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

311–320 of 342 posts

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#311

Post by pbreit »

matchagaucho wrote: post #244
jkyle wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Effectively, from transaction #1 you're in a perfectly replicable pattern - Cleaner X comes to your house every Y weeks and works for Z hours. This is the key failure. Anyone's whose regularly procured cleaning services knows the dance. You find a reputable cleaning service, they send out a cleaner. If you don't like them, you keep asking for a different one. When you find one you like, you ask them what they'd cha…

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.

Basically for every category you have to really try and figure out what the customer needs are, the service dynamics, how to put together a proposition, etc.

Office By Q is a good example of really trying to understand customer needs and putting a compelling proposition into the marketplace.

For in-home cleaning, there might be a middle-ground. I could see trying out a few cleaners to be useful and selecting a favorite. Or maybe 2 different cleaners with different specialties rotating. But for just scheduling the same person at the same time, you can't really count on taking an ongoing cut.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#312

Post by datashovel »

a3voices wrote: post #310
datashovel wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think within the next 5-10 years companies that require scale like Google, Facebook, etc. will be possible at very low cost. Low enough even that the project can be bootstrapped without funding. They of course won't start out at that scale, but given the ease with which one can scale cloud products (or have it done automatically for you via things like Elastic Beanstalk) and how cheaply it can be done, I w…

Well that's true that it's low cost. The difficulty I'd run into is how to get people to actually use it without spending on advertising.

I don't think the big problem will be trying to get people to use the system.

I think the whole thing (especially with social networks) rides on just how hard they want to fight to keep their users' data off of other networks.

If, for example, Facebook decides to prevent other social networks from pulling user data off of Facebook, then I think that will in large part drive end users' desire to find alternatives.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#313

Post by quanticle »

gaius wrote: post #203
quanticle wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a side note, I wonder why the reporter bothered changing the name of the co-founder of Handybook in that piece. From the remainder of her description (e.g. the mention of a Harvard MBA and the experience at McKinsey) I was able to determine that "Ajay" was actually Umang Dua, after about two minutes on CrunchBase and LinkedIn.

He comes across as pretty sleazy in the article.

All the more reason to name the co-founder. I disagree that a co-founder has the same right to privacy as an employee. Employees can claim that they're following rules or policies, and that any sleaziness on their part is due to the constraints they're operating under. A co-founder has no such excuse. He or she sets the policies. If the company behaves sleazily (as it did in this article), it's due to the policies and culture that they've created.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#314

Post by a3voices »

datashovel wrote: post #312
a3voices wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's true that it's low cost. The difficulty I'd run into is how to get people to actually use it without spending on advertising.

I don't think the big problem will be trying to get people to use the system. I think the whole thing (especially with social networks) rides on just how hard they want to fight to keep their users' data off of other networks. If, for example, Facebook decides to prevent other social networks from pulling user data off of Facebook, then I think that will in large part drive end users' desire to find alternatives.

Well there's that too. But to get people to use a new social network in the first place, you either need to hope for a viral effect or spend on advertising. Unless I'm missing something.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#315

Post by zaroth »

Seems to be plenty of blame to pass around. It would be interesting to read more perspectives and definitely enough material for a book. That HN job post is immortalized even more now.

But one interesting take-away it seems, not just for Homejoy, but for just about everyone in the market; the software is really bad. Not scheduling time to get from Point A to Point B - is that rocket science? If the customer support line is on fire, isn't that when you start fixing the bug? Failing basic usability and billing is not an MVP for a $40m funded startup.

One thing I'll say, is trying to own the experience, establish a heavy brand, and take a large cut means you have to be providing a valuable service in return to the contractor. For the on-demand economy, the way I think I would approach the problem is my customer is the service worker first, and their customer second.

These companies think about churn all wrong. The service provider is ultimately providing the service to the end-user, intentionally churning the end-user across different service providers is madness. You only win by making the service provider's job more difficult? I don't get it.

Obviously a lot of value in connecting a new household with a new service provider, whatever that service may be. Making that connection is a job well done and should be monetized at that time. If you can provide a new reliable repeat customer then that's even more valuable to the service provider, and the startup who made the connection can in theory charge a higher price for those customers.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#316

Post by robotresearcher »

georgemcbay wrote: post #301
robotresearcher wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This text is on the form you use to choose an individual: "We'll do our best to match you up again on your new booking, but please understand that as an independent contractor, it is up to the discretion of the professional to accept or decline your booking. In the event we cannot match you, another professional will be assigned." If you don't like that deal, don't take it. But don't be all pissed off when they do ex…

All of your "read the fine-print" logic can be applied to Handy and Amex just as easily as to Handy and the customer. eg: If Handy doesn't like the deal where an Amex customer can request a chargeback for inadequate customer service then they shouldn't accept Amex as payment.

It's not fine print. It's the basic service model. They are very upfront about it. I understand that lots of people in this thread would prefer a different model. But that's not what they offer right now. I'm not for or against it: just tying to add facts to the thread.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#317

Post by datashovel »

a3voices wrote: post #314
datashovel wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the big problem will be trying to get people to use the system. I think the whole thing (especially with social networks) rides on just how hard they want to fight to keep their users' data off of other networks. If, for example, Facebook decides to prevent other social networks from pulling user data off of Facebook, then I think that will in large part drive end users' desire to find alternatives.

Well there's that too. But to get people to use a new social network in the first place, you either need to hope for a viral effect or spend on advertising. Unless I'm missing something.

I kind of think these days people generally understand the "groups" or "communities" or "family members" they are usually in contact with.

So I kind of envision that new social networks don't need to grow in that "all or nothing" model.

Also I see great potential for "glue networks". Or, in other words, networks responsible for facilitating the seamless transmission of data to / from different social networks depending on which one people decide they want to use.

I think it will get old real fast if people can only interact with people in Facebook while they're signed on to Facebook.

I want a social network that can seamlessly integrate with all of them so I don't have to worry about where all my friends are. I just decide I'm going to try something new and if it works well for me I might stick with it. In the meantime I'll continue to be able to communicate with people on other social networks because "I, as the consumer, should be allowed to dictate where my data can and can't go".

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#318

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jpatokal wrote: post #276
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"With a cleaner, your possessions are in the hands of someone who might have plenty of incentive to steal your stuff and sell it. "

Did we read the same post?

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#319

Post by drig »

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

I've used Handy with very varying results. I ended up ditching them because I couldn't get the same cleaner regularly. To use Handy, I would have to take the day off every time I wanted a cleaning, so that I could meet and vet the new cleaner.

One time, a new cleaner showed up, but I wasn't home. She didn't have the key, and so she couldn't clean. I asked for a refund and never got it.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#320

Post by venomsnake »

s73v3r wrote: post #136
venomsnake wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non circumvention agreement solves that beautifully. And I think it is more enforceable.

How? Keep in mind that most jurisdictions take a VERY dim view of a company trying to prevent someone from working.

Depends. They take very dim view because of the broadness of the non compete clauses. Here is extremely specific - you cannot clean that specific house unless you give me 30% of your earnings.
Post reply on HN