Filter by message states (for user id: -1, login: Anonymous):
results: 9
topic id 25265: Pricing
topic id 24883: The purpose of promotion and set your budget in advance
topic id 22503: Leads
topic id 26197: Paying twice for the same lead
topic id 22064: Questionable leads
topic id 14288: Declined "Leads" charged
topic id 19454: Marketing Executive From Thumbtack Chooses Promoted Lead, Then Radio Silence
topic id 18206: New Model?
topic id 100: Is quick reply worthy of charge?
Hankster
Level 10

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

I hate to disagree with you @ScottArcangel but I think some job poster customer education on what they should expect to pay for a service is a good starting point & at least gives them an educted idea. That education should help both the job poster & service pro. Does that mean they would be willing to pay what is expected? Of course not. But at least there would be a happy medium in my opinion. Right now the job poster has no clue what to pay for a service when they use Thumbtack. That's my two cents. 

Hankster 7/29/19

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

@Hankster 

I don't disagree with trying to educate the customer... of course that's a good and noble pursuit that will be good for everyone.

I just don't think it works, haha

 

For music entertainment category, there are already a couple of customer education attempts in-place -

When the customer selects "under $300" for their budget - it has a label of (only for small groups or short events).

When they search for a band, they also can see a "Bands For Hire Cost Guide" that gives them "realistic" prices for Bands and DJs for a variety of events (although the prices are lower than MY marketplace in NYC - it's still better than nothing)

 

In spite of that, and whatever other customer education initiatives are put in place with the best of intentions, we will still have customers who try to book a 5-piece band for 8 hours for a large wedding for under $300. And I'm sick of paying $33 for the priviledge of speaking to that type of customer!!

 

I guess I'm saying - yes, let's educate, but let's also protect our Pros if there are easy ways to build it into the system.

Hankster
Level 10

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

Roger that @ScottArcangel We've made some good suggestions here. You have pointed out wonderful observations. Let's hope that someone at TT will take this & run with it.

Hankster 7/29/19
nora
Level 6

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

I’d like to know if any other pros also paid the $33 fee on a $300 budgeted job?

In my case, I paid a $42 fee for a job with a budget of less than $500, a 2 week turn around time, and for the designer (me) to supply the content (which would be additional). 12 other pros also contacted. Thumbtack made almost $550 in pro fees on a job with a budget of less than $500. I didn’t respond to the job. Why? Mainly because the same customer had already reached out to me that week and never read my response according to the refund folks who refunded my $8.01 fee for marketing, but denied my request on the $42.01 web Design fee.

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

Wow, that is really unacceptable on TT's behalf. Customer had already contacted you once, you got refunded, and then they contacted you again and you were charged way more? If you were refunded once, I can't understand why upon their second request to talk to you, you still had to pay? That really makes no sense.
Cj2015
Level 4

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

I don’t think TT is trying to attract “budget people” but unfortunately it is. Without good options put into place we, the Pros, are being effected by this greatly! It is our option to pay and gather more information to try to seal the deal, but when we learn they want everything for nothing that is a hit in our pockets and a hit on our business.
I have disputed many issues like this with TT. It just is not fare. Remember when TT would credit your account after 3 days if the customer didn’t get back to you? Or if the lead was not legit? They should go back to that system with a better drop down system for the clients as well.
I left FB because of the people who want everything for nothing... I would hate to leave TT as well😢

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

@taylor This is not true. I offer makeup services starting from $70. One customer messgaed me and asked me to do it for $30. I declined , however i was charged. I would never have accepted that service and i shouldn't be shown to her search results if she wants t pay less. I asked for refund and has been declined. This is so unfair to pros. When a pro is declining for a service , he should have atleast option to get refund.  Its like you go to car showroom, u want a $25K car, but want to pay only $5K.  How can salesman convince the buyer in this scenario. Should the salesman be penalized for not able to sold car? That's what happened to me.

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

Yes, I've been saying this for quite a while, as have many other pros. We should be able to choose whether or not we are seen in a search based on someone's budget. If their budget is only $500 they can't see any results for those pros until they input their budget, so that there is no way that they can contact us if our rates are beyond what they can pay. It's really, really simple. I think the reality is, they would not be able to see any pros half the time and some tack would make no money on those requests.
DCFGCatering
Level 8

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

This has become a pure gamble.

And all the tools I used to have to keep the gamble in my favor have been stripped away.

All of them.

 

If not by design then why?

 

 

Highlighted
Lar
Level 9

Re: Continuing to lower Customer budget options without regard for Pro ROI

@needsmorecoffee said, "I think the reality is, they would not be able to see any pros half the time and some tack would make no money on those requests"

Certainly looks that way doesn't it.