TechFold - Bold tech & web commentary

DayCareCrossing Matches Parents to Daycare Providers

Here’s a nice, straightforward concept - matching parents and daycare providers on the basis of number of kids, type of care desired, cost of care, geographic considerations, and so on. DayCareCrossing offers parents the opportunity to submit their needs and be matched for free; daycare providers pay to be listed on the site after a two-week free trial period.

DayCareCrossing departs majorly from the traditional vertical-classified formula, however. As a visitor to the site, you can’t actually browse a catalog of providers or classified postings: instead, after entering a detailed profile of your needs, you are emailed provider profiles that can meet your criteria. Its like an RFP process, with DCC acting as a broker between you and prospective providers.

In some ways, it feels cumbersome. I’m used to eBay, Craigslist, and classifieds sites in general that encourage you to explore and discover, giving you the opportunity to find what you may be looking for, but also to stumble across other options.

EDIT: I’ve come across multiple listings of DCC as a “sponsored review.” Are they a PayPerPost customer or something? See this, and this for example. Credibility alert has been sounded…

UPDATE: Credibility alert called off; reviews are “sponsored” via sponsoredreviews.com - a site which encourages honest reviews and feeback - “Earn cash by writing honest reviews about our advertiser’s products and services.” Anyone care to comment on sponsoredreviews?

Considering the case of daycare specifically, however, the DayCareCrossing approach has some distinct advantages:

1. “Blind Matching” removes much of the incentive to post crazy listings (”@@@LOOK@@@1!!”) - i.e.: the parent doesn’t see the listing until a match has been made, so the need to stick out on a page of results is minimized.
2. DCC controls the contents of their database: presumably providers are vetted, and can be removed decisively in the event of complaints.
3. The usage scenario for seeking child care are generally specific in nature - i.e.: one doesn’t casually browse around seeking different childcare options if you’re going back to work next week and need someone between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, on your way to & from work. Assuming that the average parent has specific requirements that don’t have much wiggle room, the DCC model makes more sense for quick resolution for an inflexible need.
4. No feedback, ratings, etc: given the difficulty of validating feedback in this context, combined with the relatively small user-base for any given provider, feedback would be both too limited in quantity to provide useful community insight, and too vulnerable to abuse (one daycare provider talking down others, etc.)

Anyway, it caught my eye by being a different approach to classified/matching services - no Google Maps, no social networking, no feedback or ratings, no openness whatsoever. I think its task-oriented simplicity is refreshing, though my 2.0 instincts make it difficult to accept this “black box” implementation.

children, day care, daycare, daycarecrossing, family kids

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Related Posts

Review Index
Australia Censoring the Internet: mortgaging a nation’s future
Apple, Steve, and Burnout
Hitwise Acquired by Experian, $240 million in cash
UPDATED: Facebook is the Hamptons/Officer Country, MySpace is Los Angeles/Barracks