Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
medium.com
Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#2> Getting to that consistent Homejoy Cleaning proved to be way out of reach. As a result each product interaction could be wildly different, unlike the consistent factory packaged product vision that we were pushing. As a former colleague put it “Our product should’ve been positioned closer to finding the right match on OkCupid, as opposed to finding the right macbook”.
Interesting quote that IMHO nicely sums up the differences between something like Homejoy and something like Uber. Not everything can be neatly packaged in a one-size-fits-all service.
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#3> Getting to that consistent Homejoy Cleaning proved to be way out of reach. As a result each product interaction could be wildly different, unlike the consistent factory packaged product vision that we were pushing. As a former colleague put it “Our product should’ve been positioned closer to finding the right match on OkCupid, as opposed to finding the right macbook”. Interesting quote that IMHO nicely sums up the…
Homejoy would not have succeed even if every one of their customers were to fall head-over-heels in love with their cleaner. Homejoy’s business model was fundamentally flawed and no tweaking or pivoting could ever solve this. There was no problem that could be solved with technology. No solution = no business.
The only interesting thing out of the whole homejoy experiment was in exposing the shallowness of some VC’s business acumen. I wish we would see a reasoned explanation from the investors of why they put their limited partner’s money into Homejoy.
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#4I think a theme that I keep hearing re: HomeJoy (I was a customer in 3 cities over 3-4 years) is they weren't solving the right problem.
My problem as a customer wasn't finding a cleaner, but finding and retaining a cleaner I liked, was good, and I trusted. Their platform did none of the latter, and barely did the former.
I couldn't pick cleaners based on rating. I couldn't even see rating. It took forever until I could request the same person come every week. And, I knew in the back of my mind I was paying Homejoy a premium that the cleaner didn't see. For what? They were begging clients and cleaners to setup an outside relationship. Price goes down for the client, cleaner gets paid more. Win/win.
In my opinion what Homejoy should've done is paid for the connection - given my time preferences, match me with the best cleaner in my price range. Then I pay the cleaner directly. If Homejoy wants to setup stripe, collect just the 3% fee.
Charge the cleaner for access to the platform, or charge me for the matchmaking. Or both.
How do you get around the 1099 -> W2 issue? Have a series of training classes that the cleaners can optionally take, list this on their profile, allow them to level up.
Provide services to allow individual cleaners to differentiate them from the pack (having dealt with dozens or more individual cleaners, there were clearly some that were just doing it as an experiment and some that made this their career).
Yes, HomeJoy maybe wanted to treat cleaners like replaceable robots, but humans don't work that way. As the author stated, Homejoy was solving a human problem with engineering.
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#5I think a theme that I keep hearing re: HomeJoy (I was a customer in 3 cities over 3-4 years) is they weren't solving the right problem. My problem as a customer wasn't finding a cleaner, but finding and retaining a cleaner I liked, was good, and I trusted. Their platform did none of the latter, and barely did the former. I couldn't pick cleaners based on rating. I couldn't even see rating. It took forever until I co…
What you are talking about is essentially what Thumbtack does, and not surprisingly Thumbtack is a much healthier business.
It is also nice that such a platform works pretty similarly across hundreds of different service categories, whereas such an ultra-specific platform like Homejoy only works for a few.
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#6> ...the point I am trying to make is that the Homejoy team was exceptionally talented and did amazing things...
> Homejoy was led by two software engineers. Both wildly talented humans...
> Homejoy and ‘fail’ have gotten tethered together in the tech headlines recently but for myself and many of my colleagues Homejoy will always be more synonymous with success than failure.
The entire post describes a litany of horrible business decisions and mistakes that are hard to reconcile with the author's compliments of the Homejoy team.
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#7This epitomizes the arrogance and drowning self-absorbedness of Bay Area startups. And it does it in a Medium post.
And wow, there are some real gems in this post. For example:
"Customer interactions happen inside of their homes (anything that went wrong was grossly amplified)"
What did you expect? THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE SELLING.
"Client expectations vary wildly"
Yup, different people like different things. News at 11.
"High cleaner turn-over when product quality demands consistency"
What did you expect? Any warm body off the street can be trusted to go in some stranger's home?
"I could go on, but the point I am trying to make is that the Homejoy team was exceptionally talented and did amazing things given how punishing the industry was."
Oh I'm sorry. What you were trying to do was hard. That's because you were doing it wrong in the first place.
"To be fair legal constraints did throw a wrench into some of our plans."
For serious? To be fair? Fair to whom?
"Given what I’ve taken away from Homejoy I don’t look at it like a failure. I think there’s a morbid curiosity about what went wrong with a failed startup."
I don't give two shits about your failed startup. You failed for patently obvious reasons. You trivialized the problem which, for a company founded by so-called two engineers, is the ultimate sin of engineering.
"Homejoy will always be more synonymous with success than failure."
Delusions of grandeur.
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#8This (both the post and the comments here) are very interesting to me from a "some people are intrinsically optimistic and some people are intrinsically pessimistic" point of view.
> Homejoy and ‘fail’ have gotten tethered together in the tech headlines recently but for myself and many of my colleagues Homejoy will always be more synonymous with success than failure.
Rationalization is a hell of a drug And I don't mean that in a snarky way– synthesized happiness every bit as "real" as "genuine" happiness. The brain doesn't discriminate.
Dan Gilbert did a great TED talk [1] about this:
> "Who are these characters who are so damn happy? The first one is Jim Wright. Some of you are old enough to remember: he was the chairman of the House of Representatives and he resigned in disgrace when this young Republican named Newt Gingrich found out about a shady book deal he had done. He lost everything. The most powerful Democrat in the country lost everything. He lost his money, he lost his power. What does he have to say all these years later? "I am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and in almost every other way." What other way would there be to be better off? Vegetably? Minerally? Animally? He's pretty much covered them there."
Startups are often started by wildly optimistic people, while Internet messageboards tend to be populated by wildly pessimistic people. I'm not saying that either is better or worse, but it's an interesting phenomenon to witness.
So the interesting thing here is... while Homejoy is obviously a failure, I legitimately believe that OP feels good about himself, and probably better than some successful founders feel about their successful startups.
Rationalization is a hell of a drug. [2]
PS: Another lesson I think the cynics and pessimists could take away from this (but, by definition, probably won't) is that you can get away with a lot more failure in this world than you imagine, and still probably end up on top. OP is still probably better off than a lot of us career-ily and in many other ways.
I wonder, if blind optimism could be sold in a drink like coffee, would it be worth buying (in terms of net impact on well-being?) Seems like it might be. Curious for your thoughts.
---
[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200912/downs...
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#9> ...the point I am trying to make is that the Homejoy team was exceptionally talented and did amazing things... > Homejoy was led by two software engineers. Both wildly talented humans... > Homejoy and ‘fail’ have gotten tethered together in the tech headlines recently but for myself and many of my colleagues Homejoy will always be more synonymous with success than failure. The entire post describes a litany of horr…
It is entirely possible to have an extremely good team and talented, knowledgeable people as leaders, but that doesn't make good businesspeople or imply a good vision.
Re: Pondering Homejoy’s Failure
#10This epitomizes the arrogance and drowning self-absorbedness of Bay Area startups. And it does it in a Medium post. And wow, there are some real gems in this post. For example: "Customer interactions happen inside of their homes (anything that went wrong was grossly amplified)" What did you expect? THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE SELLING. "Client expectations vary wildly" Yup, different people like different things. News at 11…
I agree with every single thing about your comment.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if these guys go on to do other things, try again, fail again, try again, fail again, and eventually build something that actually works.
It might not be immediately obvious, but deluded entrepreneurs (with their blind optimism and relentless trial-and-error) make the world a better place. I don't know if we should encourage or discourage it, and I'm not too sure if these people can be discouraged either.
I suppose at best we can advocate for caution and due diligence.