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

271–280 of 342 posts

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#271

Post by rkho »

hammock wrote: post #46
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…

I use a service called Handy (app-based home cleaning and handyman). It works fine. And doesn't seem to be struggling from what I can tell. https://crunchbase.com/organization/handybook/ edit: I'm in Chicago

Handy's software is atrocious. I went to change a recurring cleaning schedule and they presented me with a modal pop-up to keep my cleanings at 50% off. I agreed, and my future cleaning pricing all showed up at $43/cleaning.

My next cleaning comes around, and I'm hit with a $101 charge. The receipt literally says "Price: $101, Discount: $58, Total Charged: $101". I end up having to go back and forth over Twitter DM because they refuse to respond to my emails and pick up their phone to get my charge adjusted. I ask if the remaining three cleanings that I was signed up for would honor the $43 price reflected in my account summary. They said yes.

The day before the next cleaning, I get hit with the same $101 charge. Again, I reach out to them and spend about three hours going back and forth finding out that the "last representative did not provide the right information", and that I need to "show the coupon code (I) used" (there wasn't one). I ended up getting my service cancelled for good.

Terrible. Never again. I'd rather pay a premium for a real cleaner to show up.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#272

Post by ssmoot »

Goopplesoft wrote: post #248
matchagaucho wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, is a "one time referral fee" business model the key to success? This is effectively the yellow pages model, where cleaners pay for leads via advertising placements, and own the long-term relationship with the customer.

Is it working for http://www.angieslist.com/ (assuming thats their model)?

Seems to?

I dunno. My success rate was 25% at best. Found a few contractors I really liked and kept contact info for. And had a half dozen that only used the "deals" to try to land big remodeling jobs.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#273

Post by xmly »

As a customer of homejoy and handy, first of all I have to say Handy is cheaper and better UI. Second, the key of the business success is about Quality of Service. If you can not control it, you will not succeed. For Uber, their service quality control is much simpler. The skills of the driver has been qualified by DMV. People only care about whether they arrived where they want. I do not care too much about the condition of the car as long as it is not full of shit.

For home cleaning, it is much harder. My experience with Handy or HomeJoy's service is really bad. I am not picky person, but I can see the persons they sent are not working well. And it is my house, so I care a lot!

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#274

Post by ScottWhigham »

fab13n wrote: post #209

Am I fair if I sum the business model as follows? Homejoy: * proposed a service best provided by employees, * planned to save money by using independent contractors, * but had no plan about addressing any of the consequences of using independent contractors.

The service is "best provided by people who have experience doing that thing", be they employees or contractors. There's no value to any one of the three parties (Homejoy, customer, contractor) in the cleaner being an "employee". It's not bad/good; it's just not a factor in this situation. Do I care, as a homeowner, that the person coming from Homejoy is an employee or a contractor? It's likely that I prefer them to be an employee but, if the price is right, I could care less...

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#275

Post by function_seven »

robotresearcher wrote: post #270
jonknee wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well one easy way would be to not charge a cancellation fee when you don't provide the agreed upon service!

Did/does Handy promise to provide a particular individual?

They may or may not. I don't know. But there is a means of requesting a specific person, and they obviously take it seriously enough to send notifications.

But it's not good customer service to notify your client that their request can't be accommodated when it's too late for them to do anything about it. If the notice was prior to the cancellation-fee period, then sure, charge the fee if canceled within 24-hours. But if you give me late notice, at least allow me to late-cancel in return.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#276

Post by jpatokal »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #267
EdiX wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Uber driver could rob you or worse, but they would also be guaranteed to get caught, so they probably won't do it. I think you are picking on a rather objective and dispassionate observation about incentives to take a grandstanding against classism, I appreciate the sentiment but the execution is flawed.

Guilty as charged. But those cold dispassionate observations can inject casual bias as well as heated comments. That was what was galling. The 'oh you know how the domestic help is always stealing stuff' injected casually was more than my bs-meter could handle.

...except that your strawman there isn't even close to what philh actually said.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#277

Post by [deleted] »

function_seven wrote: post #275
robotresearcher wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did/does Handy promise to provide a particular individual?

They may or may not. I don't know. But there is a means of requesting a specific person, and they obviously take it seriously enough to send notifications. But it's not good customer service to notify your client that their request can't be accommodated when it's too late for them to do anything about it. If the notice was prior to the cancellation-fee period, then sure, charge the fee if canceled within 24-hours. Bu…

[deleted]

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#278

Post by pbreit »

jpatokal wrote: post #253
pbreit wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's wrong everywhere I've lived and traveled. With non-recurring trips (pretty much everything except commuting), you almost never migrate to a single provider. The advantages of tapping into a pool of providers is too great. In house-cleaning, there are no advantages to tapping into a pool, and in fact people are leery of it.

Consider the single largest market for limousine services: businesspeople traveling to and from airports. These people absolutely will pay extra for a reliable, no-surprises ride from a person they know, plus they know in advance exactly when they will travel. Uber offers little to no advantage for this group. Uber's advantage comes from catering really well to ad-hoc, short-hop travel, but this is a different market…

Right. The person said "taxis". And the limo market is tiny compared to the Uber opportunity.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#279

Post by robotresearcher »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #268
robotresearcher wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can Handy survive in the real world where workers reasonably call in sick with less than 24 hours notice if their customers behave like this?

Figuring that out is kind of integral to Handy's business model. they're essentially playing matchmaker between customer and service provider, which means their business begins and ends with customer service. If you pay for Bob to come over and clean your kitchen because you know Bob does great work, it's perfectly reasonable for me to call you up and say, "Bob's sick today, can I send Jed over instead?" But it's als…

I agree that is a better level of service. But it may be reasonable if that's the agreement we already entered into.

Here is the relevant clause from the Handy TOS:

"Handy cannot guarantee that the same Professional will be scheduled for each Recurrent Service appointment"

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#280

Post by robotresearcher »

function_seven wrote: post #275
robotresearcher wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did/does Handy promise to provide a particular individual?

They may or may not. I don't know. But there is a means of requesting a specific person, and they obviously take it seriously enough to send notifications. But it's not good customer service to notify your client that their request can't be accommodated when it's too late for them to do anything about it. If the notice was prior to the cancellation-fee period, then sure, charge the fee if canceled within 24-hours. Bu…

I checked the TOS and they do not guarantee the same individual.
Post reply on HN