This is just a mental exercise, but I am curious. I have been thinking about the purpose of the 5 application limit and the benefits mentioned by the folks who like it.
Here on the forum I have heard these explanations/theories for the rationale of this policy:
Increase in pet parent members (REVENUE), so THS needs to encourage sitters to apply for the “low application” listings.
Increase in sitter members (REVENUE), so THS needs to amplify the success/chances of new/less experienced and occasional sitters vs. very experienced veterans, many of whom sit more than occassionally and often as full time nomads.
Increase in metrics to demonstrate success to investers (REVENUE). That is, a higher number of sitters engaging a higher number of sits vs. a lower number of sitters filling a lower number of popular sits.
Encourage pet parents to review applications more quickly and prevent slow/no communication. (USER EXPERIENCE) Although, If that is so, THS would be doing a better job letting home owners know about managing the 5 application limit.
Knowing the real need for businesses to evolve and build revenue, would it make sense to have tiered memberships for both pet parents and sitters? A fee structure that charges more for the number of nights you utilize THS… Obviously there would be logistics to deal with, but the basics would be that frequent sitters and nomads would pay more than the occasional sitters and pet parents.
My thinking is that this would in part decrease the drive for revenue that is based on limiting our access to popular sits. Like I said, this is just a hypothetical. I don’t think anything is going to move THS away from the 5 limit or even to tweak it so it isn’t quite so problemmatic.
What do others think? Go ahead and poke the holes!
Disclosure: I am a part time nomad who travels/sits for about 3-6 months per year. I am also a pet parent who uses THS sitters to find cat sitters for my sweet boys at home during my travels. Under the above scheme, I would pay a higher membership as both a sitter and as a pet parent.
Without any internal statistics it is difficult to know, so I can only guess. And then I would suspect that the rule of five increases the number of nights, because:
sitters have a tendency to apply for one listing at a time so they are more often applying to sits where they have a reasonable chance
more HOs are receiving applications
I cannot estimate by how much that increases the number of nights. It might be marginal, might be significant. It is a bit the same with the default search now, where sitters are forcefed with “low application” listings. That might be counterproductive.
@Shella_in_the_Forum it MAY have merit. Like @ziggy it gives me a headache just thinking about it. But here are my initial thoughts.
I think they NEED TO GET THE BASICS FIXED before trying anything this complex. They don’t seem to be able to put a legend on the calendar…How could they code something that calculates nights booked through the platform, account for when you go over during the year, (give refunds if you don’t reach the limit you paid for…???) without breaking something else? I think it would require a complete rebuild. That’s going to take a lot of time and a lot of $$$$.
And I would hope they would grandfather in current members as they did when the introduced the first tiered system. There is already murmurs of a class action regarding the 5 app pause change, I’m thinking not doing that would be impetus for that to progress.
It would definitely be a boon for other housesitting sites that are already much cheaper. And the temptation to do ‘regular’ sits off the platform would be high to reduce nights booked through the platform.
Interesting idea @Shella_in_the_Forum - trying to understand how your proposal would work as a sitter ?
The charge would have to be retrospective- if I applied for a sit but wasn’t accepted I stay on the lower tier ( basic charge ) but when I am accepted for a sit that took me over the threshold number of sits for that lower tier I’d pay an additional fee?
I understand a lot of people don’t like the 5 application limit–I don’t personally agree with it–but I think it is time to let it go If this change has meant more people who join the site are getting what they actually paid for–housesitting jobs and housesitters for their pets–I don’t see them changing this, and I can’t blame them.
While a majority of sitters don’t sit full time, full time sitters are probably the ones taking a lot of the less ‘desirable’ sits–though not actually anything wrong with them-- being posted all year round, and it is these sorts of sits that THS Is most concerned about getting filled. So no, I don’t think as a full time sitter, I should have to pay more because I use the site more, especially since we probably play a key role in achieving one of their most important goals.
It just wouldn’t sit right with me to charge people who use the site more frequently a higher membership fee when their more frequent use is benefiting the company by helping it deliver on the service it is offering.
[quote/ So the charge would have to be retrospective- if you applied for Sits and we’re not accepted you’d stay on the lower tier , but when you got accepted for a sit that took you over the threshold you’d pay an additional fee?
/quote] (How do I quote?)
That is what I was imagining. There is a basic user rate that covers x nights of listing/sitting. Once the members reach y, they jump up to the next price tier. It could be based on completed sits to avoid refunds when sits are cancelled.
It is all hypothetical since I doubt THS could or would want to get this complex. But hey, someone touched the coding to implement the 5 limit and “low applications”.
IMHO - I think this would replace the complaint that only the fastest or those constantly on the app can apply for the popular sits with it’s not fair that only those that can afford to pay more get the popular sits ?
@Shella_in_the_Forum No, didn’t offend me at all. You asked for feedback and I just shared why I didn’t think it was a good idea. Not sure how my response called your existence into question but not my intention…take care!
A similar idea of charging more for what we used to have has been raised before.
I said it was a terrible idea then and I am still of the opinion that it is a terrible idea.
@KC1102 I absolutely agree with you! And @Shella_in_the_Forum I’m afraid I don’t agree with your idea for higher fees for extra usage! We full timers are the backbone of THS! I am very happy to pay my basic fee (cheaper than any of the new three tiers!) and squeeze as many sits into my year as possible!! Last year we did 301 sit nights- this year looks to be similar! As we sit full time quite a few of our sits are perhaps less desirable (thus easier to confirm) as we’re often gap filling!
I have never understood THSs theory that a 5 app limit spreads the sit uptake around more. Or speeds up HOs response time! Its rubbish! Its all about speed for sitters!! Being quick enough to get in the first 5 - whoever you are!! Despite being fulltimers we will still only apply for the sits we want- even if we only want some of them because they fill a convenient gap! And if we miss out on a few because of the 5 apps so be it! Onwards & upwards! Many HOs still go in order of application however many they get e.g last week we were no 3 app for a sit and the HO wrote back that there were two ahead of us and ‘if either of them don’t take it we’ll let you know’! We withdrew our application at that point as he obviously didn’t really care who took the sit! We always prefer to feel ‘chosen’!
Anyway rant over!
After a year, I’ve reacently decided to go from standard to premium. I’m not sure I made the right choice. I would not want to pay more. In fact, given the health of one of my cats, I may be traveling less or traveling for shorter time periods – 3-6 days for instance. I don’t know where I’d fall in a charge by the day scheme, but I feel a bit tapped out at the moment. HOs and sitters are BOTH doing this to save money. Upping the price feels very chancey.
Ah. Yes I was interested in feedback on the hypothetical. Not the advice to get over it. There has been a lot of gaslighting and armchair therapy here of late so I am rather forceful about that.
Just a side note, I think popular sits are not just the ones in prime locations (tourism, beauty, climate, public transit) but also longer ones.
As a part time nomad I am competing for longer sits and finding them less often because they go fast. I am also looking for filler sits but honestly I have had to move way more often than I wish. It is no longer worth it to me and I am thinking of leaving the lifestyle altogether. Either there are fewer longer sits or I am not seeing them before they close too quickly.
While I don’t want to pay more for my membership I am wondering about revenue opportunities from high volume users that could be more fair than cutting off access to apply to sits. Overall THS is a good deal if you are sitting for extensive amounts of time or getting a pet sitter for extensive amounts of time.
I feel ‘popular sits’ are relative.
Only yesterday I was sent a private invitation for a seven week sit - it was a lovely house and an independent cat. I am retired and have all the time in the world. I am free for those dates but I turned it down as that is too long a period for me.
We all have our different reasons for sitting, for some it is a lifestyle choice and for others it is an opportunity to care for pets in a different location for a week or so.
Since joining THS over ten years ago I have seen the value and benefits of my membership diminished over time.
Since joining as a basic member I have seen tiered membership introduced and insurance cover taken away as well as dedicated support. I do not get to apply for unlimited sits due to the rule of five.
I have no intention of upgrading my membership or paying a premium and if it was introduced I think it would be very divisive and cause animosity.
Just my personal take on it.
My sense that longer sits are popular is based on seeing fewer of them. For some members a weekend or week is perfect. It could be that people are travelling for shorter durations but I suspect it is the five application limit filling them up quickly so I never see them.
I have never understood the value of premium so I am still a basic member.
@Shella_in_the_Forum I think there’s been a change post Covid where there are fewer longer sits on offer and it seems many people are travelling for shorter periods. I do agree that the 5 app limit absolutely does not help. Rather than suggesting charging frequent users/ (AKA faithful THS members) more, to counteract the lack of opportunuties you are finding, I would suggest you campaign more for the removal of this unpopular 5 app limit!
We just completed a 6 month housesitting tour of France and Spain- 9 sits with an average 2/3 weeks each. We got lucky to manage to set these all up pretty much back to back. It took time and effort to organise everything- monitoring the site multiple times a day and pouncing on every suitable opportunity asap! THS has certainly increased stress levels for us sitters with this policy but- for us it was worth the effort and we had a great experience
Now we’re heading to UK and having a break from longer sits and doing a series of short ones. We like hopping around UK creating a jigsaw puzzle of different sits!
I do understand your frustration though
@Shella_in_the_Forum I actually have a search set up I call ‘Long sits’. The search criteria is Cats, fish, reptiles, birds, small animals and longer than 1 month. I get about 6 to 10 notifications per day and there are currently 43 in the results. Many have been open for some time and lots are labelled low applications. USA, UK, Australia, ireland, canada and france atm.
So they are there…
None suit my dates and location criteria atm. I have the search in place because we have some hectic travel plans for the next 4 months and I’m thinking we may need to nest for a while after that and take a relaxing breather. If something pops up and takes our eye, we’ll apply.
If this change has meant more people who join the site are getting what they actually paid for–housesitting jobs and housesitters for their pets–I don’t see them changing this, and I can’t blame them.
