trust that, I can just ask my neighbors for a recommendation.

> Finding somebody to clean your house is really easy. Finding a warm body to drag a tepid rag around your countertop is easy, sure, but finding someone who's 1) consistent 2) always on-time and 3) not $100/hr is next to impossible. Perhaps in a large metro it's easier, but I've had basically no luck in suburban silicon valley.

"Finding a warm body to drag a tepid rag around your countertop is easy"

Back in the day I had a cleaning service that I trusted and used regularly put a wet rag on top of a CSU/DSU [1]. Not something that I ever thought could happen. Ironically the spare CSU/DSU was sitting right next to that. (Cold and ready to be put in service if the main one failed.) There were of course vents on the top. That's where the rag went. And I was near the equipment at the time (I would never let a cleaning service in where there was sensitive equipment without being onsite).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSU/DSU

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#186

Post by triangleman »

ssharp wrote: post #157
untog wrote: post #25

I think this is a demonstration of the limits in "app-ing" an industry. Uber worked fantastically because it leans heavily on the geolocation facilities in a smartphone - you're always moving, getting picked up from different places, by cars located in different places. Homejoy had none of that. You rarely move home, and your cleaner rarely does either. Effectively, from transaction #1 you're in a perfectly replicabl…

Care.com is doing similiar things with housekeeping services, although they started with matching child care providers to parents and seem to just be expanding into new verticles -- housekeeping, pet watching, etc. I think it's a good strategy. I'd rather use one app to handle those types of tasks than have to manager a Homejoy, Petjoy, and Kidjoy account.

Rover.com is great for pet sitting, and care.com is great for finding a home care provider.

However both of these sites will have the same problem as Homejoy. I used rover.com to book pet sitting just for the insurance, but after a few positive experiences, I am now booking directly with the pet sitter. Same thing happens on care.com almost all the time.

These sites are more valuable as a craigslist or angie's list competitor: Use them once or twice per year, then don't visit the site again after you've found your provider.

They should focus on making money from listing fees, insurance premiums, and being the strongest market for their respective industries at all times, so that when I go back to the site in 6 months time, I can trust that it will be just as good an experience as it was last time.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#187

Post by Tideflat »

strommen wrote: post #158

> But he said they were forced to rely on [deeply discounted first time Homejoy cleanings] heavily because of intense competition with their chief rival, Handy, which employed a similar strategy. This is one of the bizarre aspects of VC that is bad for the economy as a whole. A regular business that is aiming for profit must be careful about how much it spends on customer acquisition. A VC-backed business that is aim…

The costumers do get VC-subsidized cleaning for a while though.

(Not saying it great, but it is good for the costumer is the short run.)

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#188

Post by mrmch »

I feel like this is the founders story to tell, not some medium blog. Not that you can't learn anything from this, but Adora and Aaron have the most insight, and deserve the chance to share it (if they chose to).

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#189

Post by ionforce »

cballard wrote: post #21
forgetsusername wrote: post #7

> Adora Cheung opted to sit among employees, rather than in a swanky corner office. It's a pretty sad state when it's considered admirable and rare that the CEO of a company that is spending other people's money, and making none, doesn't have a "swanky" corner office.

No one should be sitting "among employees" - everyone should be in a private office with a door that closes.

That's a strong "should". What would the cost of such an office be?

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#190

Post by nilkn »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #173
nilkn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wage floor is way below $15/hour in much of the country, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Homejoy's pricing was static and independent of location. Does it make sense for someone in a modest cost-of-living area to be paying San Francisco rates?

> The wage floor is way below $15/hour in much of the country As a W2 employee, yes. If you're asking someone to work as a 1099 and eat their own self-employment taxes, transit costs, etc, that's going well below minimum wage.

Minimum wage W2 employees almost never get any sort of transit costs covered. If they have to live 2 hours away because that's the only place they can afford housing, then it's on them to pay for transportation there and back. They also get bottom of the barrel benefits.

Minimum wage can be as low as $7.25 for W2 employees. This calculator suggests that corresponds to only $10/hour for a contractor: http://www.rate-calculators.com/

I find ghaff's argument more compelling: people will pay more simply because they want someone they can trust in their home.

Post reply on HN