Why doesn't rover stop taking so much money?

I don't begrudge Rover taking 15% out of my earnings (I've been with Rover since 2014) or even 20%. They provide a website where I can advertise my services, they handle all payment processing, they provide 24/7 customer service and emergency service, they have a modicum of training information for new sitters, and they do have a (limited) guarantee to cover emergencies.

I also work for a local company that specializes in walks and drop in visits, and I get paid 50% of what the client pays. So 15/20% charged by Rover is quite reasonable.

I performed a quick search of Bellaire, Houston, which yielded 84 pages of sitters! When I adjusted the filter budget to only show 50+/night, it resulted in only 5 pages! I applaud you for having a reasonable rate for personalized care.

Unless you're continuously booked to your full capacity, I'd think that the real problem is that the number of bookings in insufficient for a business because sitters are encouraged to keep rates low - and some post really far too low. I really don't understand nor agree with why sitters post rates that are half (or even less) of what a business charges.

In my area, the most popular boarding places are much more expensive than sitters on Rover. The facilities usually start at 50+/night, with 100+ dogs interacting in a facility with increased potential for illness and injury (I've met many owners who stopped taking their dogs after often contracting illnesses there), with much less personalized attention in a home environment, and a bunch of add on fees for "cuddle time", "brush out", "one-on one play time", etc. The places where someone could board for less usually means they're kept in a bunch of stacked crates where there's no overnight care and often those dogs go home ill too.

I don't begrudge rover their percentage for connecting me to others, payment processing and support. However, there are other things they could do that would help make more positive impact, such as...

• more user friendly improved search functions (by neighborhood, more filters to differentiate levels of attention)
• and if they set a minimum standard rate

I occasionally begrudge the 20% as well - mostly for repeat clients; I kind of feel that if a client has booked x times Rover should take less out of my rate. But I also understand that Rover is providing a lot, including making my business more thriving than I would have on my own. A lot of my issue has to do with what Deb mentioned about sitter prices. Rover encourages you to have low prices, especially when you first start, to get more bookings. People are almost always going to go for lower rates. I've done one rate increase (though for some repeat clients that are awesome and their dogs are awesome I give them the lower rate); I tried to do a higher one but I didn't get half of the inquiries or bookings as I did before and my income suffered. I totally agree with Deb that it would be great if Rover raised the expectations of minimum price to be the going market rate. There are also some dogs that require more care than others (not just puppies) and it would be good to charge a higher rate (I realize I can adjust the rate and tell them it will be higher but once they've seen the price it's harder).

I very much agree with you. 20% seems at least somewhat unreasonable. A few years ago it used to be 15%. However, other than making profit the 20% goes to support the Rover Guarantee, website maintenance and development, app maintenance and development, payment processing, support (including technical), marketing, staff, and probably more.

Considering how many providers on Rover charge minimal fees for their services, they are close to working for free.

You can also think of it this way! If you are an independent contractor working for an independent pet care company most payout no more than 50-60% of the booking rate, so you can make more with Rover. Of course you can always go indpendent and keep all the rate, but now you have to create and maintain a website, spend money on advertising, and possibly pay for pet business software, so will you make more?

There is a lot of overhead for creating and maintaining an effective application: Security, User Experience, Updates that work with every operating system, etc... Twenty percent is fair for all that they do offer in my humble opinion. Let's not forget the people that answer the phones in case of emergency.

At this point of the game 20% is fair. Rover is not in the black yet and my extra income is exactly because Rover built an efficient platform.

"Filing shows Rover revenues grew 35% to $95 million in 2019, but then plunged 49% to $48 million last year. A figure for adjusted EBITDA, which includes net loss but excludes a variety of costs such as interest and taxes, went from negative $35 million in 2019 to negative $24 million last year."

So Rover was $24MM in the hole for 2020. I'm happy to do 20% for the time-being, but when they go black, they ought to take a share from each booking between 12% to 15%.