6

Multiple Meet & Greets but we are penalized?

asked 2016-07-20 08:04:03 -0500

I just found out from a potential client that Rover encourages Owners to do 3 Meet & Greets; which is obviously a good idea for the Owner. However, that means 2 of those Sitters are being set up for failure. Rover penalizes our profile ranking for not booking a certain amount of requests but is setting us up for not possibly being able to book after every Meet & Greet. Even if I'm lucky enough to be everyone's first choice that means there are two other people who are not.

Doesn't this seem at the very least disingenuous on Rover's part? or at the worst like they are pitting us against each other?

edit edit tags flag offensive close merge delete

Comments

Competition is good for all of us. Clients want top care and we want good clients! Ratings are just ratings. If you book good clients, they will give you 5 Star ratings, to me that is important

Walt G.'s profile image Walt G.  ( 2016-07-20 09:13:44 -0500 ) edit

Competition IS good, however being set up to fail is not.

Jill G.'s profile image Jill G.  ( 2016-07-20 09:40:14 -0500 ) edit

I don't believe we are being set up to fail, just my 2 cents. I've been on Rover since Jan, while it took a few months to get clients, I'm fully booked with daily walks Mon-Fri and I'm very happy.

Walt G.'s profile image Walt G.  ( 2016-07-20 09:55:20 -0500 ) edit

I've been doing Rover close to a year. I've had mostly good experiences. However I've had a few people come to my house and they are judging me on the quality of my domain and its furnishings rather than the love and care I can provide their dog. Guess what? I ain't rich. That's why we do Rover.

Jill G.'s profile image Jill G.  ( 2016-07-20 10:25:37 -0500 ) edit

I had a lady sit in my living room and she stayed on her phone. I was getting really annoyed with her. I heard her say to her husband that its only 5 minutes away. They left and I got a message a couple of days later that they would be using another sitter. So I suspect she was sitter shopping.

Myra L.'s profile image Myra L.  ( 2018-01-24 16:28:11 -0500 ) edit

8 Answers

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted
9
answered 2016-07-20 11:14:50 -0500

The only thing I don't like about dog owners shopping around is the way Rover takes us "off the market" when there's no earnest intent to book the stay. Shopping around is good. The problem is with Rover.

Awhile ago I suggested to Rover that they have an "I'm ready to book this" indicator for both the owner and sitter. It would be something like a progress indicator. The initial request starts the activity between owner and sitter. But, it's all verbal nuances after that. The owner may think I have requirements I'm mulling over. I may think the owner is ready to commit (when they really have two other sitters to visit).

I think an indicator ("I'm ready to book this") would make it clearer who is waiting on whom. Rover could leave us in search results as long as the owner hasn't advanced their request to that level of commitment. If the owner "is ready" before I click that indicator, then I will be motivated to advance to booking the request -- or declining -- because I'm off the market as long as I don't.

I see the booking process as a workflow. Right now it's too undefined, nebulous, subject to communication errors (assumptions). For example, I'm afraid to press "book it now" because I think it is pushy, and the owner might not like the clock started on them. Owners may think I'm wavering, and they'll be reluctant to initiate the final commitment. I think an "I'm ready" indicator would be a good middle ground. It would improve communication.

That's what I suggested it for. Sometimes it seems awkward (who's waiting on whom). It may be awkward for the owner to say they're shopping around (provocative?).

But, it would help with the way Rover takes us off the market when there's no earnest commitment to book with us.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

GREAT idea. Owners might not book right away due to payment. An Owner I really hit it off with hadn't booked for 2 weeks after the M&G. Eventually I contacted her about Archiving her request; it put her in the awkward position of saying she couldn't pay yet. So much for the rapport I'd built...

Jill G.'s profile image Jill G.  ( 2016-07-20 11:25:32 -0500 ) edit

I agree and like Mark's post.

Mary C.'s profile image Mary C.  ( 2016-07-20 12:05:25 -0500 ) edit

Perhaps, a reservation button without a payment until it's near.

Stella R.'s profile image Stella R.  ( 2016-08-02 22:28:18 -0500 ) edit

What's crazy to me is if I go to Rover and search my city I'll see sitters in other towns sometimes which is NUTS to me... when there's several sitters in my area... maybe I'm just looking around... why are you filtering results to the point I can't see a true depiction of who is sitting in my area

Enjoli R.'s profile image Enjoli R.  ( 2017-05-17 22:45:51 -0500 ) edit

I agree with the Book It Now button. Many of my clients have done the meet and greet in advance, promised me the booking but not ready to pay. I don't want to hit the book it button either because I think they feel pushed to pay now. Some can't. There needs to be a way to book tentatively.

Myra L.'s profile image Myra L.  ( 2018-01-24 16:33:12 -0500 ) edit

I totally agree. I am both a sitter and an owner and I think having to pay when you book is difficult sometimes. I do understand why though. If an owner books and blocks your calendar but then doesn't pay it puts everyone in a bad position.

Jeanine S.'s profile image Jeanine S.  ( 2019-01-31 19:24:04 -0500 ) edit
7
answered 2016-07-20 09:05:52 -0500

I agree with you. I can see both sides -- clients should "shop around" to get the full Rover experience, which is fine, but I think Rover definitely made an oversight in penalizing us for not making that booking -- especially with their recently piloted grading system that seems to be no more for now. These two things cannot exist at the same time.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

Darn logic. LOL!!

Jill G.'s profile image Jill G.  ( 2016-07-20 09:36:11 -0500 ) edit
6
answered 2016-07-20 09:18:10 -0500

I agree - it seems they are being a bit hypocritical and contradictory in their expectations and operations. On the one hand, they encourage owners to 'shop around' and interview several sitters to find the best fit. I have no problem with that, I comparison shop almost everything before I buy. On the other hand, we as sitters are penalized if we don't book every request that we get and our ranking in the searches goes down.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

Kinda makes me not want to do certain Meet & Greets if I feel like they'll be a waste of my time. But then we're penalized for turning down a request. OY!

Jill G.'s profile image Jill G.  ( 2016-07-20 09:39:18 -0500 ) edit

right. although I have turned down 1 meet n greet, the owner had 2 very small dogs and my dog is huge. I run my home like a pack and family we play and run and make tired pups. Her dogs were dressed up and more show dog types and she spoke of them that way. I knew this was not going to work.

Jamie R.'s profile image Jamie R.  ( 2016-07-20 09:49:36 -0500 ) edit

My booking ratings are high but repeat score went down. While still good, my point is every client may only travel once a year. To me, this seems unfair. I have good repeat clients and referrals. I have only been with Rover a short time.

Myra L.'s profile image Myra L.  ( 2018-01-24 16:41:09 -0500 ) edit
4
answered 2016-07-20 12:46:53 -0500

Hi Jill, I'm a Rover employee and just asked some of my colleagues your question to get some clarification. Rover doesn't list anywhere on the site that they tell owners to do 3 meet and greets, they simply suggest owners contact a few sitters in the event the original sitter they are contacting is unavailable. I'm a sitter myself and get requests where I know the owner has reached out to multiple people, but a good chunk of the time the dog wouldn't be a good fit for my household, so it works to their advantage to reach out to a few.

If you have any specific feedback on this, you can always send it to Support@Rover.com!

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

The exact number of Sitters you suggest they contact doesn't really matter. The point is Rover is taking good care of the Owners (after all that's where the money comes from) and then turning that suggestion against the Sitters. Or at least that's what it looks like from this side.

Jill G.'s profile image Jill G.  ( 2016-07-20 14:31:34 -0500 ) edit
2
answered 2017-12-08 17:30:25 -0500

Rover definitely penalizes the sitters by doing this. I recently was sent a warning email from Rover saying that my dog sitting in dog's home service was turned off, had to email them to get it turned back on and they threatened that if I was not booking this service regularly it would be turned off permanently. This despite that fact that in the past few months I have only turned down this service because it was quite far outside of the area I am willing to travel to. If they encourage owners to send messages to multiple sitters even though only one will be booked, the sitters that don't get booked are penalized though they have done nothing wrong.

edit flag offensive delete link more
2
answered 2016-07-20 09:44:08 -0500

I have felt this way all along. I almost always click Owner changed plans on the ARCHIVE message. I do believe this reduces the penalty. Also I have had a couple people cancel the meet n greet saying they made other arrangements, and I believe that is after they met sitter #1. maybe I couldn't meet right away. Which is even more disappointing.

And some people don't want to tell you they are looking elsewhere and then you don't know to archive the message and it blocks your calendar

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

I almost always archive based on the clients if I can and after a day of no response after I've already sent a message, I archive with "client stopped responding." I try not to use the "client found another sitter" because I'm paranoid it affects me! lol

Betty G.'s profile image Betty G.  ( 2016-07-20 09:55:43 -0500 ) edit

right me too

Jamie R.'s profile image Jamie R.  ( 2016-07-20 10:14:39 -0500 ) edit

I've had several potential clients respond that they have made other arrangement with family or friends. That leads me to believe they were just price shopping.

Cari C.'s profile image Cari C.  ( 2016-07-20 10:36:16 -0500 ) edit

If someone messages you but you never have a meet & great are you still penalized when the message is archived?

Taryn H.'s profile image Taryn H.  ( 2016-08-04 18:50:39 -0500 ) edit
1
answered 2019-01-25 00:37:34 -0500

I will say i do not like when the owner has multiple M@G. We dont get paid and its our time too. When the owner chooses someone else I kinda ask myself what did I do wrong? Sometimes you get the booking and sometimes you dont.

edit flag offensive delete link more
0
answered 2019-01-28 15:28:53 -0500

I'm really glad I found this old thread. Yesterday I lost a $650 job because I couldn't immediately do a meet and greet because I was with another dog client. The owner had contacted multiple sitters from the start and the one that could immediately go over there got the job. I thought about messaging Rover about them encouraging contacting multiple sitters but assumed they wouldn't care because they're getting their cut either way. Lost a $650 job because I was doing a $25 job... damn.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account. This space is reserved only for answers. If you would like to engage in a discussion, please instead post a comment under the question or an answer that you would like to discuss

Add Answer