Maybe it would be best if the fee only applied to international sitters and not local. If you are purchasing plane tickets, taking trains or driving long distances, the fee is negligible. Big difference if only doing local sits.
It’s about more than the money.
I would only do an off platform sit with someone who was a repeat sitter, and we already knew them. If I out up a listing in THS I would think it would be obvious I would want to do it through the platform. For a new-to-me sitter, I would want to be able to write a review, good or bad.
I understand the principle of sitters not wanting to pay the booking fee, but I find it tacky when sitters use the platform to find a match, then decide they don’t want to pay the listing and want to book it off platform. Either use the platform with it’s terms, or don’t use it all and use a different platform altogether.
I am not a premium sitter. I’m firmly opposed to the booking fee.
I do not plan to go off platform. I want the structure of THS. You are not unreasonable to want that too.
Each member has to figure out how to make THS work for them with these changes and still stay within the platform. It’s unfair to apply, arrange to video meet, and then propose going off THS. This request should be in the application.
My upcoming sits were planned before my membership ended so I haven’t paid a booking fee yet. If I do it will be limited. All things considered, I think what I currently pay is my top limit
I completely agree. Even if I didn’t have the luxury of premium membership through to 2031 (referrals) I believe the move by some sitters to go off platform to save the booking fee is short sighted and obviously undermines the platform.
Do I agree with the booking fee and how it was implemented? No.
Would I be paying the fee if I weren’t protected from it? Yes, as I see the fee being a small amount considering the upwards of €30,000 we save each year in accommodation and the peer review system the platform provides.
My thoughts exactly!
What undermines the platform IMO is the stubborn refusal by THS to respond and act upon the many and repeated requests for improvement e.g. better consistency between the website and apps, improved searches, a blocking feature, reporting of non-compliant listings, more effective screening of non-compliant listings, the list goes on. Instead, what we get is sit fees for non-premium members dressed up as improving support and services.
Wow so many replies this forum is amazing!
To Twitcher this is troubling where did you get this information from?
Plus the change in T&Cs where they admit they
17.4. cannot promise that the Platform will be fit or suitable for any purpose.
I am a premium member but I am really mad at the accelerated ‘ttification process the company is undergoing. I am still trying to figure out whether I will stay.
I don’t think @Twitcher has that information, I think he is just stating an opinion, which is shared by lots of members, including myself, as had been discussed in other threads. Once private equity companies enter on scene, the process of squeezing money out of members never stops.
Anyway, @Pierce, your concerns are more than reasonable and it’s totally understandable that you don’t want to take any chances with someone you don’t know and agree on a sit off platform.
The “premium” badge is visible to sitters when they apply so they are aware of the fact that you have nothing to win going off platform and may feel the sit to be more risky. This is all about equal exchanges and good matches. Starting a totally new sit with that request may not be the best approach.
@Pierce, curious observation. Can imagine frustrating.
The whole thread reminds us that the housesitting community is remarkably diverse in terms of personal situation, housesitting usage and listing preferences.
It is our impression, perhaps wrong, that some housesitters despise the booking fee out of principle. But that for some members then the booking fee (or incremental fee to premium membership) has a significant financial limitation. No judgement, simply observation from THS Forum threads.
For us, and this clearly personal to our situation, if an unknown THS pet parent sought to take conversation off-platform simply to avoid booking fee then we’d walk away.
Perhaps worth recapping recent Forum thread about a post in UK ‘The Times’ …
“The majority of our sitters are based in the US, with 65.3 per cent identifying as solo female travellers,” Laws [THS] says. “Our largest age cohort is the 25–45 age group, making up 61 per cent of our total sitters.”"
Earlier this year, in efforts to sidestep booking fee, we framed an idea re geography-based membership. But comments were wholly against. No matter. Under that idea - perhaps a current standard-level housesitter in UK (access global listings, pay booking fee) could pay same fee for premium-level membership (access uk only listings, pay no booking fee).
You aren’t being unreasonable.
While many sitters have expressed feeling on this platform about the booking fee and it’s unfairness, the truth is it exists. Some sitters are asking the homeowners to pay it. This means that homeowners who don’t have premium and are already paying the fee on their end will have to leave $12 or the equivalent for the sitter or maybe paypal it to them or make some other arrangement which feels uncomfortable and weird. Many homeowners would object to paying the fee. I know I would. I try to be generous in other ways to sitters but if they feel my sit isn’t worth it without my covering this expense than I’m fine with finding someone else. So as a homeowner I would consider that ask a red flag. (As a sitter, I would never ask this as I have a premium memberhsip and also the fees don’t start till renewal and that’s a long way off for me as it is for many sitters.)
Some sitters may be asking to go offsite in order to avoid fees. They could also be asking for other reasons. In my opinion this is too risky. My membership (as both a sitter and homeowner) gives me certain protections. Maybe not a lot but certainly some. In its simplest form if something goes terribly wrong I get to write a review and warn others. I also paid for premium and have cancellation protection which I lose if the sit is offsite. So I would say no to such a request.
Even if you disagree with the company adding this charge, you are using the site to apply for a sit. You are leveraging your reviews and membership to get the sit and then you’re saying “Hey homeowner, I’d like you to give up whatever protections you think you paid for with your membership in order to have me a complete stranger whose last name you don’t even know stay in your house maybe if I decide to show up.” So my answer would be no because I really can’t trust a stranger who would ask me to take this risk.
The only circumstance where it might not be no would be if the person sat for me before and their membership was expiring and they weren’t planning on renewing.
If the only sitters applying are asking you to go off platform, I’d consider looking at your listing and see if there is anything you can change or add to make it more appealing to more sitters. It doesn’t have to be an offer to pay the fee, but maybe something else to sweeten the pot and make your listing more attractive.
@TheEnglishFlaneur very well said
Hi @Pierce - I hope I am proved wrong but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is brought in along with an increase in the overall booking fee.
A premium badge doesn’t indicate a premium sitter. There are many excellent sitters who choose the basic plan.
Like many others, totally agree with not wanting to book such sitters.. I understand some people are opposed to the booking fee in principle, but that is not the host’s issue.
The price difference between the premium and basic membership is like 100 dollars or so. If people do not do enough sits to justify upgrading, that means they would not be spending any more than this per year on fees, unless perhaps paying the membership fee all at once is too much money and they actually sit more frequently.
I understand the concept of ‘expensive’ can be relative, but we are not talking spending several hundred extra dollars a year or more.
If an extra expense of this size is a genuine hardship, I truly empathize as I have had periods of my life when my finances were not so great. But if I were a host and I got the sense a sitter could not afford $12, that doesn’t give the greatest first impression, and I don’t think sitters have any right to ask hosts to cover this cost.
I totally get being opposed to the fees–who is ever happy when prices are raised–but the reality of the situation is that we are not talking about that much extra money. So for people who are truly opposed in principle, and will leave the site, they are free to do so.
For those who truly can’t afford it, again I empathize. But for many people, this per-fee booking may have ended up being the cheaper option than raising the price of the membership.
It’s totally normal to not be happy with every aspect of how a business provides it service–and share those thoughts somewhere like this forum-- but the strong reactions I see, and the ongoing complaining, about something like a housesitting site, has always struck me as so strange.
Obviously the strong reaction comes from the fact that many of these people feel very reliant on the site for booking sits and probably will not leave. And if people remain members, even if totally begrudgingly, then it may be a good idea to cut down on all the constant complaining for their own benefit.
It’s not about affordability, at least for me. So called improved support and services for all, that basic and standard members are going to be used to fund.
Do what you feel comfortable with. Many sitters and hosts are not happy with the new booking fee. It’s not the money, it is the terrible communication and implementation by THS on the heals of multiple other ham-fisted changes that we have had to swallow.
I recently had a host ask me to book off site. I have sat for them before so I went with it. I am not sure I would do it with a new-to-me host. I might if they had a great track record. I don’t feel protected by THS and I don’t feel loyal to them either.
As someone that’s been around PE companies I fear you might be right. They may also see $12 booking fee as a starting point in years to come with $12 becoming $20…$25…$30. The investment company need a return on their investment in THS which they’re not going to get looking at the accounts.
@Twitcher if premium members ever have to pay the booking fee, then I’m done with THS. It’s a blatant cash grab!
They may do a lot of things in coming years. The best strategy for now in my opinion is to figure out what works now since it’s hard to know if they’ll even be a THS in a few years much less if you want to be a member of it.
It would seem to me that sitters whose current strategy is to ask homeowners new to them to take the sit offsite should be prepared to explain to those homeowners what the advantage is to them to doing that.
If you view THS as a matching site, to me a sitter suggesting to a homeowner whom they haven’t sat for before that the sit goes offsite, would be the equivalent of agreeing to meet someone on a dating site under the condition that you tell no one who you’ll be meeting or where and make sure to leave your phone off.
If I was a new hosting member, I would not agree to go off record with sits. You want to build reviews, for one thing. You also want support from THS should anything go drastically wrong. I’d be a little bit suspicious of any sit applicant who requests that. I’ve been a sitter since 2017. It’s best to keep it all above board.