Lessons From the Hardware Store: Mulch vs. Matches

It’s summer, and it’s time to put down the mulch. There’s a moment that happens every time I go to Aubuchon Hardware. I walk in, tell the person at the counter how many bags of mulch I need, pay inside, and then head out to load my truck myself.

No one follows me. No one counts the bags. There’s no checkpoint on the way out. There’s simply an implicit agreement: I paid for 10 bags, so I take 10 bags.

It’s a small thing, but it’s a real system. It runs on trust, and it works.

That is not because Aubuchon is naïve. It is because the company has made an educated calculation: The cost of tightly controlling that process would probably be greater than the occasional loss caused by someone taking an extra bag. Aubuchon also offers a wide selection of products, reasonable prices, knowledgeable employees, and the welcoming feel of a neighborhood hardware store. It accepts a small amount of risk in exchange for speed, efficiency, and a better customer experience.

What does any of this have to do with a tutoring placement service?

Fair question. When SuperTutors introduces a family to a tutor, something different happens. By then, I have already done the hard part. I have communicated with the family, articulated the need, sourced the right educators, evaluated the candidates, and helped make the match.

At that point, I step back. I allow the tutor and family to communicate directly, schedule sessions together, and build a genuine working relationship.

And in that moment, the parent and tutor could steal the mulch. Metaphorically, of course.

The tutor could say, “Why don’t we just do this privately?”

The family could say, “That would save us money.”

There is no physical barrier stopping them. No gate. No one standing outside counting bags.

Yes, there are clauses in both the family and tutor agreements prohibiting this. But if both parties were determined to cut SuperTutors out, they could try. The family could end its relationship with the company, contact the tutor privately, and propose an arrangement that appears to benefit both of them. Then, theoretically, SuperTutors would be left with nothing.

But that rarely happens.

At Aubuchon, the trust moment is immediate and simple: Don’t take more than you paid for.

With SuperTutors, the trust moment is extended and more complex: Remain inside the system even when there may be a short-term financial incentive to leave it.

“But Josh, you are taking a financial risk. People make decisions with their wallets first. That’s why most tutoring companies operate differently.”

Yeah, I know.

Most tutoring companies fear this moment. They design their entire systems around preventing it. They keep communication inside proprietary platforms. They delay introductions. They conceal contact information. They route every interaction through internal systems. They make it deliberately difficult for tutors and families to communicate independently because, structurally, they cannot tolerate the risk of being cut out.

That is one way to solve the problem. But it comes with tradeoffs.

The experience becomes more transactional. Tutors feel more like gig workers than professionals. Families feel as though they are interacting with a platform rather than a person. The relationship is mediated and monitored at every step.

The SuperTutors approach is different. I call it earned commitment.

I allow direct communication. I allow scheduling to happen outside the platform. I introduce real families to real teachers and expect them to act like professionals.

On the surface, that may look like a higher-risk model. If trust were the only thing holding the system together, then yes, it would be. But it isn’t.

Earned commitment is both a philosophy and a governance structure.

Tutors send session notes after every meeting. Billing is tied to actual instructional time. There are clear expectations surrounding communication, cancellations, professional conduct, student safety, and ethical boundaries. Families know what to expect. Tutors understand what is expected of them.

In other words, the work is visible.

That matters because the real vulnerability in tutoring is not simply whether people remain inside the system. It is whether the system continues to provide value after the introduction has been made.

If all you do is sell mulch, then yes, someone might take an extra bag.

If all you do is make a match, then yes, you are easy to bypass.

But if you continue to provide structure, clarity, accountability, quality control, and access to a larger professional network, the equation changes.

The question is no longer simply, “Could we save money by leaving?”

It becomes, “What would we lose if we left?”

For a family, leaving means giving up:

• Reliable and centralized billing.

• Clear professional and ethical standards.

• Access to a vetted network of experienced educators.

• Administrative support when questions or problems arise.

• A mechanism for accountability if something goes wrong.

• The ability to pivot quickly if a tutor’s availability changes or the match is no longer right.

• Access to additional tutors and subjects without beginning another search from scratch.

SuperTutors tutors are working educators. They are busy, and they also give up something meaningful if they leave the network:

• A steady pipeline of carefully matched tutoring opportunities.

• Marketing and client acquisition handled on their behalf.

• Help communicating rates and establishing the terms of an assignment.

• Contracts, billing, payment collection, and administrative support.

• Centralized earnings records and annual tax documentation.

• Assistance resolving cancellations, scheduling conflicts, and family concerns.

• The ability to focus primarily on teaching rather than operating a separate tutoring business.

• Association with a brand built around real classroom educators rather than anonymous gig labor.

Tutors give up a portion of the hourly rate in exchange for those services. That is not fundamentally different from any professional paying for infrastructure, administrative support, marketing, or access to a strong network. The arrangement works when the value flowing in both directions is clear.

And yes, there are contractual consequences when someone deliberately circumvents the system. Trust does not require the absence of rules. But enforcement is not the primary reason the model works.

Aubuchon’s system works because most customers are honest during a single moment behind the store. SuperTutors works because it has built a professional structure that tutors and families choose to remain part of over time.

The SuperTutors model is actually harder to execute behind the scenes. It would be easier to build walls, conceal information, restrict communication, and run the company in the tightly controlled corporate style used by many other tutoring services.

But Aubuchon does not keep customers honest by chaining down the mulch. It creates a straightforward system, treats people like responsible adults, and accepts that trust is part of doing business well.

SuperTutors does something similar.

Neither system works because people are trapped. They work because most people respect a system that respects them, especially when that system continues to earn their participation.

They sell mulch. I make matches.