Here’s the rap on marketplaces where buyers meet sellers: Some of them leak revenue. Unicorns are looking leaky these days.
The dream is to be Uber. With a $70 billion valuation , who wouldn’t? Uber doesn’t leak. The transaction is about as commodified as it gets. Relationship adds zero. You communicate everything about the job in a few bits: from where/to where/car size. And the transaction window is tight, so there is no patience for a driver who isn’t near. This is true for the driver-side, too, because idle time equals lost earnings. (There are other reasons to not dream of being Uber.)
On the other hand, TaskRabbit and Homejoy look like marketplaces, but turn out to be more like lead-gen. Once in a while you have a need (clean my house); it can probably wait a bit while you find a good solution (sometime this week?); once the deal happens, there is a lot of set up (do I trust this person when I’m not home?; will they do things the way I like?).
So here is the leaky revenue people worry about: When I find a handyman I like or a cleaning person, I’ll stick with them. I’ll say, “Hey, why don’t you just come back next week and give me your number so I can pay you directly.” The customer saves money, the worker gets regular jobs … and the marketplaces loses its cut. Here’s What These Folks Are Missing
The freelancer economy requires software services that make it easier for companies to find workers qualified for their freelance assignments on demand or on repeating basis; manage them through their assignments, track their results and follow up; and pay them the way they want to be paid.
All the noise about the leaky marketplaces focuses on finding someone to do […]
