Floofers offered one of the lowest commission rates in the industry at 10%. But low fees alone could not solve the marketplace liquidity problem. Here is how the economics compare.
| Metric | The Pet Sitter | Floofers |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue model | Flat subscription | 10% commission per booking |
| Sitter cost structure | Predictable annual fee | Scales with your revenue |
| Client relationship | Sitter-owned | Platform-intermediated |
| Marketplace health | Early — discovery coming soon | Minimal activity, uncertain future |
Commission marketplaces generate revenue by taking a percentage of each transaction. Even at low commission rates, the model depends on sufficient transaction volume to sustain operations. This creates a fundamental dependency on marketplace liquidity — enough sitters and enough pet owners in each market to generate consistent bookings.
Commission models work well for platforms that achieve marketplace liquidity — enough supply and demand in each market to generate consistent transactions. They lower the barrier to entry for sitters. But a commission marketplace with insufficient liquidity provides the worst of both worlds: the platform takes a cut when bookings happen, but cannot generate enough bookings to build a sustainable business for sitters.
Floofers is an Australian pet sitting platform that offered a notably low 10% commission rate, PIAA accreditation, and required police checks for sitters. These were genuinely sitter-friendly policies. However, with approximately 415 listed sitters nationally and fewer than 20 showing recent activity, the marketplace struggled to achieve the liquidity needed to sustain consistent bookings. Having the lowest commission in the market matters less when the market itself is not generating sufficient transaction volume.
Floofers' 10% commission rate was notably lower than competitors like Rover (20%) or Pawshake (19%). The economic comparison with a flat subscription is closer than with higher-commission platforms, but the fundamental dynamics remain the same.
At approximately €166/month in bookings, the Pro plan's founding rate of €199/year + VAT costs the same as a 10% commission — and The Pet Sitter's Free plan costs nothing, with 0% commission. This break-even point is higher than for 20% commission platforms, reflecting Floofers' more competitive rate. However, the real question is whether either model can generate sufficient bookings in markets with limited liquidity.
At this level, a 10% commission costs A$960/year. The Pro founding rate is a flat €199/year + VAT, so most of that A$960 stays with you — a smaller gap than with higher-commission platforms, but still meaningful over time.
At A$2,000/month, the 10% commission is A$2,400/year. The Pro founding rate stays at €199/year + VAT, so almost all of that A$2,400 is retained earnings instead.
At full-time revenue, commission reaches A$4,800/year. A flat €199/year + VAT subscription is a small fraction of that. Even at 10%, commission costs compound significantly at higher volumes.
Floofers' 10% rate was genuinely lower than most competitors. But the more important question for any sitter is whether a platform can generate enough bookings to make the fee structure relevant. A 10% commission on zero bookings saves you nothing. The economics only matter when transaction volume reaches a sustainable level.
Estimate your annual platform costs based on your monthly booking revenue.
Annual platform cost on Floofers
€1,440
10% commission on your booking revenue
Annual cost on The Pet Sitter
€199+ VAT
Flat subscription, no commission
Estimated annual fee savings with The Pet Sitter
€1,241
Based on fee difference only
Floofers figures are converted from their published price at an approximate rate, for comparison only. The Pet Sitter price shown here is the amount Checkout charges in euros (EUR).
| Annual gross booking revenue | €14,400 |
|---|---|
| Estimated net on Floofers | €12,960 |
| Estimated net on The Pet Sitter | €14,201 |
Floofers documents no owner-side booking fee: their published model is free for owners to join, with a single 10% total commission on the sitter side. Among commission platforms, credit to them for that.
The Pet Sitter charges neither side of a booking.
Structural differences between the two business models.
Percentage of each transaction (10%)
Fixed annual subscription
Your booking revenue
Nothing — cost is fixed
Platform-intermediated
Sitter-owned, direct
Limited — minimal activity in most markets
Owner-side discovery coming soon
Same 10% commission on every booking
No incremental cost per booking
PIAA accredited, police checks required
Vetting process, verification badges
Client data stays on platform
Sitter builds portable reputation
Transaction volume
Even at 10%, revenue depends on bookings flowing through the platform. Without sufficient liquidity, the model cannot sustain platform operations or investment in growth.
New client acquisition
Commission platforms need a constant stream of new demand. In markets with limited liquidity, this becomes a chicken-and-egg problem — sitters leave because there are no clients, and clients leave because there are no active sitters.
Geographic density
A commission marketplace needs critical mass in each market it serves. Spreading thin across many markets without density in any of them can leave all markets underserved.
Sitter retention
Revenue depends on sitters continuing to find value. The platform is incentivised to provide tools and visibility that help sitters succeed, not just to process transactions.
Repeat client value
When there is no per-transaction cost, repeat clients become more valuable over time. The model rewards sitters who build lasting relationships.
Sustainable growth
A subscription model can sustain on a smaller, more engaged sitter base. It does not require massive transaction volume to survive — it needs sitters who find the tools and marketplace valuable enough to keep paying.
Floofers' 10% commission was among the lowest in the industry — a genuinely sitter-friendly rate. But even a low-commission marketplace needs sufficient transaction volume to sustain operations and reinvest in growth. Under a subscription model, the platform’s revenue is decoupled from transaction volume, allowing it to focus on sitter success rather than booking throughput.
This is an honest assessment. The right choice depends on your market, your career stage, and whether the platforms you are considering can actually deliver bookings in your area.
Commission marketplaces work best when they have critical mass. In Australia, Rover (via Mad Paws) has the strongest liquidity. If you need bookings now in a major city, an established platform may deliver more volume.
Commission models let you start for free. If you are testing pet sitting or operating casually, paying only when you earn reduces risk.
If you do fewer than two bookings per month, a 10% commission may cost less than an annual subscription.
Once you have regular bookings, a fixed cost is more efficient than any commission rate. The break-even against 10% is approximately €166/month in bookings on the Pro founding rate — achievable for any active sitter.
Unlike commission-only platforms, a subscription model can invest in business tools — invoicing, client CRM, calendar sync, analytics — that help you build a standalone business.
A flat fee means no surprises. Your costs are the same whether you have a quiet month or your best month ever.
The gap between flat fees and commission widens every month. Over years, the compounding savings become substantial regardless of commission rate.
You can start on Free with your own profile page, permanent booking link, bookings, messaging and limited client records. Pro adds business tools including invoice generation when available. Check the pricing page for current Pro availability and the applicable offer; signing up for Free does not reserve a founding subscription. In-product sitter search is on the roadmap.
The challenge that Floofers faced — building marketplace liquidity from scratch — is the same challenge we face. We are not pretending otherwise. The difference is in the model: a subscription platform can sustain on a smaller, engaged sitter base without needing massive transaction volume to survive.
If you need access to a large client base today, an established marketplace will likely serve you better in the short term. What we are building is infrastructure for professional sitters who want predictable costs, direct client relationships, and business tools that help you grow independently. If that aligns with where you are heading, we would like to build this with you.
Floofers is an Australian pet sitting platform that offered a 10% commission rate, PIAA accreditation, and required police checks. While these policies were sitter-friendly, the marketplace struggled to achieve the liquidity needed for consistent bookings. As of early 2026, the platform shows minimal activity in most markets, with fewer than 20 of its approximately 415 listed sitters showing recent activity.
The Floofers website remains online, but marketplace activity appears minimal. Of approximately 415 listed sitters nationally, fewer than 20 show recent activity, and several of its five listed markets show zero active sitters. The platform has not shown signs of significant investment or growth.
Both platforms were founded with sitter-friendly intentions. The key structural difference is the business model: Floofers used a commission model (10% per booking), while The Pet Sitter uses a flat annual subscription with 0% commission. A subscription model decouples platform revenue from transaction volume, allowing the platform to sustain on a smaller engaged sitter base while investing in business tools that help sitters build independent practices.
Relative to Rover (20%) or Pawshake (19%), yes — 10% was notably competitive. But commission rate is only one factor. Marketplace liquidity matters more than commission rate for most sitters. A 10% commission on consistent bookings is better than 0% commission on a platform that cannot generate bookings. The real question is whether a platform can deliver enough demand in your market to justify being on it at all.
Yes. Many professional sitters list on multiple platforms to maximise visibility. There are no exclusivity requirements. We encourage sitters to diversify their client acquisition channels — including other platforms, social media, local networks, and word of mouth.
Good intentions deserve a sustainable model. We are building one.
Your tools. Your clients. Your business.