Would you welcome a paid Fiverr membership (as a seller)?

[raghnalltuathai]

Hey guys,
I'm just finding my way around the new forum. It looks pretty nice!

In read-only mode, I picked up an interesting idea that I read in a conversation (don't remember which thread, but I think @frank_d wrote about it). It was about Fiverr possibly going for a paid membership for sellers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I remember it. Even though I found it critical at first, since Fiverr already generates a lot of revenue via the 20% commission from sellers, a fee from buyers, the early payout option, promoted gigs and now seller plus, I like the idea of a paid membership more and more.

To that end, you have to know that in my main category - 3D animated music videos - I'd say a rough estimate is that 80% (or more) are scammers/faker. I struggle to rank well on pages 1-3 due to the mass of these fake gigs. These are people who either copy gigs and steal portfolios (from me, for example), or steal animations from YouTube and pass them off as their own, and in the worst case they even take scenes of movies like Frozen or the new Spiderman as their reference.

Funny note:
I had an interested buyer send me her latest music video. This she had also made on Fiverr. She asked me directly why my prices were so high when she had such a great and high quality music video made for $50. So I watched her video on YouTube and it was a compilation of scenes from the animated Spiderman movie. I then just sent her the original trailer of it and meant that Hollywood must have been inspired by her music video :D.

The pandemic has doubled the number of these scammers and as a result my impressions and clicks have plummeted. I believe that Fiverr could really clean up big time with a small (it doesn't have to be huge) membership fee, which could help all legitimate and reputable sellers back up especially in the rankings. There have been more threads about this lately. Apart from that, it would also help buyers not to encounter so many scammers or confusing gigs anymore.

What do you think? Would you consider a paid membership?

[frank_d]

Hey @raghnalltuathai

Yes that was pretty much the gist of what I said.

I have 0 confirmation from Fiverr, this is pure speculation, but I foresee that we are roughly 2 years away from a paid membership option that will introduce an entry barrier to the platform. 

This isn't about Fiverr making money off of a series of products. (which they do)

This also has the potential of benefiting both sellers and buyers by making sure that sellers have some skin in the game from day 1 and therefore don't spam the marketplace with a full set of 7 gigs, therefore diluting the talent pool considerably.

We're not there yet, as there are several indicators I have yet to observe, but make no mistake: this is quite possibly the only solution that would work, even if it's not applied to the entire marketplace and we see a clear split between Fiverr "regular" and Fiverr "Pro".

 

[katakatica]

Hmm, this is an interesting one. 

Short answer - I'd probably pout about it for a while (because I do that every time I need to 'invest' in something this way.) But overall, I do think something like this is becoming necessary. 

I personally think that it's not only scammers who are causing issues, but also people who are mediocre at what they offer. (and before anything, I've been there as well. I've tried many things - quite a few that ended up failing - and now only accept orders that I know I can write well.) But many people don't have this filter, and I understand why. You offer to do a logo for 5 bucks and only open up an order when the buyer says it's good (which I personally think is gaming the system but oh well). The maximum you're losing out on is 5 bucks (and a review) BUT you only spent maybe 2 hours on it (or less.) I wouldn't consider someone like this a scammer, per say - because they do provide something just... not exactly what one would expect. However, if these people WERE losing something (say, 50 bucks a month because that's what they pay Fiverr by default even if they earn absolutely nothing that month, they would either try harder... or give up. I realize Fiverr is pushing for us to be more professional/better at communication (and at what we offer) but just that by itself isn't enough, mostly because of the people I've mentioned just now. Their response rate/delivery rate is certainly perfect (...if they have any sales, that is.)

People who ARE good at what they do but are way too cheap would most likely would raise their prices (so they gain back what they pay, basically) which would end up being great for both parties. If we only had serious sellers around, it'd make things much easier for buyers as well (I've been told a few times that they've been through 20-30 sellers prior just because it's hard to find someone that's genuine.

[theratypist]

40 minutes ago, raghnalltuathai said:

What do you think? Would you consider a paid membership

Hmm. I don't do Fiverr full time! But I would be fine with a paid membership depending on the costs, and how it justifies other things, I make enough on Fiverr to offset a paid membership. And if anything, I think a paid membership will improve the overall quality of the platform in general? Too early to say anything definite, so just my initial thoughts. 

[gwyneth_galvin]

Would this replace the 20% fee? Would it be a flat rate? I guess it would really depend, you know?

I'm in a less-competitive market than a lot of sellers, so I'm not sure how it would impact my gigs tbh. I think it's probably harder to fake/steal a voice-over than it is an image/animation.

[melanielm]

Well, I'd rather not pay to work here, but I do think it's a viable idea.

It has the potential to boost Fiverr reputation, which is unfortunately rather horrible out there in the real world (Don't smite me for saying so, Fiverr!) A better reputation would help all the quality sellers.

[frank_d]

Think of it this way:

Your office is a 45' drive from your home.

A brand new highway is built, which helps you get to your office in 5'!

Awesome! You start using it and love the fact that it seriously cuts down your commute time.

However, more and more people start using it. Now there's a traffic jam every morning. And then the occasional fender bender. And there's always that guy who thinks he can merge without signaling. But I digress.

Point is, you are now back to a 45' minute drive, if not worse.

Then toll booths are introduced. It's $5 a pop to use the highway. 

People who don't value the highway at $5, will stop using it. 

Traffic congestion is eliminated, you are once again enjoying your lightning fast commute.

 

This is essentially why I am OK with this probability. But that's me and how much I value this highway.

Other people's mileage varies, and I understand that.

 

 

[visualstudios]

Great analogy. But it doesn't necessarily have to be like that. I see two options:

If they charge a flat fee, that's way more interesting the more money you are making / expect to make, since it will be effectively cheaper for you. This would drive pretty much all meksells from the platform, but potentially stop some good people starting out from getting a chance, since the barrier of entry would be too high for them.

If they charge a %, then the more you make the more expensive it gets and oh my god, please don't go this route, this is horrible.


Let's see what happens.

[frank_d]

1 minute ago, visualstudios said:

If they charge a %, then the more you make the more expensive it gets and oh my god, please don't go this route, this is horrible.

Oh 100% agreed. That option would be horrible.

And to be honest, after a certain level of revenue, everyone starts thinking about what percentage they pay on the platform and for what.

So if anything, such an approach would make a lot of Pros not happy.

[visualstudios]

The thing is Fiverr has a tendency for this already. Not only they take 20% on a non sliding scale (as opposed to other platforms that scale down when the value goes way up), they tack a % based fee on top of that for the client to pay (fee that is totally invisible to the seller). I don't like their mo.

[yannisenglish]

I'd welcome it if it meant that I'm the master of my own business. No response rate shenanigans, no "hey! You got a Fiverr's Choice order. Make sure you deliver good service even though the Buyer doesn't care to answer your questions or communicate with you", and -by the gods make it so- no more buyers putting in an order without having a chat upfront.

Honestly, I like this platform but I'd go as far as to love it if they didn't treat me like I'm 5. I believe my over 2 years of maintaining a 1-2 hour response rate and no violations or egregious amount of cancellations should be proof enough that I'm a big boy now but if it takes a small sub for them to finally let me do my thing my way, I'm all for it.

[newsmike]

I believe we have needed something like this for a long time. As @frank_d states, the seller needs to have "some skin in the game."  In my category of voice over, we have over 25,000 sellers now which exploded after covid struck.  Unfortunately many are people with no experience, and just the microphone built into their laptop, who figure, since its free to join, why not?  

Fiverr could easily charge $250 per month to sell on the platform, then on a sliding scale, reduce that against the seller's billing. The more you bill, the less you pay for the monthly subscription, even eliminate it at some dollar figure. All the while still taking the 20%. 

It would most certainly eliminate the sellers who are not willing to invest in their business. That raises the quality bar for buyers, and the revenue opportunities for quality sellers at the same time.  

Edited June 25, 2021 by newsmike

[raghnalltuathai]

I would only like a paid membership with a fixed amount. In no case further percentage fees. I already pay around ~10k a year to Fiverr and if I now had to give up another percentage for a membership depending on revenue, then I would rather leave the platform. A fixed amount, such as the Seller Plus program, would be very welcome instead. I really like how @frank_d explained the advantages. But I can also understand how it could scare off a lot of new and experienced sellers.

[frank_d]

13 hours ago, newsmike said:

Fiverr could easily charge $250 per month to sell on the platform, then on a sliding scale, reduce that against the seller's billing. The more you bill, the less you pay for the monthly subscription, even eliminate it at some dollar figure. All the while still taking the 20%. 

I would totally be up for this type of model.

I think it’s a win-win: barrier is high enough to eliminate drifters and scammers, plus it’s a great incentive for top-performers.

I could definitely see part of the existing products also bundled in that same price level to sweeten the deal (seller plus/promoted gigs coupon, etc)

[visualstudios]

The only problem I see there is that it will completely dry up in terms of newcomers. If I had to pay $250 per month in the beginning, I would never have joined Fiverr. Now that I've seen how much I can make, it's a different story, of course. Now it's an investment. But I need to see it to believe it. I never believed you could make money on Fiverr until I saw the money in my PayPal account. It's just the way it is, the internet is filled with promises that rarely pan out.

Edited June 26, 2021 by visualstudios

[vibronx]

1 hour ago, visualstudios said:

If I had to pay $250 per month in the beginning, I would never have joined Fiverr.

Me neither. It was just a fun side project for me in the beginning. The amount would have had to be very low for me to join back then.

Also, putting a flat fee as high as $250 would make it very difficult for talented people from lower-income countries to join. I don't think Fiverr would want to make it almost impossible for people from certain parts of the world to start selling.

That is not to say I would be totally against a fee. It would clean up the marketplace, which is sorely needed. I just think Fiverr has to be careful how high they put it.

Edited June 26, 2021 by vibronx

[thewritingbuff]

1 hour ago, vibronx said:

Also, putting a flat fee as high as $250 would make it very difficult for talented people from lower-income countries to join. I don't think Fiverr would want to make it almost impossible for people from certain parts of the world to start selling.

 

Fine tuning the rates according to the seller's country might help. A monthly fee of Rs. 500 - Rs. 1500 would be a reasonable investment from an Indian seller (presuming they won't charge an additional percentage made on sales).

I joined Fiverr to earn some extra pocket money while my college was (and still is, unfortunately) closed. A subscription fee would have definitely deterred me from signing up on this platform 😦

Edited June 26, 2021 by thewritingbuff

[sabinespoems]

I know I definitely wouldn't have joined if there was and I also don't know if it would be profitable for me to continue my services if such a subscription would be the case. I do understand the idea behind a monthly subscription to hinder scammers and 'force' people to step their game up in order to see a return of their monthly investment. However, I provide my service more because I love writing and through Fiverr I can help others put their thoughts to paper. I make money with it but it's not at all a steady stream of income (nor does it have to be). This means that with a subscription I basically could lose money and I absolutely love being on Fiverr, just not enough to pay without seeing it returned.

So for Sellers who have a consistent amount of orders I completely understand a subscription wouldn't make a difference and perhaps even create a better marketplace. But I think it could drive smaller Sellers like myself away (depending on the fee amount) who aren't scamming/stealing/deviously plotting, but who do it on the side and simply don't get that many steady monthly orders that would cover the subscription costs. 

In short; I'd be truly sad if the subscription is too high & forces me to leave Fiverr because it's not viable...But I guess we'll see what the future holds, because I couldn't stop such a change anyway but it's nice to put my two cents in nonetheless 😊

Edited June 26, 2021 by sabinespoems

[visualstudios]

2 hours ago, thewritingbuff said:

Fine tuning the rates according to the seller's country might help. A monthly fee of Rs. 500 - Rs. 1500 would be a reasonable investment from an Indian seller (presuming they won't charge an additional percentage made on sales).

 

That has nothing to do with it. If anything, sellers from cheaper countries can pay MORE. If you make $2000 a month and live in the US, you will basically need all that money just to survive, and won't be able to pay zilch. In India, you can probably pay $1000 in fees and still live well on $1000 a month.

Since Fiverr is location independent, a seller from anywhere in the world can make the same money. So it pays off much more to be a seller on Fiverr if you are from a low income country. I'm doing quite well here because I'm from Portugal (average wage around 12k a year, so my performance can easily land me in the upper middle class, top 10-20% of the population, easy). If I was from the US, I wouldn't be happy with the numbers, at all. I would need to be making 6 figures a year to be where I am now, compared to the people around me. If I was in India, I'd be rich. Money is relative. In some places you can make 1k a month and be poor, in others you can make 1k a month and be on the same level as doctors, lawyers, etc. 

All that matters is how much the fee is in relation to how much you're making. Country of origin is irrelevant. If you're making zero (just starting out) ANY fixed  value will be a detriment, regardless of where you're from. People simply won't pay before they see the money come in. I would never pay to work. Makes no sense, and sounds like a scam.

Oh, and obviously they are keeping the 20% commission. We're talking about 20% commission PLUS a monthly fee just to have an account.

Edited June 26, 2021 by visualstudios

[enunciator]

For successful sellers, a transition to pay-to-play would seem far more reasonable with many more potential upsides than to new or struggling sellers.

17 hours ago, newsmike said:

I believe we have needed something like this for a long time. As @frank_d states, the seller needs to have "some skin in the game."  In my category of voice over, we have over 25,000 sellers now which exploded after covid struck.  Unfortunately many are people with no experience, and just the microphone built into their laptop, who figure, since its free to join, why not?  

I put a "lot of skin" just into getting my gigs up and running and have spent a large amount of time, effort, and income into starting my business here. Shelling out several hundred bucks a month/year just for the opportunity of posting one's gigs would drive numerous talented and dedicated freelancers away who simply cannot afford such fees for platform access.

And anyway, a platform being pay to play doesn't guarantee that any member will have better prospects. The VO industry has numerous P2P websites, and the stark truth is that many members never get enough orders to even make up the price of membership.

I completely agree that Fiverr requires a process of vetting that sellers can actually deliver what they promise on their gigs, but a paywall really only proves that a seller can drop X amount of money every month/year.

[coerdelion]

$250 per month is $3000 per year.  That's more than most fiverr sellers make all year.  I myself made a whole $20 in my first year selling.  I make more now, obvs, but still ...

What  the bigger platforms do is pay per proposal.  Each seller is given a small, non rolling over number of proposal credits free each month ... and then after that they have to either pay to make more proposals, or wait until the next month. 

No doubt Fiverr could work something out along those lines ...

Charging a recurring fee at a level usually only seen for high level marketing courses would be self defeating.

 

[visualstudios]

10 minutes ago, coerdelion said:

What  the bigger platforms do is pay per proposal.  Each seller is given a small, non rolling over number of proposal credits free each month ... and then after that they have to either pay to make more proposals, or wait until the next month. 

No doubt Fiverr could work something out along those lines

Not sure I get what you mean. The point of Fiverr is precisely having no proposals. I don't want to bid on projects, ever. I want the clients to come to me, just like running a shop. If I wanted to bid on projects, I would be doing it outside of platforms, and I would certainly not pay 20% of earnings for the privilege.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "bigger platforms". Fiverr is in all likelihood the biggest platform right now, at least in terms of market cap.

Edited June 26, 2021 by visualstudios

[catwriter]

9 minutes ago, coerdelion said:

$250 per month is $3000 per year.  That's more than most fiverr sellers make all year. 

This. Very much this. What about sellers who make about $200 or $300 or $400 per month, and do offer a good service (not a high-priced one, obviously)? $250 would make it completely pointless for them to work on Fiverr, and Fiverr would lose a bunch of good sellers.

On top of that, doesn't Fiverr still earn quite a bit from buyers who look for services that cost $5, $10, $20, simply because there are many of them? If sellers were to pay $250 every month, they'd have to increase their prices (unless they can make thousand $5 sales every month, or something), and all the buyers looking for low-cost services would be gone.

And on top of everything, it would completely change the idea of Fiverr as a platform where everyone can join, and where we're encouraged to be empathetic towards different countries and cultures (since $250 per month would be way too much for the majority living in certain countries).

[miiila]

In addition to the 20% and Seller+, or instead of Seller+? Monthly, yearly, amount?

I'm actually not sure if just a paid membership in itself would do much against specifically the scammers. On first thought, maybe, on second thought, it might not bother the people who buy reviews, accounts, don't pay fees for software licences and such that much, while it might keep some honest and talented people from signing up.

The latter might be solved with a free trial period, though, and if a seller doesn't make anything, or not enough to want to pay the fee from month x on, it probably wasn't meant to be, and they can go try something else.

If it's about improving everyone's experience, there are some things that could already be done without more money needed, for example, reducing the number of gigs people may start out with, or even generally, which wouldn't only reduce the sheer mass of gigs but also might improve quality. Or at least some basic multiple choice quiz upon registering, which would let people unmistakably know that Gigs are no Buyer Requests, that they aren't supposed to contact other sellers to ask for a job or money, that it's not allowed to just steal whatever from the internet and sell it to someone, that might really help.

If, for example, as @yannisenglish said above, paid members would get more freedom to do things as they want to, it might make the pill easier to swallow. If, for example, I could finally set a limit to how many gig multiples people can order without the delivery time being changed, set office hours and days, could set up a gig that can't be ordered directly but only via custom offer, or I wouldn't need to react to spam messages at all, that might be worth a fee to me (although it should be a given anyway).

A fee that would be invested in some basic control, for example, to check if logo designers deliver pirated logos, or if the person who can translate any document from any language into any language within 24 hours actually can, etc., might eliminate a lot of scammy gigs, help the serious sellers and buyers, and the platform reputation. I'm not talking about complicated quality checks needing lots of time and staff, or passing judgement on creative work, just about basic things that are easy to check.

Honestly, if I'd pay 20% on everything without any scaling benefits, plus the money I lose by having my earnings go through PayPal to my bank, seller+, plus a membership fee, and would still wake up to messages like "Sorry.i am a poor boy.i need some work and money for treatment 😭" on a Sunday, having to react to them, and within 24 hours, ideally less, because there's not just response rate but also response time, or have them affect several of my ratings, ranking, "seller standing", I think, is the term support uses sometimes, I'd think something is wrong.

 

In short: I'd accept a paid membership; if I'd welcome it would depend on the minutiae.

Edited June 26, 2021 by miiila
wrote something twice ...

[yannisenglish]

20 hours ago, newsmike said:

I believe we have needed something like this for a long time. As @frank_d states, the seller needs to have "some skin in the game."  In my category of voice over, we have over 25,000 sellers now which exploded after covid struck.  Unfortunately many are people with no experience, and just the microphone built into their laptop, who figure, since its free to join, why not?  

Fiverr could easily charge $250 per month to sell on the platform, then on a sliding scale, reduce that against the seller's billing. The more you bill, the less you pay for the monthly subscription, even eliminate it at some dollar figure. All the while still taking the 20%. 

It would most certainly eliminate the sellers who are not willing to invest in their business. That raises the quality bar for buyers, and the revenue opportunities for quality sellers at the same time.  

 

$250 per month plus the 20% is well over the amount someone would need to pay to set up their own shop. Even if it is on a sliding scale, it would also effectively eliminate part-timers like myself who may likely never be able to bill higher than a certain rate.