newsmike

Yes the $5 per month charge to sell requires a credit card or bank account to draw from, and sellers be required to sell under the name that account is in.

But PRO gigs are displayed right alongside the $5 scammer gigs. Off-putting for serious buyers.

You may well be correct there. One alternative we had discussed in the past, which addresses both the pay wall and Fiverr's need to "save face" in their rebranding was as follows: Each gig carries a $5 monthly charge to remain active for purchase. This forces people to not start 7 gigs when they can barely support one, and would eliminate many thousands of gigs that bill zero, freeing up bandwidth and unclogging the algorithm. Best part is Fiverr can then rebrand as "Fiverr...start your business for just $5."

I never said that. Please re-read. I didn't forget that at all. I am suggesting that it is time to consider focusing on quality as opposed to offering crap cheaply. Companies evolve. Again, you are confused between business and charity

But why would anyone buy from them at $125, when they can get a pro starting at that price point. Their quality will not improve so it will be evident they are trying to peddle crap at $125, and they will wither away, while someone competent will get the order.

But this supposes that there would be a one time bump from $5 to $10. Once Fiverr frees itself from the unfortunate branding of "FIVErr", the bumps should be regular and progressive...to $15, $20, and so on. This is how they get to become the high quality, PRO/Fiverr Business site they seem to want. One cannot become a high end provider of quality freelancers, and at the same time a sweatshop of stolen content and copyright violations. Yes, I'll say it. The idea is to eventually squeeze the cheaters out. Once you get to a high enough price point, you might as well buy from a skilled freelancer.

I don't disagree, however that quote was not mine but was made by @maitasun

All great points. And unlike most businesses, Fiverr has been saddled with an image problem most businesses don't have to face. It has the identity crisis of trying to be the BMW and Kia dealership simultaneously.

How would you proceed if you wanted to shed the sweatshop image, and build toward the higher quality direction Fiverr seems to desire?

Yes, but sadly every time we discuss this, the argument that derails the topic comes from people who cannot distinguish between a business and an income providing charity. It seems most people cannot think beyond "It's not fair." Which is a great argument...if you are 5 years old. But there are businesses and there are charities.

That misses the point. My entire point was regarding the branding and business ramifications of keeping one foot in the bargain basement arena. You are coming at it from a different angle, which is one of poverty and charity, which has nothing to do with what I pointed out. It is a good topic and you may wish to start a new thread with that argument.

Would you rather have 20% of $5 or $10? That is a 100% increase on a tremendous amount of sales.

And we are once again at the argument of "Is Fiverr a publicly traded company, which as such has only 1 responsibility, which is to maximize investor value, or is Fiverr a charity dedicated to providing low wage jobs and basic income in undeveloped nations?" There are many charities that do that, and many corporations that serve their investors. Fiverr can't be both. Not effectively, and not without suffering. Just look at all the threads we discuss elsewhere where Fiverr is considered a joke because of the lowball price point.

Good point. I was not suggesting that the $5 sellers be booted out of hand, just that Fiverr would benefit everyone if they said to those sellers "you must raise to $10" to remain active. In the case of those who don't raise to $10 minimum, then gigs could be deactivated. The seller benefits, Fiverr benefits, and honestly anyone who would pay $5 will pay $10. Everything else in the world is going up, so keeping someone who only earns $4 after 20% for Fiverr in 2023 seems insensitive to the fact that the sellers at $5 probably need the raise most of all.

@corsogr Or perhaps, maybe you would care to deconstruct my arguments, and offer something as a counter point, you know an actual discussion? Otherwise, let the adults who can read and comprehend have a discussion.

Thanks for the thoughtful and intelligent analysis.

Going to the movies used to cost a 24 cents... in 1920. Because of inflation, it is now more like $10. This along with the fact that Fiverr suffers from the nostalgia of branding itself as "Get anything for $5", has kept it anchored at that entry price point for 10 years. Meanwhile, other forces besides inflation have kept Fiverr with one foot in the past, while struggling to move into 2023. Among these, more competition. Fiverr is not the only freelance site, and tries to maintain the "big tent" mentality by allowing all price points including $5, while also trying to launch quality oriented initiatives to enhance their image, such as PRO and Fiverr Business. Of course this is attempting to mix oil and water. It doesn't work. Cheapness and quality are exact polar opposites. The big news in retail lately is that the dollar stores are raising their prices not only to respond to inflation, but to allow themselves to maintain and improve their inventory selection. If they didn't do this, there would soon be nothing on the shelf that could be sold for $1 that would attract any buyers. The longer these stores, maintain the $1 price point the more outdated, cheap and irrelevant they become. For this reason Fiverr need to finally leave behind the $5 pricing option, forcing all gigs to a higher price point. Let's face it, $5 was a great gimmick to launch the brand with memorable branding, but now with inflation, competition and the flood of low quality $5 gigs flooding the site, it does nothing to build the quality image that Fiverr seems to be inching toward. I believe they know they must take some steps to one day purge the fake, low quality and scam gigs. Perhaps if major retailers can reinvent while maintaining their branding, Fiverr can as well. If Fiverr does not take the opportunity to raise the minimum entry we become a relic, flooded with 2012 pricing, quality and mentality.

You are the one asking for help since you are not making sales even when stealing content. I try to make suggestions and you get an attitude. Gee, I wonder why no one is ordering form you. Are you designs also someone else's work, or just Canva templates?

So if using your own words, and then using someone else's words do not work it would seem that you have a product problem.

Copying their description as you say is also plagiarism. You have to create your own content. Not make small changes to someone else's words.

You sure you want to admit to plagiarism on a public forum? Maybe if you did your own work instead of stealing from others?

To help the planet, a 501c3 charity that actually passes the majority of the donations onto the cause, which is rare, or to make a killing and get a Lamborghini, a yacht and a trophy wife, start a hedge fund.

Not according to TOS. I just posted a new thread in the "seller plus" section asking the SM's to address this:

This still allows "buyers" to waste the time of sellers by asking for work, then after the hours are expended, rejecting the work. For example, I want a logo. I ask 12 sellers to make logos, and reject 11 of them. I prefer the wording in TOS that stated: “orders are not eligible to be cancelled based on the quality of service/materials delivered by the seller if the service was rendered as described in the gig page. https://www.fiverr.com/terms_of_service I disagree that "they deserve a refund", otherwise we are all doing free samples on every order, and hopefully getting a sale, as opposed to being paid for our time.

Nothing about product quality?