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

[newsmike]

32 minutes ago, leannelrivers said:

(I love your voice by the way.) 

Thank you, that's very kind of you. 

[leannelrivers]

17 minutes ago, moikchap said:

It took me giving work to about 50 sellers to get about 100 pieces of art I can use after about 140 deliveries. About 25 sellers were just bad

Well, one thing we can all agree on is getting rid of scams is a great idea. Receiving low quality once in a while is a given, but having to budget for work you'll need to toss sucks. I want happy buyers too, not just happy pockets. 

[moikchap]

To me, it's basically a cost of business. I was going to have a learning curve regardless. A good chunk of people I went back too were initially in the "bad" pile until I realized some flaw in how I write spec set them up for failure. I've changed my spec template like eight times to be more clear and hold more relevant details with fewer potentially confusing details. If I had that learning curve with higher priced people, the damage of me not knowing how to write spec would have been worse. I'd possibly already be washed out.

[mastercreator3]

10 hours ago, newsmike said:

We are really having 2 different conversations here. Above is what the OP stated as the problem. So the discussion was about how to eliminate the large amounts of low quality, scammer accounts. I do agree that something has to be done. Again, a business owner with nothing to lose and no reason to care, is not a recipe for quaity. The low quality, scammer sellers are what gives fiverr its image problem. 

For example in my category of voice over, it is a very common request that I send the agencies buying my services a demo to play for their client. Very often they ask that the demo has no fiverr branding on it whatsoever. They like what they can buy from me, but clearly do not want their client to know that they are buying from a fiverr seller. That is a real problem, and if fiverr is going to continue to raise the bar on quaity, and image (especially since Microsoft is launching a competitor at fiverr this fall), they need to purge the sellers that create the image of low quality.

This topic went sideways when the issue switched to the fact that not every person on the planet could afford to pay to partcipate. I completely get your point, but "not everyone can afford it", is not the answer to what the OP brought up. Nor can it be a a reason not to drive quality and image upwards. 

I cannot afford the $500,000 franchise fee to open a McDonald's restaurant. Is that unfair? No. Should I get one for free because of that, No. The franchise fee is there to make sure that anyone who opens a McD's has their mortage on the line to make it a success, and will lose their shirt if it fails. That's how you keep people engaged, and focused on quality and performance. 

That's just business. And trying to redefine fiverr as "democratized offshoring" is inconsistent with the reality that is in fact a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ, which has a fidicuary responsibility to maximize revenue for its shareholders, first, last and foremost. That's it.

 

  

The analogy you have given is totally unrealistic to fiverr. If one has a McDonald franchise then he gets a fighting chance to prove he can give good service but on fiverr one does not guarantee an order so how will a person who is talented think of investing in an online platform that does not guarantee even a chance to prove oneself. 

[raghnalltuathai]

1 hour ago, mastercreator3 said:

The analogy you have given is totally unrealistic to fiverr. If one has a McDonald franchise then he gets a fighting chance to prove he can give good service but on fiverr one does not guarantee an order so how will a person who is talented think of investing in an online platform that does not guarantee even a chance to prove oneself. 

I think you misunderstood his statement.

You are saying if you can raise $500,000 for a Mc Donalds franchise restaurant, you have a chance to prove that you deliver good service, but if Fiverr introduces a $29 joining fee, you have no chance to prove yourself? Sorry, but I don't think the comparison makes sense in context.

As a freelancer you NEVER have a guarantee of a steady and regular income. That's why this kind of lifestyle is not for everyone. I can be earning five figures this month and the next month the orders stop coming in. That's why, for example, getting a loan from the bank as a freelancer is an absolute pain - sometimes not even possible.

In my opinion Fiverr does more for sellers than I'm used to from other platforms. Fiverr provides you virtually free of charge the technical service to create a gig, access to a huge pool of potential buyers who use Fiverr, store your data on their servers and use an easy payment process. "Pay" you actually only do when you sell something (in the form of the 20% commission). We're all starting from 0. I feel like people sometimes forget that. Instead of researching and learning how to run a successful business, they come to the forum and ask "successful" and "veteran" sellers what they should improve about their gigs because they are not making sales. They're looking for easy answers. And some guy on YouTube told them it's super easy to get a lambo by working on Fiverr. Then they blame the platform because it doesn't make all 2.3 million sellers easy money.

Other platforms with different business models only provide you with the technology so that you can present your service there. But it's up to you to bring your service to customers, to do marketing and advertising. As an example: I use a site where you can upload your online courses and students can enroll. The platform provides me with the technology. Nobody cares if I ever have a student - that's my problem. I still pay monthly for the service. If the revenue doesn't cover my costs and doesn't generate a profit, I have to consider the business model a failure or think about alternative marketing.

Fiverr is not responsible for you making sales or being successful. I have some huge issues with Fiverr that I think should be talked about, but in this regard, Fiverr provides sellers with more (for free!) than I've seen elsewhere.

And that is both a curse and a blessing. And we come back to the original topic. At some point, the store here will become overcrowded and partially unusable. Anyone who has ever used the Buyer Requests (as buyer) knows that. I've tried to use it three times so far and each time it ended up with heaps of garbage (there's no other way to call it) and spam.

Because without a barrier to entry, the number of incompetent or fake sellers without experience will skyrocket. Customers will become more dissatisfied and talented artists will be lost among the flood (new ones or veterans, it will affect most). Since the pandemic, this has been proven for many. My impressions, clicks, and inbound messages have plummeted 70%. Fiverr's reputation will suffer as a result. Sooner or later, something will have to be done.

Edited July 1, 2021 by raghnalltuathai

[newsmike]

54 minutes ago, mastercreator3 said:

so how will a person who is talented think of investing in an online platform that does not guarantee even a chance to prove oneself. 

I believe this illustrates the problem. If you are looking for guarantees in the business world, you are going to face real problems. There are no guarantees. The original point was, however, that the McD's franchise owner has sunk their life savngs in, probably borrowed from family, and has a real loss to face if things don't work out. The free account owner on fiverr has nothing invested, so if they get banned for selling stolen logos for example, they can just open a new account the next day, and sell more. 

We are all business owners here on fiverr, so why would you be looking for ways to allow those unwilling or unable to make the proper investments in their businesses to have the same access as those who do sacrifice to get ahead? That seems counterintuitive unless you are again looking at fiverr as a charity instead of a business. 

Call "Go Daddy" today and tell them that you want a premium store with custom design and tons of Google Advertising for your new site, but you want it all free, because you aren't sure that you'll get any orders.  I say, maybe 10 seconds till they hang up on you. 

 

 

 

[eoinfinnegan]

The best thing about Fiverr is that anyone can join as a seller.

The worst thing about Fiverr is that anyone can join as a seller.

With even a low fee of $20/month as a gate, it would keep out a lot of low quality sellers, particularly those with 10-20 accounts offering the same thing.  There are many of these; they do mass offers on Buyer Requests sending the same offer from all their accounts. 

[catwriter]

26 minutes ago, eoinfinnegan said:

With even a low fee of $20/month as a gate, it would keep out a lot of low quality sellers, particularly those with 10-20 accounts offering the same thing. 

Yes, a low fee like that one might help. It's impossible to say in advance how much it would help, but I do believe that it would.

Imagine the forum, though, with a bunch of people complaining that they're paying every month and not getting sales. I think that there would be those, too.

[newsmike]

6 hours ago, corsogr said:

And few last words for those who perceive new sellers as "probably low quality".

This discussion is not about ridding the platform of "new" sellers, it is about purging "scam" sellers, meaning either actual "crooks" as well as sellers who represent themselves as highly qualified, but in reality have no business charging others for what they do.  Neither of these help Fiverr. That's why we have used low quality to describe them.  Also $20 is not a gate that will support the model. You need a higher threshold. That $250 was just a suggestion, but somewhere about there seems correct, or once again, you have sellers with no investment, therefore, nothing to lose.

Personally speaking, I would prefer to buy from someone willing to invest in their business, as opposed to someone who won't. Let me give you an example, there are 25,000 sellers in my category of voice over. If someone is unwilling or unable to invest $200 a month in their business, then I can guarantee you that they have not invested the minimum $3000-$10,000 for a professional audio studio. Look at the thumbnails and you see the vast majority of sellers with non professional equipment pictured in non acoustically treated bedrooms. Yet we do see "new" sellers showing up that are professionals, with proper talents and equipment as well. My best guess is that of the 25,000 sellers in Voice Over, maybe 500 are true professionals, that can deliver. So, we are really talking about solutions that will purge not only the crooks, but also reduce the sellers who really are not bringing measurable quality to the vertical they represent.  As others in this thread have stated, this damages fiverr's image, because absolutely anyone can claim to be "the world's best, professional XXX", and there is no vetting except for the PRO level. 

The part that I think many have missed, is that fiverr could reduce the fee against sales, so, for example, for every dollar you pay fiverr in a month, credits toward the fee. Once you have paid $250 for the month as you normal 20% to fiverr, the fee is wiped out.  If you pay $125 in commission, then you only pay $125 for the month...etc.   Many possble strategies can be thought of.

6 hours ago, corsogr said:

Generally speaking, the more sellers the better for the buyers.

I would counter that the better the sellers, the better for the buyers. You know: "Quality vs Quantity."

   

Edited July 1, 2021 by newsmike

[enunciator]

44 minutes ago, newsmike said:

Personally speaking, I would prefer to buy from someone willing to invest in their business, as opposed to someone who won't. Let me give you an example, there are 25,000 sellers in my category of voice over. If someone is unwilling or unable to invest $200 a month in their business, then I can guarantee you that they have not invested the minimum $3000-$10,000 for a professional audio studio. Look at the thumbnails and you see the vast majority of sellers with non professional equipment pictured in non acoustically treated bedrooms. Yet we do see "new" sellers showing up that are professionals, with proper talents and equipment as well. My best guess is that of the 25,000 sellers in Voice Over, maybe 500 are true professionals, that can deliver. So, we are really talking about solutions that will purge not only the crooks, but also reduce the sellers who really are not bringing measurable quality to the vertical they represent.  As others in this thread have stated, this damages fiverr's image, because absolutely anyone can claim to be "the world's best, professional XXX", and there is no vetting except for the PRO level. 

Dropping several hundred dollars per month/year just for the "privilege" to be on a platform does, in no way, denote quality. It denotes someone who is willing and able to drop large sums of money in hopes of getting a larger return. The P2P VO sites, even with their large entrance gate fees, still have subpar quality talent, or quality talent with subpar setups.

I will never play the role of arbiter of who is or isn't professional in VO simply based on how much they've spent in gear, lessons, environment, and sound treating. There are VO who do wonders with a thrifty setup and have thriving businesses on the site, while there are VO kitted out to the gills and yet still struggle month by month.

There aren't many active VO sellers in the forum, but this is the first time I've read of one slagging off so many fellow VO sellers as charlatans or poseurs.

If a person spends a small fortune setting up their business to achieve "professional quality" but is unwilling to pay a high monthly access fee, as they see that as "double dipping" to prove one's supposed worth, I find that to be a completely reasonable position to hold.

Edited July 1, 2021 by enunciator

[moikchap]

14 minutes ago, enunciator said:

It denotes someone who is willing and able to drop large sums of money in hopes of getting a larger return.

Good point. Adding the fee might make the seller base trend more "speculative", leaving the share of those who do profit-seeking behaviours like upselling comparatively larger, and put buyers off the site.

While trying out D&D Writers, I ran into a "professional" who basically gave me a rider of demands about getting to preview the final work, getting a free copy of the final work, etc. It was early in the process and I didn't have any final candidates yet, so I accepted the demands. His delivered product was fine, it matched his better peers for price, quality, and speed, but I didn't get any of the diva behaviour from the peers. So, I paid him for the one quest and moved on with the others for the remaining four quest types.

Probably the people I continued with have fiverr as their side gig, and the high maintenance writer might have fiverr as their main gig. I've had frank conversations about price with the sellers I want to use for a lot of work, to let them know my budget, how they compare to their peers, and what I expect their work is actually worth above their peers, as part of trying to lock in the prices to some degree. A decent chunk of them are simply excited about the project, and happy to be included/appreciated, and are willing to let me sit at the entry price so they can stay part of it.

Monthly fees would possibly push out those side-gig types and while retaining the seemingly-main-gig types. The reputation of fiverr might simply then morph from "low quality" to, like, "complicated" or something. So, while there would be fewer sellers, there would be fewer buyers, and competition would simply be differently rough, and fiverr overall would be smaller with less going on.

[newsmike]

54 minutes ago, enunciator said:

There aren't many active VO sellers in the forum, but this is the first time I've read of one slagging off so many fellow VO sellers as charlatans or poseurs.

I suppose you and I simply have differing opinions of what professional means. We don't all set the bar in the same place. That's OK

[newsmike]

29 minutes ago, moikchap said:

The reputation of fiverr might simply then morph from "low quality" to, like, "complicated" or something.

I would rather suspect that it would morph from "low quality" to "high quality" as a logical result of what we are discussing. 

[moikchap]

A very optimistic conclusion. One that seems to assume wealth is a virtue and that moneyed sellers are consistently good sellers.

[newsmike]

Just now, moikchap said:

A very optimistic conclusion. One that seems to assume wealth is a virtue and that moneyed sellers are consistently good sellers.

No, one that assumes that those who sacrifice and put their heart, soul and financial assets into something will take it more seriously than someone with a disposable account who can make a new one every week.

 

[moikchap]

All the fee guarantees is that they're putting their financial assets in, not heart and soul.

[authorhelendown]

I love the idea of subscription-based membership. It will help with the explosion of people who are barely able to write a good introduction to their gigs competing with me on speechwriting. However, I worry about the amount. I am writing primarily eulogies. These start at $15. Now, I sell quite a few of them, but at $15 a pop I'm not making nearly what someone who is doing voiceovers or creating apps are making. You guys are getting $250 and up for your gigs. So, $250 per month for a subscription for a voiceover artist is way less painful than for a girl writing eulogies for $15. You know?

Also, I have a couple of regular customers who buy from me at least once a week. They would not be able to afford me anymore if I were to raise my rates to a point where I could pay several hundred dollars and not feel it in my bottom line. SO - would it be worth it to me to raise my rates and lose customers or keep my rates low and have to forego sleeping and eating in order to maintain my profit margin. LOL

[newsmike]

54 minutes ago, moikchap said:

All the fee guarantees is that they're putting their financial assets in, not heart and soul.

I said all 3, not just finances. 3 points of commitment as opposed to two. Simple really. 

[newsmike]

51 minutes ago, authorhelendown said:

I love the idea of subscription-based membership. It will help with the explosion of people who are barely able to write a good introduction to their gigs competing with me on speechwriting.

I know speechwriting and translation get hammered by people who use Google translate, or just plagiarize others work and sell as their own. I think there can be a solution that works, no one is suggesting that the fee levels in this thread are the only scenario that work.  But I appreciate that you are open minded about raising quality to make fiverr a world clas freelance site.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. So far, I have gotten a lot of folks offering resistance to change, and not one has suggested an alternative. But I believe that allowing the status quo is not sustainable if we are to grow fiverr into what it can be.  

[moikchap]

1 minute ago, newsmike said:

and not one has suggested an alternative.

I've mentioned mine twice. You're ignoring it because it doesn't fit with the option you're pushing for, which stems from the thought that finances are a virtue on par with heart and soul. Probably people with only heart and soul but no finance to use as a crutch, put more of those two things into it to compensate. Adding the fee could remove more heart and soul than is gained, lowering quality further.

[newsmike]

2 hours ago, moikchap said:

which stems from the thought that finances are a virtue

I never suggested that finances were a virtue. You know that. What I actually said was having finances in the game (along with other things like heart and soul) makes people even more motivated not to fail, because there is a higher price to pay if things do not work out.  Please try to quote me accurately.

Misquoting me, just so you can attack your innacurate version of my words does not help your argument. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by newsmike

[enunciator]

I think everyone can agree that there's a plethora of sellers currently on the platform who have absolutely no idea what they're doing/shouldn't be trying to peddle their services what with their lack of basic skills, talent, or tools to handle even the most rudimentary of orders.

The divergence stems from how best to discourage/remove/minimize such harmful sellers from the platform.

In a dream scenario, I'd like to see every new gig created by a seller be required to complete an unpaid "test order" from Fiverr staff who would verify that the gig is of sufficient quality and standards to warrant going live on the site. I realize that would be a Herculean endeavor requiring so many staff members and that there would be numerous cases of rejected sellers claiming biased treatment, but I would honestly prefer all the downsides of such a vetting process over a simple pay barrier.

[moikchap]

@newsmikeI do know that you never explicitly suggested it. The quoted phrasing shows that; I said 'the thought', not 'your thought'. I'm saying it's at the core of the "seller pays = better sellers" mindset, as if there cannot be a cobra effect from a seller's membership fee, as if paying a fee has a prescriptive effect inherent to it; a virtue.

Scammers will not be warded off the site by a fee like a vampire is warded off by garlic. All it does is increase their cost of business and meddle with their margins. If they're profiting now, they'll be profiting then, and stick to it. The people who suffer the most will be those with desirable skill sets but not a lot of business savvy.

@enunciatorThe Dream Scenario is viable, perhaps even more dream-like; the seller could get paid for the test gig. And, the test could vary in such a way that it's not predictable for scammers to go grab something pre-existing off the internet. I'm doing that vetting process right now for myself. Fiverr could open a program, something maybe like Buyer Request, where if there is a well-endorsed buyer with a lot of tasks, those tasks could be distributed as tests, the applicant sellers could interact with the buyer, and we see how it goes. I already pay for deliveries from untested/zero review sellers. There are probably other buyers doing similar. We just need  a means of integration. Heck, it could probably be done via shared public Lists, but then that type of "curation" is open to a lot of biases. Maybe there could also be a community solution via public Lists?

Edited July 2, 2021 by moikchap
verbs/tenses

[newsmike]

26 minutes ago, moikchap said:

I do know that you never explicitly suggested it. The quoted phrasing shows that; I said 'the thought', not 'your thought'. I'm saying it's at the core of the "seller pays = better sellers" mindset, as if there cannot be a cobra effect from a seller's membership fee, as if paying a fee has a prescriptive effect inherent to it; a virtue.

That is quite a set of mental gymnastics to go through as opposed to just quoting me correctly and responding to what I actually said. 

28 minutes ago, moikchap said:

Scammers will not be warded off the site by a fee like a vampire is warded off by garlic. All it does is increase their cost of business and meddle with their margins.

You don't know that. Nor do I, but you speak theories with such absolute certainty, as if you have applied these measures before, and have witnessed the results. Which of course you haven't.  

[moikchap]

49 minutes ago, newsmike said:

That is quite a set of mental gymnastics to go through as opposed to just quoting me correctly and responding to what I actually said.

I mean, right back at ya, bud. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How about this. Instead, let's talk about the Dream Scenario enunciator posted or my List curation option. Do you have any issues with those, or are they doomed to failure without a fee? They at least attack the mechanisms through which scammers operate rather than simply thinning their margins as if that will do something to stop them.