@BonnyinBrighton for many reasons, I will hope for that day 
— one of which is that I would love to meet up with some of the great forum buddies I’ve met here, such as yourselves.
(In the meantime, maybe we’ll be able to meet up on the other side of the pond at some point.)
Im in Seattle and have also noticed a significant drop-off in applications in the past year. We used to hit the application cap in the first week or so. More recently I’ve gone 2 or 3 weeks with zero applications. We’ve hosted a bunch of sits and have strong reviews, so I am guessing that supply and demand have gotten out of balance (a lot more sit than sitters). I have noticed that many of the listings in my area have the Low Applications tag. Maybe the booking fee is part of the problem. In the past, I’d see a lot of applications from newbies with no track record on the platform. Now, I am seeing fewer applicantions but those that do apply tend to be very experienced. I wonder if a lot of the newbies got too many rejections and just dropped out.
The low applications banner goes on after 24 hours if the sit receives 3 or less applications. The new banner is only on there for 24 hours.
I agree, there are definitely more sits than sitters now.
I’m a Seattle-based sitter & it’s been surprising to me to see how many active sits there are here with low or no applications, even over the summer. For a while I was getting 2-4 unsolicited invites a week, until I finally had to put something in my profile about it. Even the island & peninsula sits were going unfilled — many of them in premium locations with great homes/pets/amenities, at the best time of year to be in this part of the country.
Only thing I could think is that maybe the shortfall of vacationers from BC was a big factor…but suppose it could also be a massive increase in new pet owners in this area…?
Suffice it to say that it’s been a great summer to tour the PNW; as a sitter, you’d certainly be spoiled for choice.
I think you are missing that there are many real answers other than your conclusion that costs to sitters is THE reason. It might be your reason but there are plenty of others: post-COVID return-to-office mandates reducing the number of digital nomads, increased political instability in THS’s major market, traveler backlash tied to that instability, inflation (and political instability) affecting travel affordability, fear of border crossings and outsized growth in host versus sitter memberships, to name the obvious reasons.
Still, if your experience of hosts is that we’re a bunch of entitled ingrates, you might work on your vetting process. I know many hosts on this forum (myself included) bend over backwards to be welcoming and accommodating to sitters. We very much want an equal exchange and will not consider a sitter if the exchange feels unbalanced. We also have no interest in arranging for a paid sitter; paying someone changes the entire dynamic entirely apart from the costs.
Good luck and best wishes with your future sits.
I’m afraid it’s not as simple as that.
Your post refers to sitters’ work more than once. I guess most HOs work too, it just happens that they may be on holiday while they let a sitter voluntarily come and live in their house and look after their pets. They may also be on work assignments or looking after a loved one who needs help. That’s totally irrelevant to the agreement between sitter and host. It’s just something that people commit to voluntarily. Nobody is forced into it but you make it sound like slavery.
I get the impression you’re a pet owner, so perhaps you cannot relate as much to my perspective .
I’m not saying all pet owners are on vacation, however the 18 sits I’ve had in the past 15 months have all been on vacation.
You seem to take my description of the obligation and responsibilities that sitters sign on for as a personal indictment of the pet owners. That is incorrect. My post is specifically aimed at THS regarding the inequity in charges. Not at all directed at the pet owners.
You will agree that any pet owner who uses this service is saving a large amount of money in not needing to pay for the sitters services. If they did pay for the service, they would most likely not have a sitter living at their home, giving 24/7 care and companionship to their pets, and not necessarily dealing with any care for their home and providing a presence for security as well.
My point is, whatever the reason a pet owner uses THS they get a much greater value than the sitters with none of the obligations that sitters must agree to, and based on that, the sitters are charged more by THS than they should be, in both membership and booking fees. It’s not necessary for you to take up a defense of the pet owner in response to my post, unless you work for THS, which would make sense.
If I didn’t enjoy pet sitting, I wouldn’t be doing it so regularly. Saying that I make sitting sound like slavery, besides missing the point and an overreaction , it seems like you don’t appreciate the obligations that every sitter agrees to. I stated sitters work for their sit, making it a value less than the pet owner receives, regardless of their circumstances for traveling away from home.
This is an issue about THS period. it is that simple. Drop the fees to sitters and they will stay. Has zero to do with the Pet Owner.
If you got that I have any animosity or resentment toward pet owners, then I must not have made my point clear enough. I absolutely do not believe pet owners are at all ungrateful toward sitters. Where in my post am I saying negative things about the pet owners. I’m stating the obvious that in most cases they are getting a fabulous deal for their money.
The main point of my message is directed at THS. I have had great experiences with everyone of my owners. I do believe though that based on your response you do not agree with the idea that we have enough responsibilities to consider it “work”. Yet we both know that if you did not have THS you’d have to hire someone. So coming at me for criticising THS seems misdirected. I’m saying that THS should charge us less than the pet owner. That’s the whole message and specifically for the company. I apologise if you felt offended and thought I was critical of pet owners. That was not my intention.
My thesis stands that if THS lowers the fees we will come back. At least the many that I have talked to and read their posts.
Cheers
Your
struck me as resentful in tone and wrong in concluding hosts frolic worry free. How often do you have strangers stay in your home without you being there and were you worry free?
Maybe I’m reading too much into your writing and you seem to have missed my point that fees are not the only or even a major reason sitters seem to be scarce these days compare to past experience. There’s much more going on these days than booking fees.
What do you think would be needed to fix your inequity between sitter responsibilities and host worry-free benefit if there were no subscription or booking fees at all? My point is simply that increasing, decreasing or shifting fees to/from sitters fixes nothing if the THS model is perceived as inequitable by either party.
I think the cost for a THS subscription should be lowered significantly and fees be the THS income model. Have a fee scale for sits paid by both HO and sitter. Fees for long sits would be greater than for shorter sits.
Allow anyone to apply for a sit or search for a sitter, but once you accept a sit or sitter, you have to pay for a subscription. In countries that vet people first, that would have to be done before seeking sits or sitters.
Anyway, this model could be an option - pay as you go or get a subscription, which would be a more expensive upfront cost.
This seems to be too short of timeframes on both counts.
It’s an interesting discussion point to evaluate who (Sitter or Host) has more ‘work’ and which party gets more ‘value’, so I’ve spent some time considering this.
The sitter spends time reading and re reading the instructions then daily following the instructions with a wide range of tasks taking maybe 30 minutes to 3 hours to complete daily. They travel to/from the location. I’ll discount cleaning/laundry as this is purely to return a property to ‘as was’. They save accommodation costs and get to be at the location.
The Host creates the listing, the welcome guide, and prepares the home for guests. They save pet boarding costs.
Communications is equal on both sides (or should be).
On this analysis the sitter does more ‘work’…. however they also benefit from the enjoyment of pets that they don’t own which is hard to value….
As a matter of fact, I am a sitter, one who strongly believes in fair, equal exchanges. I do not enter discussions about who gets the best end of the deal because there’s no way that can be generalized. A great property with a low maintenance cat in a highly desirable area can’t be compared with a camper van or a farm with lots of animals to look after. IMO, it’s up to the people involved, to decide what’s fair for them.
As for the fees, I don’t like them and I don’t like the turn THS is taking after private equity companies got in charge but I do believe that the amount paid by hosts and sitters being equal helps reinforce the idea of mutual exchange.
I understood your point I’m just saying that if you talk to sitters on the site or who have left and if you read their posts forums about this total see that what I m saying is specifically true
if you go to Yourgi, Care dot com, Rover, you’ll see there is an endless supply of available sitters.
Thats where I’ve gone and a lot of THS has gone.
Don’t take my word for it, read their posts forums, the proof is there.
Anyway, as I said what you read in my tone was directed at THS.
Cheers
(Active link removed in line with the Forum Terms of Service)
@MTBer i agree, but I found it on the THS website because I wanted to know the timeframe.
@TitoandLuna, as international housesitters then we guess that the trends that you - and quite a few other threads by US pet parents - observe may well get worse over the coming whiles. We guess that, even moreso than today, US Pet Parents may become increasingly dependent upon US housesitters.
It is alleged that THS focusses its marketing spending on attracting new US members but it appears that many international housesitters, for various reasons, simply do not want to visit the US in the foreseeable future.
Over a year ago, we framed a simple solution. THS, as a British company, should refocus its marketing efforts on the Schengen area.
Unless THS can grow their sitter pool in the US (and I do think tricky with all the paid options for sitters) then it will continue to be unbalanced. I too vote for attracting more Schengen sits.