Why Homejoy Failed and the Future of the On-Demand Economy
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
And so the real innovation if someone wants to "change the world" without trying to cheat the system is to find a way to make a profitable business with a huge part of the business being used to pay salaries.
For many entrepreneurs who are used to thinking about business as something which is based on software, servers and an internet connection, this is completely uncharted territory. You don't reap the benefits of scaling your business as if it's just a matter of adding more servers.
The primary challenges with these kind of business if they are to be built on a solid foundation is.
1) Patience – It takes a long time to scale an employee based business up to anything worthwhile and sustainable
2) Selective – You have to be smart about which sectors actually have enough money and need for your service to make a proper ROI
3) Employee satisfaction. You can't just treat your people as if they are freelancers without giving them freelance opportunities. Instead you have to really care about your people and make them want to work for your company and do a great job.
It's that manual labour thats going to be your brand, not your backend server or the customers mobile app.
We almost did a startup like this when we were in YC and looking for new opportunities after we closed our previous startup. However we did some real-world experiments and ran the calculations and could see no way it could work. Here in London we have a lot of recent migrants meaning it's a race to the bottom in terms of hourly rate. You can't make a margin on that... The math just doesn't work. At the time I felt a bit stupid when, months later, Homejoy and several other startups entered the scene. However, I'm very glad we stuck to our guns. The only companies making real money in this market are large established agencies with cleaners on the payroll. And where's the fun/disruption in that? ;)
Saying someone on by low wage job is 'modern slavery' is pretty obtuse when real life actual slavery is happening right now in parts of the world.
Children working on tobacco farms maybe do count. (And even if they're not slaves it's still a big problem).
But to suggest that domestic cleaners working for Holejoy os pretty insulting to the people who are working in illegal slave like conditions in the US.
>Saying someone on by low wage job is 'modern slavery' is pretty obtuse when real life actual slavery is happening right now in parts of the world.
This is exactly the reason I used "modern slavery".
Modern spavery exists in several different forms: actual slavery, bonded labour, and forced labour.
Employment compliant with US law is unlikely to meet those definitions. (Although children working in US tobacco farms is legal and problematic).
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/apr/03/mo...
http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_mod...
Maybe you meant "wage slave"? There's probably better terms, becase as soon as you mention "slave" people will think you mean slavery, and "wage slaves" are not in any sense slaves.
So yes: you're wrong.
Here's a video of the robot in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKUaVzf3Oqw
It's a little bit NSFW.
As Pando Daily keeps pointing out, the only Uber-like business that works is Uber. Uber has an incredible valuation, but their revenue and profit numbers are lousy. Their revenue is about $450m/yr, but they are not profitable. They are, however, building a fancy new headquarters, always a bad sign.
I think they're doing alright, and don't have a "big" substitute. (Amazon fresh is typically not same day)
(yes some grocery stores do delivery, but most don't)
i can't edit the parent comment, but you're right.
"Uber's revenues in San Francisco, meanwhile, are running at $500 million per year.
That's more than three times the size of the taxi market.
And Uber's revenues in San Francisco are still growing at about 200% per year."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-revenue-san-francisco-20...
Is this dodgy accounting, grey market taxi services previously (understating size of market) or has uber genuinely expanded the market by reducing friction?
Absolutely, particularly in places like SF (where getting a cab was a giant hassle and very unreliable). By making on-demand transportation viable in way more places, Uber has definitely expanded the market. There are tons of times and places where I never would have tried to get a cab but happily order an Uber.
There were plenty of times I tried calling for a cab in SF's SOMA district, only to be disappointed when either no one answered the phone and/or no one showed up. If you happen to live in an area where one can realistically have a chance of hailing a cab, and you call for a cab, it's probably more like ordering a pizza. Place the call, and it'll show up eventually.
Based on personal experience, I would have no trouble believing this (particularly for SF, Seattle, or other cities which lack a dense taxi presence). Prior to Uber's arrival in Seattle I walked most places or took a bus. I had never personally used a cab in my life until I went on a corporate trip at age 29, had no rental car, and there was nothing more convenient between the airport and my hotel. I think since then I've used traditional cabs ~four more times, two of which were in NYC.
On the other hand, I take Uber 2-3 times a week because it dramatically cuts down on time spent in transit and is essentially zero hassle.
It's an anecdote, but I expect I am not alone in dramatically upping my use of this sort of service due to Uber.
Uber is a highly disciplined company. I'd completely expect their new HQ plans to be focused on optimising the company's performance, not extravagance.
Pictures: http://gizmodo.com/ubers-new-san-fransisco-headquarters-is-a...
I imagine homejoy would be the same. I have no idea how the company will make money however.
SV/StartupLand needs to get over this idea that they can magically just make the world do what it wants and pretend things like legislation and human rights don't exist when they get in the way of their business model.
You've got to work hard in the system like everybody else.
(Btw, did not downvote)
It really makes very little sense to forbid a person from driving a passenger for money. The AirBnB situation is actually grayer since zoning does make sense (who wants a revolving door of random tourists in their apartment building or even residential neighborhood?).
Uber and AirBnB are succeeding because they are delighting customers in a rather visceral way.
No one is suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to drive for money, nor that Uber shouldn't be allowed to run their service, but simply that if Uber drivers are doing the work of employees they should get the benefits of being employees.
The only real difference that would make is that Uber would be a little more expensive to use. It'd still be cheaper that a taxi. I think that's quite reasonable if it means Uber drivers have a happier, more stable life.
The reason the taxi industry was originally regulated was the competition between drivers and taxi firms was literally cut-throat. While it might be good for consumers in the short run it won't be so good when we end up in a race to the bottom on the back of extreme competition.
I think the hyperbole might have dulled the comment a bit.