This is the right take. Home projects are not like, say, Uber where the primary quality criterion is essentially getting a person to point B in a reasonable time frame, so easily measurable.
Brokering this kind of work is much tougher, with far more variables for quality/success and more room for subjectivity along with some lag time between the work and ability to fully measure quality. I suspect the founders here will find that the very reasons it's a problem for customers are the reasons it will be a problem for them. There is no shortage of bad contractors willing to charge for their work, and the good ones don't need to share their cut to get work.
So, they've absolutely identified a significant homeowner challenge, but their solution seems a bit naive. As another example, auditing photos for quality is unreliable and doesn't scale with project complexity. Yet, if you start to go further in auditing (e.g. on-site auditors) or otherwise guaranteeing and allocating work, then you've essentially re-invented subcontracting (perhaps even more akin to employment). I think they are also vastly underestimating their exposure in guaranteeing this type of work, especially for a small firm. Just arbitrating disputes alone can be a massive resource drain, and that doesn't include the actual remedy (and who pays for that remedy?).
And, of course, the Home Depots and Lowe's of the world already do something similar, with variable results. Hard to see where the real value-added differentiator is here, outside of the lack of brick and mortar.
I do hope they have an epiphany on their journey that leads them to a solution.
Brokering this kind of work is much tougher, with far more variables for quality/success and more room for subjectivity along with some lag time between the work and ability to fully measure quality. I suspect the founders here will find that the very reasons it's a problem for customers are the reasons it will be a problem for them. There is no shortage of bad contractors willing to charge for their work, and the good ones don't need to share their cut to get work.
So, they've absolutely identified a significant homeowner challenge, but their solution seems a bit naive. As another example, auditing photos for quality is unreliable and doesn't scale with project complexity. Yet, if you start to go further in auditing (e.g. on-site auditors) or otherwise guaranteeing and allocating work, then you've essentially re-invented subcontracting (perhaps even more akin to employment). I think they are also vastly underestimating their exposure in guaranteeing this type of work, especially for a small firm. Just arbitrating disputes alone can be a massive resource drain, and that doesn't include the actual remedy (and who pays for that remedy?).
And, of course, the Home Depots and Lowe's of the world already do something similar, with variable results. Hard to see where the real value-added differentiator is here, outside of the lack of brick and mortar.
I do hope they have an epiphany on their journey that leads them to a solution.