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

221–230 of 342 posts

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#221

Post by SilasX »

jeorgun wrote: post #217
SilasX wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Semi-related reminder: tip your hotel housekeepers. Wait, what? What's the semi-relation there? I really hope it's not going to be another variant of "it's a hard job, therefore the tipping model obviously makes more sense there than a pure wage model".

I think the intention is less "the tipping model makes more sense", and more "given that the tipping model is in effect, you shouldn't unfairly punish the housekeepers by not tipping them".

But how does that (semi-)relate to tptacek's other points?

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#222

Post by tptacek »

jeorgun wrote: post #217
SilasX wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Semi-related reminder: tip your hotel housekeepers. Wait, what? What's the semi-relation there? I really hope it's not going to be another variant of "it's a hard job, therefore the tipping model obviously makes more sense there than a pure wage model".

I think the intention is less "the tipping model makes more sense", and more "given that the tipping model is in effect, you shouldn't unfairly punish the housekeepers by not tipping them".

I don't think the tipping model makes sense at all, but as long as we're talking about people we pay to clean up after us, it's worth pointing out that hotel housekeepers have a particularly raw deal, and despite the fact that people frequently seem surprised to hear this, you are expected to tip them.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#223

Post by shostack »

vegabook wrote: post #174
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…

In old-economy-speak what you just said basically translates as "you entered a crowded market". When you're standing on an unknown, rainy street corner far away from home, a taxi's services are urgently required, and not abundant. When you're lounging on your sofa and start contemplating how it would be nice for someone else to bin the pizza boxes, it's the opposite on both counts. Moreover, I don't see the money men…

I visibly cringed reading that.

Does Y-Combinator review those posts at all before they go out and provide any guidance? If not they might want to consider it...

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#224

Post by jarek »

ionforce wrote: post #189
cballard wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Quite probably not more than all the "lose on every sale, make it up on volume" shenanigans VC land does with VC money.

Personally I am getting to a point where I would be thrilled with even a "grad student" setup: three desks to a room and if someone needs to talk they go into the corridor if not a meeting room.

It cannot be that expensive to give people working with their minds some peace and quiet to think.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#225

Post by josephjrobison »

pavlov wrote: post #114
hammock wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A story about what it's like working for Handy, "My Day Interviewing For The Service Economy Startup From Hell" : http://thebillfold.com/2014/10/my-day-interviewing-for-the-s...

I've used Handy a few times because they offer pretty aggressive pricing. Hit or miss as far as quality of cleaners. I do agree they have some borderline tactics. They make it impossible to find a contact number, force you into recurring bookings, and when I cancelled my last appointment they said they would give me a $35 credit to my account (with $15 penalty off $50 claning) but instead charged me an extra $15 and gave me a $50 account credit. Small thing but kinda shows the quality of their system.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#226

Post by amorphid »

kamaal wrote: post #219
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…

My dad is a cab driver. I myself have a lot of experience managing cab business, I can tell you cab business works pretty much the same way. You can sign up with as many cab drivers you like and offer them as much business they can handle. Sooner or later they will find permanent paying customers and move on. Especially among elderly, kids and women. Its the standard in every industry. Once you've built your ground,…

That's one big reason it's hard to scale a service business. Why maybe a fraction of X when you can make X?

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#227

Post by shostack »

saalweachter wrote: post #47
prostoalex wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your business plan is to skim money off of workers who could do their jobs and get paid without you Lead generation is a viable business, as demonstrated by Yelp (and previously Yellow Pages), it's just not hot and fast-growing.

Yeah, I agree. There's going to be a huge difference between businesses where customer acquisition is needed regularly (eg, taxis; it makes sense to take a different taxi with a different driver, based on whichever is closest to you) and where customer acquisition is needed infrequently (eg, cleaners; it makes sense to use the same cleaner over and over, on a fixed schedule).

Cleaners, and some other industries, still need lead generation as they lose customers but also seek to expand their businesses. If they are spending time cleaning, they are not spending time marketing other than through the resulting word of mouth.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#229

Post by qq66 »

dllthomas wrote: post #129
sageabilly wrote: post #2

"The steady leak of its best workers to direct employment arrangements with its own (now former) clients." This is a huge hurdle in any direct services market. While you're not likely to hire your own private driver and thus end your working relationship with Uber, you're probably very likely to find a cleaner that you like a lot and who does a great job cleaning your house and go on to form an exclusive working rela…

"While you're not likely to hire your own private driver and thus end your working relationship with Uber" Not likely to end your relationship with Uber entirely, but Uber doesn't do pre-planned trips; an individual driver may.

Uber does pre-planned trips in some countries.

Re: Why Homejoy Failed

#230

Post by shostack »

w4 wrote: post #98
mgkimsal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, that's the late 90s bubble all over again. I know... we're not in a bubble now... but losing money and making it up on volume was the big joke back then, iirc.

> I know... we're not in a bubble now... but losing money and making it up on volume was the big joke back then, iirc. It's ok to say we're in a bubble. These companies that are selling goods at a loss predicated on the availability of venture capital, with no clear path to profitability, show that we're almost certainly in a bubble. The real question to worry about isn't whether or not we're in a bubble, but rather…

Thank you for making a logical statement around this. People love to trot out the bubble line, but I always wonder how much of the "tech industry" at this point is comprised of small startups with large amounts of funding vs. large established tech giants like Google, FB, Apple, Adobe, etc. with BILLIONS in revenue (if not profits).

I've heard people tell me "all these startups with funny money are driving the housing prices up." I can only sit there in response and hold back my snarky "yeah, and I'm sure the giants who have tens of thousands of engineers on staff with billions in profit aren't contributing at all."

Post reply on HN