Another golden goose quitting Fiverr. Is this a trend?

[visualstudios]

Just now, smashradio said:

Should a seller making $2M pay the same as a seller making $200? You know I love the idea of a paywall, but that alone won't cover the operating costs of Fiverr. 

If they run Fiverr the same costs, then yes, of course. If the $200 costs fiverr more in terms of customer support, etc., then he should actually pay more.

[visualstudios]

1 minute ago, smashradio said:

but that alone won't cover the operating costs of Fiverr. 

That's another one - Fiverr's operating costs, like almost all tech companies, are ridiculously overinflated. I could run something like this on 1/10 the budget, easy. A lot of overpaid management should get the axe, to start.

[smashradio]

Just now, visualstudios said:

If they run Fiverr the same costs, then yes, of course. If the $200 costs fiverr more in terms of customer support, etc., then he should actually pay more.

That just wouldn't work, though. An example:

No business owner would ever dream of paying $99 per month if they're only making $200. That would mean lots of small-time sellers leaving. While that could be a nice thing, I imagine that would cut deeply into Fiverr's bottom line, meaning you had to pay more etc. 

I think the idea of a paywall is a good one. But I also think Fiverr needs to adapt the rates to fit the seller. 

[visualstudios]

Just now, smashradio said:

That would mean lots of small-time sellers leaving

Don't threaten me with a good time!

In any case, we already have fixed costs. Seller plus is a fixed cost. Is it fair that a $2M seller pays the same for it than a $0 seller?

Edited April 30 by visualstudios

[smashradio]

2 minutes ago, visualstudios said:

That's another one - Fiverr's operating costs, like almost all tech companies, are ridiculously overinflated. I could run something like this on 1/10 the budget, easy. A lot of overpaid management should get the axe, to start.

Yes, yes, like politics. But this isn't the reality of things. Corporations have rules to follow. They need HR people, accountant people, security, community managers, a team to evaluate sellers, support etc. I'm sure you could do it cheaper, but I'm not so sure it would be a better freelancing platform. 

Well, I think they could scrap Seller Plus and just put up a simple paywall, charging everyone $59 a month to sell. They could introduce a higher tier exclusively for sellers who surpass a certain sales threshold, and offer them a lower fee rate, like 10% instead of 20%. That would work just fine.

Edited April 30 by smashradio

[visualstudios]

Just now, smashradio said:

I'm sure you could do it cheaper, but I'm not so sure it would be a better freelancing platform. 

Oh, it would - because I actually know how it is working in one, unlike the decision makers here. They have no clue, clearly.

[smashradio]

1 minute ago, visualstudios said:

Oh, it would - because I actually know how it is working in one, unlike the decision makers here. They have no clue, clearly.

This we can agree on. I look forward to selling on your platform when it reaches 3.42 million active buyers. 😁

[smashradio]

(I love how all my topics always go completely haywire and off-topic. It's like a live chat! Fiverr? I want a live chat!)

[visualstudios]

2 minutes ago, smashradio said:

I look forward to selling on your platform when it reaches 3.42 million active buyers. 

Well, obviously that ain't happening. Scale is the challenge. That I do not know how to do (and costs a lot of money). 

[smashradio]

Just now, visualstudios said:

and costs a lot of money

Hence the 20%. 

[visualstudios]

1 minute ago, smashradio said:

Hence the 20%. 

Nope. It costs money to scale. Once scaled up, it doesn't cost that much anymore. So yeah, hence the 20% at first - but the ability to scale that back gradually.

[emmaki]

Oh, well, I guess OP is fine with OT chat. I'm OK with it too now.

But still, I would love it if we could get back on topic. I'd like to come here tomorrow morning to read some cool new news about the dearly departed golden goose.

Realistically? I don't think that's going to happen. But hope beats in my all-to-human heart. I even fancy that some of my comments might make it to see the light of day!

Is that such a vainglorious desire? Beethoven has a beautiful song about the dream of prisoners - o welche Lust, in freier Luft... - I feel a new kinship with these fictitious prisoners, bound as I am by the chains of automated disapproval.

There, that was definitely OT. But pretentiously so.

[smashradio]

3 minutes ago, visualstudios said:

Nope. It costs money to scale. Once scaled up, it doesn't cost that much anymore. So yeah, hence the 20% at first - but the ability to scale that back gradually.

Staying on top costs money. But since I like arguing against myself, one concern is that freelancers on certain other platforms can charge less, meaning Fiverr can lose it's edge if not careful. 

[emmaki]

Fiverr? Edgy? The edgiest it gets is insulting vast swathes of the freelance world with badly-thought out ad campaigns. Remember the heroine chic one? Dear Lord.

[visualstudios]

1 minute ago, smashradio said:

one concern is that freelancers on certain other platforms can charge less, meaning Fiverr can lose it's edge if not careful. 

Exactly. 

Once you are the standard, you can control the market. You can drive the others, that need to charge more because they need more capital to scale, out of business by lowering your costs. 

If I have a platform with 1M users, and I can charge 10%, I'll be making much more than the platform that has 100k users charging 20%, all while dumping on them pricewise, and becoming even more attractive and stealing all their userbase. It's a no brainer.

[emmaki]

Come on chaps, write something. I need inspo. I've decided to stay up a little later than usual to follow this fascinating conversation. It's not like I have any work tomorrow, apart from maybe writing a couple of blog posts for my web properties.

Note the use of "write". I won't be using ChatGPT. Unlike some people...

[smashradio]

Just now, visualstudios said:

It's a no brainer.

It's a brainer if you think about it. What kind of client do you want to attract? Fiverr aims to move up-market, so it should be more expensive. I exclusively use Rituals for everything, my lotion, wonderfully scented soft foamy shower foam, shampoo, deodorant, even my fabric softener. It's all overpriced stuff made from the same ingredients as the cheapest soap at the grocery store. But why do I shell out 20 euros for a small bottle of hand soap? For the experience. The attractive packaging, the overly friendly staff following you around with a woven basket to hold your purchases, the nice little gift they give you as you leave, and the way they personally hand you your bag as you exit. I'm paying for the experience, not the actual product.

[smashradio]

To add to that: my experience working on other platforms has been like the grocery store white label brand of soap. As a buyer, it tasted like the generic pasta pot you buy at the chinese dollar store. My experience working on Fiverr is more akin to the luxury brands in that regard: it's the same goo, different and better packaging.

[visualstudios]

34 minutes ago, smashradio said:

My experience working on Fiverr is more akin to the luxury brands in that regard: it's the same goo, different and better packaging.

We have vastly different experiences then. Fiverr is anything but luxury. It's low value.

We have millions of meksells, people selling spells (lol), etc. It's a flea market, not high end shopping.

Edited April 30 by visualstudios

[emmaki]

Yeah! Visual! You tell him! Sock it to 'em! It's wall to wall deceptive AI content!

 

[smashradio]

30 minutes ago, visualstudios said:

We have vastly different experiences then. Fiverr is anything but luxury. It's low value.

We have millions of meksells, people selling spells (lol), etc. It's a flea market, not high end shopping.

You have to compare it to other platforms. Everything is relative. 

[arbelkimmick]

I saw her video too and although I think it's for a lot of the reasons you mentioned a MAJOR factor that she lightly touches on is the fact that AI has replaced so many writers and even voiceover artists like myself. AI is now coming for UGC creators (my main source of income as of the last 2 years) and it's important to offer features that AI cannot. Not easily done in every category. 

Just like many YouTube influencers quit YouTube, people will want change and move on. I personally don't see myself leaving Fiverr anytime soon and will continue to ride the waves that is freelancing ❤️ 

[visualstudios]

14 minutes ago, smashradio said:

You have to compare it to other platforms. Everything is relative. 

At least compared to upwork, which is the only other platform that can compare in terms of size and market penetration, Fiverr looks way less professional and lower end.

[desmond_aubery]

6 hours ago, visualstudios said:

You can't look at it like this, because the counter argument is obvious - hire me directly, outside the platform, and get your project done for 20% cheaper. When we're talking about $10 projects, it doesn't matter. When we're talking about $10k projects, it does.

The more expensive you are, the harder it is to justify your rate being 20% higher than it could be (and is) when dealing directly.

To put it in simpler terms, it's like VAT. It's always the end consumer paying for it - and there's a limit to how much the end consumer will take. It's not the seller paying 20%, it's the buyer. So you can't say "as a seller, I don't care about the 20%", because it's not your problem. It's the buyer's problem. And the buyer does care about the 20%, specially when that means literally thousands of extra dollars paid for nothing.

Imagine a sliding scale for platform overhead fee - based on $ amount of project? Would this perhaps be more equitable as Fiverr moves upmarket?  

[williambryan392]

I think there could be multiple factors for anyone leaving fiverr at the moment (or indeed at any time).

Making money elsewhere.

AI has potentially hit revenue.

Just got bored of it.

Maybe got burned by the level system, and it doesn't look good for the personal brand to be a lower level.

 

On a connected yet side note, I'm always curious about sellers who tout massive numbers but also have teams. I don't think they tell the whole story. I've been considering a lot how to scale, interviewing some people etc, but have been looking at the numbers to work out if it's worth it.

So let's have a hypothetical if I were to make 350K in a year with a team doing the heavy lifting...

Minus 20% fee = $70K

Let's assume you pay 50% of the gig value to another freelancer as the fee (I think this is actually low but let's give the benefit of the doubt)  = $175K

You're a volume seller, so you need a VA (or 2), and a team manager. Let's say you hire cheap, @$10K per person per year = $30K (and you're not paying your manager a commission which most ask for).

Let's ignore software costs to manage this team, bank/FX fees, increased accountancy costs and all the other little things that you end up paying for. We're also ignoring promoted gigs, and seller plus fee.

We have $350K - $275K = $75K. That's before tax.

 

Now I'm not knocking it, kudos, if you can build something great, who doesn't like $75K and if you aren't even touching the business due to the hires then that 75K pre tax for probably just doing a weekly or monthly check in with a team manager is pretty darn good. 

But anyway, I just want to make the point that a lot of the time people see these big numbers and don't see the costs that go alongside.