Live data from Hacker News

The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

vox.com

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#51
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did. > Let's say the success case for one of these companies is to capture 10% of that market > That's almost half a billion in revenue[1] per year. [1] Not profit

Apologies, I misread :( They're only starting in NY and Cali, which I estimated to be about 7 million dogs that needed walking. Additionally, Uber and Lyft combine to do $8 billion in revenue per year, operating at much larger scale with much larger demand and averagr sale price. So I think $500M a year is optimistic. I would expect this type of startup to do more like $50M a year in revenue with a modest loss, and t…

I believe they are everywhere, I've used rover and I'm not in NY or CA or even main city.

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#52
post #11

The idea of buying a dog when you don't have time to walk it yourself just seems bizarre to me. Why do people do that? I also find the recent notion of "pet parents" rather offensive. My dog is my property. I have a responsibility to take good care of her, but ultimately I am her owner not her parent.

[deleted]

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#53
post #42
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your first statement. I find your second statement a little bizarre. People are going to feel varying degrees of attachment to their pets. Why would you care? You can think it's silly or weird, but who are you to take offense at something like that?

I'll chime in. My first child is due in 3 months. I find it offensive when my friends compare the burden of pet ownership to that of raising a child because there is so much more work, preparation, and much higher stakes. I think that's the reason people react so strongly to sentiments like that.

Congratulations, and best of luck to you (honestly).

I completely agree with you that being the parent to a human child is harder, more work, more stressful, and that the stakes are way higher. I can absolutely understand feeling belittled and upset if someone tries to argue that raising a child is anything like taking care of a pet. It's not.

I don't think that this is the argument that most people who refer to themselves as "pet parents" are trying to make, but certainly some of them might be doing so. I think that that's silly and easily refutable.

However...

This whole thing seems too similar to the religious conservative argument that referring to gay unions as marriages was degrading the sanctity of their own marriages because of a word. That argument has always seemed pretty pathetic to me. The weightiness of a concept isn't diminished when people decide to recycle a word [1]. The sanctity of someone's marriage isn't defined by use of the word marriage. Similarly, the sanctity of human parenthood has nothing to do with how dog owners want to refer to themselves.

Language evolves, and it's usually pointless to fight this process. Sure, ambiguities that are introduced may be annoying, and you may get frustrated that you now have to clarify something when previously you didn't, but there's no reason for you to have the right to dictate how other people decide to see themselves. Trying to fight this with outrage and offense seems to me like shouting at a rain cloud for getting you wet.

If people want to refer to themselves as pet parents because they don't currently have or aren't planning to have children ("No, I'm not a real parent, but I am a pet parent"), leave them be. If they seriously want to make the argument that taking care of a dog is anything like raising a kid for 20 years, shake your head in smug amusement and leave them be. They're obviously wrong, and you know it. Hell, I even know actual parents to human children who also have a dog or two, and who consider themselves both parents and pet parents. They're clearly just trying to be cute rather than equating the two. Enjoy it if you think it's cute, or don't, and then leave them be, because at the end of the day, it doesn't affect you. It'll only affect you if you let yourself get upset by it, and that's just a really poor use of your time and energy.

[1] Obviously a lot more was/is at stake for the LGBTQ community, and I don't mean to belittle actual LGBTQ struggles for equality and acceptance by comparing them to the plight of people who want to be cute by referring to themselves as pet parents (there, I guess even I need to clarify).

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a significantly different return on investment between children and pets, for individuals and society.

I don't see why this means that it's ok to pay someone to care for your child during the day, but not ok to pay someone to take care for your dog during the day.

I didn’t make that claim, but I was pointing out a reason why someone might not equate the two.

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#55
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also find the recent notion of "pet parents" rather offensive. To each their own. Of probably equal or greater offense to me is the idea that one treat living, sentient beings to be owned and treated as property. As to your other point, I have no idea other than changing circumstances. I find that having a dog saves me from being a lazy slob and forces me to drag my arse out the door for an hour when I otherwise wo…

the idea that one treat living, sentient beings to be owned and treated as property That's exactly how the law treats animals. They are property of their owner.

Given the history of the U. S. with regards to the ownership of living beings, I'm sure you'll understand if an appeal to the law doesn't get you very far with me.

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#56
post #32
post #28

I'm curious. After the initial matchup, what stops these "independent contractors" and dog owners from cutting out the middleman (Wag/ Rover)?

A contract, probably.

Ah, but as these companies are always so quick to remind us, their workers are contractors, not employees. Which here reveals itself as a double-edged sword: it lets you save lots of money on those pesky benefits and workers' rights, but it means you have no ability to prevent them from cutting you out and getting a better deal by going directly to the customer.

As someone who loathes the startup tendency to misclassify employees in order to shift costs onto them, I do savor the schadenfreude when it backfires like this.

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#57
post #28

I'm curious. After the initial matchup, what stops these "independent contractors" and dog owners from cutting out the middleman (Wag/ Rover)?

Absolutely nothing, which is why these companies are a flash in the pan. You can sign a contract with them, but it means nothing if someone on the other side of the country is violating it and you have no idea. Also, this is a petty cash business. Even if someone violates the contract, are you going to take them to court over $45? No, you'll just ban them. And the customers who liked that person will leave your servi…

> Some people have this idea that all human processes need to be mirrored in software. This type of gig work is best left to ad-hoc job boards like craigslist or kajiji or facebook marketplace. Why do we continue to try to force this into software?

I think part of it is that the dumber VCs out there are in such a rush to get in on the ground floor of "Uber for X", that they don't bother checking whether Uber's business model is valid for X. Uber doesn't have to worry about getting shut out by drivers and passengers making deals directly with each other, because people need rides at random and going directly to the driver means basically hiring them full-time. But that logic doesn't apply for someone coming on a fixed schedule to walk your dog or clean your house: middlemen provide no value beyond initial contact.

It's investing by fad and it's all going to come unraveled soon enough.

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$600 million in venture capital... For dog walking. It's even more stupid than Pets.com because at least Pets.com was an ecommerce site so it could scale out. It doesn't really matter that Asia, Africa and Latin America have all come on line (I would bet that the 1999 internet was primarily Europe/US given its roots) if you're selling dog walking in California and New York now, does it?

You can't make blanket statements like that without looking at the numbers and the unit economics. Just because you think walking a dog is trivial doesn't mean that there isn't a huge need for a service like this. A marketplace that can capture a majority of the marketshare in the US in the dog walking category will be minting money. Some of the back of the envelope calculations posted here easily show this. Analogie…

Pets.com IS succeeding today. It’s called Chewy.

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#59
post #11

The idea of buying a dog when you don't have time to walk it yourself just seems bizarre to me. Why do people do that? I also find the recent notion of "pet parents" rather offensive. My dog is my property. I have a responsibility to take good care of her, but ultimately I am her owner not her parent.

I adopted a dog when I was married, and now that I’m divorced, when my son is with me and asleep for the night, I can’t just leave him alone in the apartment and go for a walk. I use Wag for those nights, and it’s great.

Hell, I’m out of town right now and needed a sitter for my dog. Opened the wag app and within 10 min had someone scheduled (and insured) to watch my dog for 5 days.

Re: The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog

#60
post #42
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your first statement. I find your second statement a little bizarre. People are going to feel varying degrees of attachment to their pets. Why would you care? You can think it's silly or weird, but who are you to take offense at something like that?

I'll chime in. My first child is due in 3 months. I find it offensive when my friends compare the burden of pet ownership to that of raising a child because there is so much more work, preparation, and much higher stakes. I think that's the reason people react so strongly to sentiments like that.

I’m offended that you didn’t wait 3 more months before being offended!

(Kidding, and congrats on the child)

Post reply on HN