That’s the headline to an article in The Times today.
Cat in a Flat was bought by Rover, a larger company that offered a similar service but for dogs. A year before that Rover had been bought by Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity group, in a £1.7 ($2.3) billion deal. For cat owners and cat lovers, it has been a disaster.
“It is a classic case of platform decay, where a site lures in users to build a monopoly then sells out — either to private equity companies or by prioritising business customers, who squeeze users dry for maximum profit. It happened on Etsy, where genuine artists are now drowned out by mass-produced junk, and Uber, where surge pricing stings those just trying to get home. Once the platform shifts focus to profit for shareholders, we all lose out.” Does this seem familiar?
“Caring for someone’s pet isn’t just a business transaction, it relies heavily on trust.”
"Rover has said that the goal of the transition was to give users access to Rover’s “broader marketplace, enhanced trust and safety tools, and expanded support”.
It said: "Much of the frustration stemmed from communication gaps and a limited number of technical issues. Our team responded immediately, and many of the initial issues reported have now been resolved.
“We want to be clear: we fell short in delivering the smooth transition Cat in a Flat users expected and deserved, and we understand the frustration and loss of trust this has caused. We know rebuilding that trust will take time, and we are committed to addressing the concerns raised by cat sitters and cat parents alike.”
Mayfair Equity Partners beware, you’re making the same kind of errors and decisions.
I can’t read the full article without an account but there’s been a lot of discussion about this on our local cat-oriented FB groups.
I used to catsit through Cat in a Flat, as well as Pawshake and Tailster. Cat in a Flat was by far the smoothest and easiest experience. The vast majority of my clients came though Cat in a Flat and I stopped using Tailster and Pawshake pretty quickly. I also used Cat in a Flat a few times to find a sitter for my own cats and always found good people.
The “transition” to Rover has been an absolute disaster. The interface is much worse and the major issue for cat-sitting is that there is no option to offer two (or more) drop-in visit per day so clients wanting this have to make two (or more) separate bookings! Two visits per day is pretty much standard for drop-in visits so to not have the platform set up for this just shows they have no idea about cats!
Also when searching for cat-sitters, Cat in a Flat listed sitters closest to you first while Rover just shows a map of half the city, with sitters listed according to some algorithm. Some sitters are receiving no booking requests at all since the move, while others are receiving more than they can take. This means owners have to send out more requests, receiving more rejections and they eventually give up. I can also see just from looking at the map in my area, that many sitters who were active on Cat in a Flat are no longer active on Rover.
I’d already stopped sitting before the change, as it was just a side-hustle for me while doing my PhD, but I’m really sad to see the end of Cat in a Flat. It was a really great platform and it’s been quite enlightening how quickly Rover was able to ruin it!
Not that it’s any consolation but the PE effect happens across multiple organizations, it’s not specific to pet sitting and the outcome is almost always the same.
Especially when it comes to private medical, dental, and veterinary practices (to name a few), being purchased by PE which is really nothing more than a bunch of business people trying to increase profits by cutting operating costs wherever possible. Most of the time they know little to nothing about the business they’ve purchased nor do they care about their customers who they view as nothing more than wallets.
Healthcare has certainly paid the price as can be seen in countless reviews by people who say something along the lines of “when it was my own personal doctor it was great now it’s run by a bunch of people who don’t care”.
I’ve been living with this gig economy stuff for years. It’s very consistent. When companies start they use apps or sites to connect people and even if they are taking a cut of what you make (sometimes enough of a cut that it really hurts) they are legitimately bringing you clients and helping you to earn money. But there’s always this illusion that you’ll be able to get clients another way or you’ll have enough clients and be able to charge enough and that it will still work out.
Then the companies get sold and things change, sometimes slowly and sometimes all at once. Suddenly you are being told by an algorhythm to charge less and get more clients, Suddenly, instead of applying and choosing clients because you know who is suitable for you, you are being “matched” with clients. Somehow you are spending more on the app and making less.
Things get worse and worse. And then the company folds or you leave because you cannot continue to pay them for NOT giving you work.
In the case of THS, people housesitters and hosts found a way to have a non-monetary exchange that offered house/petsitting services similar to Rover in exchange for homestay travel accomodations similar to Airbnb. If you were a casual traveller, nomad (digital, retired, etc) or aspiring/temporary nomad, who happened to love pets and know how to take care of them responsibly then this was for you. If you were a pet owner, especially one who enjoys “hosting” and/or lives in a location that people would like to visit then it was a win/win. But now it’s very clear it’s being turned into a low-rent Rover that’s still much less costly for homeowners but involves the risks of having strangers in your home with do-it-yourself vetting and a flawed review system. I can see recent high profile events (multiple) leading homeowners to question whether it’s worth the risk. If you’re sitter, you also have to accept that your “competition” for sits may include some less than stellar people and while that might mean that you have a better chance of getting the sit, it also means that the whole experience is less pleasant and you begin to question whether or not the entire enterprise (making some corporation rich) is really helpful to animals or you or anyone else.
@TheEnglishFlaneur, interesting article and sad story.
Alas corporate acquisitions can be frictional in terms of alignment of different business models, technology platforms, organizational cultures and lots more.
As @Maoli rightly noted, related effect is generic across industries rather than specific to housesitting.
That said, really sorry that cat sitting has been negatively impacted.
On my reading list - but not yet read - is book / removed/ Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" by Cory Doctorow - about decay in large technology platforms over time.
Edited to remove veiled swearing, as per our Posting Guidelines)
Private Equity investment is always the death knell for small companies, especially those founded on a premise that subverts capitalism, because PE is about profit for investors, not quality of experience. It rarely happens as quickly as it appears to have done for Cat in a Flat - it’s often very drawn out and the OGs hang on making the most of it as long as they (we) can while the new target market gets drawn in having no expectation of the original premise.
During the Covid era a private company called Heygo was set up by 4 guys, its purpose was connecting live streaming Tour guides via a brilliant App (using 36 different bits of software) to tourists around the world who were stuck at home. I’d attach my phone to a gimble (360° shudder balancing) and my microphone and off I’d go giving my guided walking history tour of Brighton. Tour listings were on an App calendar. I had 2000 followers, others had 10,000. Guests could ask questions live via the app - the questions popped up on the screen. It was expected that guests would make a donation £2-£10 per tour. Heygo took 40% and Guides got 60%. It was very lucrative. On one Tour I had over 200 guests….
PE noticed Heygo, invested £20 million, and destroyed it in 8 mths. I never understood the purpose of the PE takeover. Even now I mourn its demise.
This sounds so amazing, i bet there is still a market for it althoigh not as much.
Its sad- you cant blame ppl for wanting to make a profit, you have to be very priveleged/principled to say no to a sale.
What i struggle with is imagining the amount of money these firms must be turning over in order to give zero fs about destoying a profit making company totally in the process, and it not being a concern. Crazy world we live in
PE Investors frequently screw up. Their sole motivation is profit, they’re nothing other than vampire squids and I despise them and all that they stand for. It’s all leveraged debt, smoke and mirrors.
Thanks for the summary. I used CIAF for some years. I stopped before the takeover - because I was getting seriously depressed by the ignorance most cat “owners” had about their animals (it came to a head when I was asked to do a visit every other day - for two indoor-only cats… For three weeks.) Luckily, sitting isn’t my primary earner, but I would like a few more clients, as well as the loyal base I kept from CIAF. So I’ve been wondering about Rover. I see people have been knocking it, but no-one’s said why.. So your report is very helpful. Think I’ll avoid…
That is a generally “accepted” statement. But is it also true? I have never seen any scientific proof of it. What we all notice is the same process that they buy it, they milk it out financially (with complete disregard to customers and employees) and then it will go bust (or simply dissapears). But they have already made their profit and got the investment back (usually).
It can go either way. A PE takeover doesn’t necessarily mean a company will be run into the ground and be defunct in a few short years. Sometimes a PE takeover results in a company flourishing however in most cases it is on the heads of the customers who see a drop in service and or quality of goods, and employees who are often laid off in droves. It’s all part of cost cutting measures designed to increase profitability.