A question: What annoys you about finding childcare?

[ambu]

Hi everyone.

I'm new to mumsnet, but am am an entrepreneur looking to build a service that makes it easier to find and book childcare (both nannies and babysitters) online and/or via an app.

What I would love to know is:

How do you typically find care for your kids?
How often do you need childcare?
At what age would you start to look (if at all!) for professional childcare?
What annoys you about the current 'finding and using childcare' experience?

If anyone has a few minutes to help out then it would be super appreciated!

Thanks.

Final question and then I'll shut up for a while :)

For those of you that either would book or already have booked childcare through an agency without meeting the sitter, what kind of checks would you require to give you sufficient confidence that that particular individual was ok to look after your kids?

'Even if you charge a cut to the sitter, if they get more work through using your agency, then they should be happy, right?'

It depends on the cut. If they end up doing more work for about the same money then....no, not happy. I think you'll find that the people who work for Sitters are people who don't have a built up business yet. Once they get that, maybe by initially sitting for you, why would they stay?

Then think about the sitter going into a strangers house. It's all well and good checking the nanny, but what about the family? Why would I take the risk of going to a home where I don't know the family or the children when I could babysit for someone I know/know of. It works both ways. When someone recommends a sitter to you, they're also recommending you to the sitter.

Then you need to think about what happens if the family cancel last minute. Have they paid already? What if they cancel an hour before do I lose my money for the evening or do you pay me? What if they come home early? Do they still pay for the whole night? What if they 'choose' me from the website, but I'm booked? Are you going to pressure me to take the job?

It's a two way street. Parents who use Sitters review it fairly positively ime. Nannies who work for them? Not so much. I don't know anyone who works for them/is on their list who doesn't do it as a last resort i.e. they take any personal bookings first and only if they're free/need the money desperately will they take the Sitters booking. Who wants to be badly treated and underpaid?!

If you can make your company more appealing to the sitter, whilst keeping the parents happy, you'll have found your niche.

@OutragedFromLeeds:

Exactly right. I think any service needs to be making life better both for the sitter and for the parent - if not, there's no point!

The idea behind a commission from the sitter would be to provide the kind of checks necessary to allow them to get more bookings, which would be explained clearly. They would have to be getting more money, otherwise there would be no incentive for them to use it.

In terms of 'why would they stay?', if the majority of the babysitting work was 'ad-hoc', then there's the potential to get more work through using an agency like this, and hence to make more money.

The sitter going into a stranger's house is an interesting point. You can do a lot of good by forcing parents to log-in with a social network, which should help build up trust on the sitter side, I imagine. I need to check with more sitters about their thoughts on this, but it looks like currently agencies don't vet the parents, right?

In terms of the payments, you bring up an interesting point - I believe this is usually set by the agency, but it's important to be fair to both parties (cancellation policies, extensions to the time etc).

The point of 'being chosen' is another interesting one. I understand that from a parent's point of view, you want that sitter to be confirmed as soon as you make the booking, but from the sitter's point of view, you want to have the choice. Tricky one. What do you think about giving a sitter a (let's say) 10 / 30 / 60 minute window to accept the job? How does that sound from a parent's point of view?

Just above here on this thread lotsofcheese said that they didn't use Sitters (as a parent) because it was too expensive, but your experience is that Sitters find that they are underpaid. Sounds like someone is taking a far bigger cut than they should be...I'm a firm believer that both parties should be happy, but it sounds here like the only happy party is the middleman!

@OutragedFromLeeds:

Exactly right. I think any service needs to be making life better both for the sitter and for the parent - if not, there's no point!

The idea behind a commission from the sitter would be to provide the kind of checks necessary to allow them to get more bookings, which would be explained clearly. They would have to be getting more money, otherwise there would be no incentive for them to use it.

In terms of 'why would they stay?', if the majority of the babysitting work was 'ad-hoc', then there's the potential to get more work through using an agency like this, and hence to make more money.

The sitter going into a stranger's house is an interesting point. You can do a lot of good by forcing parents to log-in with a social network, which should help build up trust on the sitter side, I imagine. I need to check with more sitters about their thoughts on this, but it looks like currently agencies don't vet the parents, right?

In terms of the payments, you bring up an interesting point - I believe this is usually set by the agency, but it's important to be fair to both parties (cancellation policies, extensions to the time etc).

The point of 'being chosen' is another interesting one. I understand that from a parent's point of view, you want that sitter to be confirmed as soon as you make the booking, but from the sitter's point of view, you want to have the choice. Tricky one. What do you think about giving a sitter a (let's say) 10 / 30 / 60 minute window to accept the job? How does that sound from a parent's point of view?

Just above here on this thread lotsofcheese said that they didn't use Sitters (as a parent) because it was too expensive, but your experience is that Sitters find that they are underpaid. Sounds like someone is taking a far bigger cut than they should be...I'm a firm believer that both parties should be happy, but it sounds here like the only happy party is the middleman!

I would read legislation to do with recruitment and employment agencies. There are strict rules with regard to what work seekers can be be charged for by an agency.

Existing websites/apps which list babysitters are purely advertising venues, so get around the problem in that way. Sitters I don't think charges the work seeker, they make money from booking and membership fees charged to parents.

@Cindy34 - good point.

It doesn't necessarily seem right to charge the parent a high fee per booking, or the £14.95 per quarter if they aren't using it constantly.

A fairer service for both parties would seem to be a slightly higher hourly rate, and a commission taken by the agency.

That way the parent ends up paying more or less the same, the sitter receives the same (but gets more bookings), and everyone is happier. It's also far more transparent.

@Footie - but if you are hiring a babysitter from an agency, then it's quite likely the children won't have met them before. Right?

I sit through sitters and occasionally use them as my babysitting agency as well. I really cannot see what you could offer to both the sitter and the parent that they don't already. In fact I think they'll beat you every time ... for example I had a wedding last year that was far away from home and my booked a sitter through them. You wouldn't be able to provide this service.
I think the fee sitters charge is a very fair and affordable system. And the website is easy to use. And I like the fact that I pay directly to the sitter so I can give her a tip as well if I am happy with her services. If I book in advance I usually get the same sitter that's in 1st position on my favourite's list.
From a point of view of the sitter I wouldn't care if the family is checked or not. What's the point? If I don't like something I will just walk away before they leave or just not take a booking from them next time. I don't like the idea of using facebook to snoop ... would you really have time for that?
For me getting more work through sitters is not an issue. I've got more babysitting opportunities that I can/want to handle and after 2 years of working through them 90% of the bookings are from families that I have babysat for many many times.
I saw another agency advertise last year ... with a 'difference'. The owner was bragging about how she likes to get her monies worth and her agency offered babysitting and ironing at the same time. She also handled all the money ...the family paid the agency, the agency took their cut and then paid the sitter. Needless to say I never signed up for that as it somehow didn't seem that attractive to me as a parent or a sitter.
I think a new agency is going to work but only if it's very very local, heavily advertised and if you can offer something sitters can't.

ambu - we were reassured by Sitters mainly by the very local reviews (there were even parents on our street that had used the Sitter we booked) and also that the Sitter we booked lived very locally (5 mins away). We also had friends in other areas who had used Sitters and had very good experiences.

I think if you're both ft working parents you tend to see established friends at weekends (who might not have children and/or live locally). So you don't necessarily have a network of local parents friends to rely on for recommendations or share childcare etc.
Maybe if you live an area you grew up in so have local friends already who had children around the same time or if you're a SAHP so come into contact with lots of local parents frequently, it's different.

'That way the parent ends up paying more or less the same, the sitter receives the same (but gets more bookings), and everyone is happier'

That's a nice idea, but does the maths work? For example, I charge £10ph. The families pay, total cost, £10ph. How can I still get £10ph, they still pay £10ph and you get enough commission to make it worth your while?

I think maybe what I'm thinking of is a less frequent system, where it's not for people who need sitters once a week, but rather once a month (or less), and who would value the convenience of being able to request a sitter online or through their mobile.

@lovelynannytobe
So you have more than enough bookings coming through your current (offline) network?
That's interesting, as I would assume that means you've had to turn down requests from parents because you are already booked up?
This must be annoying for those parents, and they will have to loom elsewhere, right?

Of those 90% of bookings from families you know, do they still come through Sitters, or they just contact you directly?

@outragedfromleed - perhaps it's just a case of the parent paying the same, the babysitter getting a bit less per booking, but there being so much work there that the sitter ends up making more money

But for that to work, the sitter needs to want to work more hours, or to have more hours available to them.
I'd have thought the nature of the job was that people who wanted occasional, ad hoc, or at most one evening a week of work, would be the people who sign up to be sitters - not people who want to be out working 7 nights a week.

No ambu ... it means I do not need to babysit so much as I had to because finally my old fart of a husband got himself a job. I only do it if it's a high paying booking. Yes I do turn down private requests as I only do it when it suits me. Yes the 90% come from sitters. I prefer them going through an agency as I'm not always available and it's comforting to know they will still have somebody else if I cannot make it or have to cancel.

'perhaps it's just a case of the parent paying the same, the babysitter getting a bit less per booking, but there being so much work there that the sitter ends up making more money'

How much less? That's the question. Realistically if your only income is the commission it's going to have to be a fair percentage isn't it? Your main competition would be Sitters, who make their money through fees etc. why would a sitter choose to work for you if you're paying less than Sitters do (which you'd have to if it was your only source of income)?

As Back says, most people don't want to do loads of hours for less money even if it adds up to more overall. People who have a network of families to sit for won't need the extra work. The people that sign up will be sitters who are not yet established. Once they become established why take less money and go through you?

Are you going to attract the highest quality carers with that system? It's doubtful!

For those of you that have used a babysitter through an 'offline' referral (i.e. friend/colleague/neighbour), how often do you actually use them? And how many other families do you think they sit for?

Further up this thread there was a commenter who pointed out that not having a family/friends network around you means that it's very difficult to find temp sitters, and you have to go through some kind of agency.

Based on this, a kind of agency like this would work best in a city where a lot of people don't have that kind of extended network - London, for example.

@lovelynannytobe - I suppose the question about the fees comes back to 'who is paying them?'

A parent has to pay a quarterly subscription on Sitters, which essentially counts as a commission on the transaction.

A fairer system would surely be that the commission is smaller (i.e. not £15 per month) on every transaction, so that people that use the service need to pay more?

@OutragedFromLeeds - all very good points.

This idea wouldn't be about trying to shaft either the parents or the sitters, but rather finding a balance that worked for both. I was thinking of a commission of between 10 and 20%, which would include managing all the payments etc.

How about students / young professionals in a large city as being your kind of market that are trying to get set up?

If sure that there are thousands of girls/guys in their 20s that would happily be paid £8-10 per hour (at the more premium end) on a weekday evening...

Sure that these kinds of sitters would be happy to work several evenings a week.

Also, from both a sitter and parent's point of view, is it an advantage to be able to handle all of the financial transactions online / through an app?

Paying for stuff in cash can be awkward, and this way means that everything is automatic for everyone.

What do you reckon?

I know you wouldn't be trying to 'shaft' anyone. My point is that the maths just doesn't add up. You can't provide a high quality service, at a low cost to parents and make a profit. If you are planning on running it as a charity it could work, but when you add a third party to a two-party transaction their 'cut' has to come from somewhere. Either the parent pays more or the nanny earns less or both. It's just the way the numbers go.

'If sure that there are thousands of girls/guys in their 20s that would happily be paid £8-10 per hour (at the more premium end) on a weekday evening...'

I'm sure there are. But then we come back to quality. How many of those people are DBS checked? Insured? First Aid trained? Ofsted registered? Have experience? People will employ unqualified sitters who they know or checked sitters that they don't, but the number of people willing to employ someone who is a) a stranger and b) inexperienced and unqualified must be a minority. I charge £10ph as a qualified, experienced, first aid trained, insured, Ofsted registered nanny. Why would a parent pay the same to a student looking for some extra cash? If they were desperate maybe? The desperate is quite a small market though!

Fair points indeed. If all the sitters were DBS checked and First Aid trained, then that would surely go to help give a parent confidence in that individual's ability, right?

In terms of the maths - how about this:

Scenario 1: Parent pays £60 annual subscription to nanny agency, gets a sitter through them 5 times a year at (for sake of ease) £10 per hour, 3 hours, so spends a total of £150 to the sitter and £60 to the agency (this doesn't even factor in any credit card fees).

Scenario 2: Parent doesn't pay any subscription to agency, but books a sitter 5 times a year at £12 per hour, each time 3 hours, so spends a total of £180 per year.
Like this the sitter is still happy, the parent is happier as a) they haven't been tied down and b) they actually end up paying less for the same service.

What do you reckon?

Scenario 2 you don't make any money. The sitter gets all the money.

I think a DBS check is a minimum. First Aid would be a bonus. But the young students that you're aiming at won't have this necessarily. Would you deal with that i.e. get the checks done?

In scenario one the agency makes a guaranteed minimum £60. In scenario 2 the agency makes £30 IF they get used 5 times. That works for the parent and the nanny, not so much for the agency (I'm assuming the agency wants to make a profit?!).

If the parent likes the service and wants to use it lots. Let's say 20 times a year. Scenario one would cost the parents; £60 + £600 = £660. Scenario 2 would cost £720. In scenario one the agency makes £60. In scenario 2 the agency makes £120. Great for the agency, not so much for the parents.