3 ms·

Well, objectively speaking, it seems like the old model wasn't working. It wasn't scalable. Without standardizing something -- be it the buyer-description-input

Well, objectively speaking, it seems like the old model wasn't working. It wasn't scalable. Without standardizing something -- be it the buyer-description-input track, or the tasker-bidding-assignment track -- you have an ad hoc system that is not particularly efficient at allocating supply to demand. (Or even particularly good at standardizing supply and demand in the first place). This new system seems to fit the classically snarky definition of a compromise: a situation nobody is completely happy with. The article implies a third option: keeping the open-bidding system of old, but focusing on a vertical or two, instead of trying to be all things to all potential tasks. This might be a better solution, but again, you run into standardization and supply/demand allocation inefficiencies. Less of them, but they're still there. There seems to be a good reason why "second-generation" sharing economy services, like Uber and Airbnb, do really well, while services like TaskRabbit don't. These newer services are on tightly controlled rails, they're standardized (or at least standardizing), and they're operating in specific verticals. They are in the variance-minimization business. Old-model TaskRabbit was in the variance-creation business.

asdfg534h 12y ago
> It wasn't scalable. I feel like that's a rather generic stand-in complaint for (what frequently ends up being) something entirely different. If both of the actually important parties - tasker & purchaser - were happy beforehand, the problem is TaskRabbit, not them. Maybe the lesson here is "don't accept $37 million in funding for an odd-jobs coordinator"? It's not a tasker's fault that some website needs to squeeze an unreasonable amount of profit out of running groceries & fixing desks.
MediaSquirrel 12y ago
It was working, just not enough relative to all the capital they raised. The marketplace was growing 8% month over month, since forever. They wanted faster growth but couldn't get it, so pivoted.
- kip_ 12y ago
  Isn't 8% month over month something like 150% year over year, how much faster growth did they need, or has the market really come to expect 1,000% year over year to be worthy of funding?
- spinlock 12y ago
  8% what? Revenue, workers, employers, tasks ....
- bsder 12y ago
  Exactly. The folks who put in roughly $40 million wanted a $500+ million exit in 18 months. And that just wasn't going to happen with the numbers they had. It seems like they were running about $500K a year. Even with 100% growth per year, it's going to take 6 years to begin moving $40 million annual revenue. The investors aren't going to wait for that long. And, as people have pointed out, once I use TaskRabbit, why don't I contact the task person directly next time? Attempts to quantify TaskRabbit's numbers: http://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-is-Taskrabbit-com-making http://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-is-Taskrabbit-com-maki...
discardorama 12y ago
> Well, objectively speaking, it seems like the old model wasn't working. It wasn't scalable. Without standardizing something -- be it the buyer-description-input track, or the tasker-bidding-assignment track -- you have an ad hoc system that is not particularly efficient at allocating supply to demand. But this adhoc system was working for the buyers and the sellers! TR had a pretty solid growth rate (8%/mo, as mentioned in another comment), which is pretty solid. Why would you want to switch to a system which both parties do not like? When has pissing off the majority of your customers ever been a successful strategy?

asdfg534h 12y ago

> It wasn't scalable. I feel like that's a rather generic stand-in complaint for (what frequently ends up being) something entirely different. If both of the actually important parties - tasker & purchaser - were happy beforehand, the problem is TaskRabbit, not them. Maybe the lesson here is "don't accept $37 million in funding for an odd-jobs coordinator"? It's not a tasker's fault that some website needs to squeeze an unreasonable amount of profit out of running groceries & fixing desks.

MediaSquirrel 12y ago

It was working, just not enough relative to all the capital they raised. The marketplace was growing 8% month over month, since forever. They wanted faster growth but couldn't get it, so pivoted.

kip_ 12y ago
Isn't 8% month over month something like 150% year over year, how much faster growth did they need, or has the market really come to expect 1,000% year over year to be worthy of funding?
spinlock 12y ago
8% what? Revenue, workers, employers, tasks ....
bsder 12y ago
Exactly. The folks who put in roughly $40 million wanted a $500+ million exit in 18 months. And that just wasn't going to happen with the numbers they had. It seems like they were running about $500K a year. Even with 100% growth per year, it's going to take 6 years to begin moving $40 million annual revenue. The investors aren't going to wait for that long. And, as people have pointed out, once I use TaskRabbit, why don't I contact the task person directly next time? Attempts to quantify TaskRabbit's numbers: http://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-is-Taskrabbit-com-making http://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-is-Taskrabbit-com-maki...

discardorama 12y ago

> Well, objectively speaking, it seems like the old model wasn't working. It wasn't scalable. Without standardizing something -- be it the buyer-description-input track, or the tasker-bidding-assignment track -- you have an ad hoc system that is not particularly efficient at allocating supply to demand. But this adhoc system was working for the buyers and the sellers! TR had a pretty solid growth rate (8%/mo, as mentioned in another comment), which is pretty solid. Why would you want to switch to a system which both parties do not like? When has pissing off the majority of your customers ever been a successful strategy?