4 ms·

> These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet. I think this is where the key

> These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet. I think this is where the key incentive misalignment is. These companies are rent-seeking, meaning they have a strong incentive to lower marginal costs. Vetting has to be the largest component of that so it's likely to be cut (or just dropped entirely). But the vetting is the entire point of the exercise, so what you end up with is a company that pretends it vets people but (I suspect) doesn't really. So the profit margin is bolstered by false advertising.

lowercased 8y ago
The vetting is 'crowd-sourced' with customer reviews, no? If 'Bill' thinks 'Leslie' is a great walker... what more should wag or rover need to do? Vet Bill now too!? That's just crazy talk...
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  only if the company ensures that "Leslie" is one profile that is attached to one person. Reputation only works if it follows you, if you can create a new account or masquerade as another person (like in this case) then it doesn't work at all. there should also be a certain barrier to entry so that e.g. people more likely to do something criminal or negligent instead won't get on the platform in the first place.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    I think you are correct. Make people provide photo ID to work and provide a bond. Have someone else show up as you lose the bond. It's entirely possible that such an id and rep feature could be easily be implemented in a universal fashion outside of their interaction with a particular service. Don't want your dog walking service or potential clients to discover that while driving with uber you were a complete asshole no problem don't be an asshole.
- buzzdenver 8y ago
  It's not in the interest of the marketplace actor, like Wag, to see negative reviews, so I would not be surprised if Leslie's rating was doctored somehow. For example with Uber I had a couple of bad experiences with the driver not picking me up but starting to charge me, and I had to settle for getting my money back but could not leave a review because technically I did not ride with the driver.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I would think it would be beneficial for the marketplace to see negative reviews, because they will direct customers to the reliable dogwalkers, leading to greater customer satisfaction and retention. Badly reviewed dogwalkers could be bumped off the platform.
    - buzzdenver 8y ago
      That all depends on the supply of reliable dog walkers.
- thisisit 8y ago
  Currently the problem arises if the reviews are owned and hosted by the company in question. You can find tons of complains about the quality of Amazon products. And now there is a need for external tools like fakespot.com to find fake reviews. It wouldn't have taken Amazon much to build a similar service. The amazing thing about smaller markets like Wag and Rover is that even if there are negative reviews you are not going to find them. There will be tons of 4-5 rated walkers but you will be hard pressed to find people who are rated 2-3. The reason being that customers don't want 2-3 rated walkers and it is in the interest of the company to show all high rated walkers.
  - lowercased 8y ago
    > It wouldn't have taken Amazon much to build a similar service. Would people really trust it as much as something completely external?
phonon 8y ago
That's not what rent-seeking means; I am not sure what you are trying to say.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  yeah rent-seeking isn't quite the right term, but I'm not sure what is. The companies basically exist as low-touch facilitators that rely on high volumes and low marginal cost. Does that make it clearer? The reason I called them rent-seeking is that (if you remove the vetting aspect, which I believe they have) they don't actually do anything, they just charge a "tax" on top of a service rendered by someone else. If the company only makes, say, $100 per dogwalker on average and background checking costs $50, they'll cut the cost despite the primary use of the platform being to find a trustworthy, pre-vetted dogwalker.
  - phonon 8y ago
    "middlemen"
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      yeah, I'd go with that. It wasn't coming to me at the time.

lowercased 8y ago

The vetting is 'crowd-sourced' with customer reviews, no? If 'Bill' thinks 'Leslie' is a great walker... what more should wag or rover need to do? Vet Bill now too!? That's just crazy talk...

beaconstudios 8y ago
only if the company ensures that "Leslie" is one profile that is attached to one person. Reputation only works if it follows you, if you can create a new account or masquerade as another person (like in this case) then it doesn't work at all. there should also be a certain barrier to entry so that e.g. people more likely to do something criminal or negligent instead won't get on the platform in the first place.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  I think you are correct. Make people provide photo ID to work and provide a bond. Have someone else show up as you lose the bond. It's entirely possible that such an id and rep feature could be easily be implemented in a universal fashion outside of their interaction with a particular service. Don't want your dog walking service or potential clients to discover that while driving with uber you were a complete asshole no problem don't be an asshole.
buzzdenver 8y ago
It's not in the interest of the marketplace actor, like Wag, to see negative reviews, so I would not be surprised if Leslie's rating was doctored somehow. For example with Uber I had a couple of bad experiences with the driver not picking me up but starting to charge me, and I had to settle for getting my money back but could not leave a review because technically I did not ride with the driver.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I would think it would be beneficial for the marketplace to see negative reviews, because they will direct customers to the reliable dogwalkers, leading to greater customer satisfaction and retention. Badly reviewed dogwalkers could be bumped off the platform.
  - buzzdenver 8y ago
    That all depends on the supply of reliable dog walkers.
thisisit 8y ago
Currently the problem arises if the reviews are owned and hosted by the company in question. You can find tons of complains about the quality of Amazon products. And now there is a need for external tools like fakespot.com to find fake reviews. It wouldn't have taken Amazon much to build a similar service. The amazing thing about smaller markets like Wag and Rover is that even if there are negative reviews you are not going to find them. There will be tons of 4-5 rated walkers but you will be hard pressed to find people who are rated 2-3. The reason being that customers don't want 2-3 rated walkers and it is in the interest of the company to show all high rated walkers.
- lowercased 8y ago
  > It wouldn't have taken Amazon much to build a similar service. Would people really trust it as much as something completely external?

phonon 8y ago

That's not what rent-seeking means; I am not sure what you are trying to say.

beaconstudios 8y ago
yeah rent-seeking isn't quite the right term, but I'm not sure what is. The companies basically exist as low-touch facilitators that rely on high volumes and low marginal cost. Does that make it clearer? The reason I called them rent-seeking is that (if you remove the vetting aspect, which I believe they have) they don't actually do anything, they just charge a "tax" on top of a service rendered by someone else. If the company only makes, say, $100 per dogwalker on average and background checking costs $50, they'll cut the cost despite the primary use of the platform being to find a trustworthy, pre-vetted dogwalker.
- phonon 8y ago
  "middlemen"
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    yeah, I'd go with that. It wasn't coming to me at the time.