Are connects too expensive?

[harisfaisal1]

Greetings Freelancer,

Should connects cost less than they do currently?

What are your thoughts? Cheaper connects means everyone gets to keep a little more in their pocket and maybe even compete in the ridiculous bidding wars that some job posts start(If that's your thing).

What are your thoughts about this and why?

Best.

Haris F.

[williamtcooper]

Haris,

When 100 freelancers apply to a job, if anything, the economics is stating that the connects are too inexpensive because 100 freelancer replies per job post is too many. The only way to drop the cost of connects and for it to make business sense is for the supply of clients to grow quicker than the supply of freelancers. Very unlikely to occur when the world economy is weak.

[tlsanders]

I don't think they are nearly expensive enough. They currently do very little to deter the tidal wave of garbage proposals that drive clients off the site. If it cost, say, $5 to send a proposal, freelancers would target much more carefully and everyone's experience would be better. 

[williamtcooper]

Tiffany,

What I have seen is a tsuami of minimum bids from new freelancers per proposal. From a client's perspective, they could and many do easily think that Upwork is a site for newbies with few professionals which is far from the truth. 

It's has gotten so bad that I will not take interviews anymore because the clients are so confused and think this is a site where everyone is the same and they can talk and get ideas from freelancers for free. I went to Consultation Booking since November 2022 and will not look back.

[dc96d4da]

I am interested to know how consultation booking is working out for you because honestly speaking, the other side is suffocating at the moment.

[williamtcooper]

Daniel,

I have had 100+ Consultations and it's the ONLY way I start with clients. Many turn into Projects.

[tjmisny]

William - how often do you find that clients refuse to engage with you because they do not want to pay you for a job interview?  I'm curious what you feel your win/loss record is there?  

[williamtcooper]

In the past 18 months, I have booked 300+ Consultations at $200 each.

Many of the Consultations turn into Projects.

Revenue has doubled this first quarter of 2024 / 2023.

I will NEVER go back to a free call or chat. They are time wasters.

Who knows what the rest of the year will be like, however the first quarter is good.

[tjmisny]

Thanks for that insight, William.  I'm going to work on building a little more credibility on the platform (I am Expert Vetted with the best portfolio on the site in video production, but with "only" $380k in earnings), then will try implementing this!  

[the-right-writer]

I think Upwork believes x millions spending connects frantically trying to get a job makes more than raising the cost of connects, which would eliminate a number of freelancers. Raising the cost would help in retaining what decent clients remain.

[7ba9aa11]

If it cost $5 to send a single proposal, the majority wouldn't be able to send ANY!  No one can afford that!  Maybe if you're in the top 5% of freelancers, and live in a country that pays more than a few hundred per month for regular jobs, but you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that MOST of the world does not make absurd incomes like in a very few Western nations.  Not to mention, why should people have to pay just to apply to a job, that will then take a large percentage of all their earnings on top!?  The site is COMPLETELY skewed in favor of the clients, already, and continuing to make it more expensive for freelancers is pushing away HIGHLY QUALIFIED providers that come from countries with weaker economies.

What you're proposing sounds almost more like discrimination than a solution.

[feed_my_eyes]

Connects are way too cheap - Upwork should put the price up. 

[jaycrutcher]

You've listed several reasons why cheaper connects would be a bad thing. The market is saturated and you want to make it easier for more unqualified people to use the platform. For a long time I didn't have an opinion on the price of connects, but now I agree that they should make them more expensive.

[lysis10]

My opinion don't count but I think they should be $.50-$1.00 per connect. Then it would cost $3-$6 to bid organically and cost a lot more to boost. 

[harisfaisal1]

Well, I take it that new freelancers may have a bad reputation to begin with but is it fair to say that every new freelancer who is bidding on a job doesn't deserve it?

Isn't it upwork's job to create an influx of clients?

Isn't giving some information, not all! - regarding the project necessary to proceed with projects where you provide a service?

Finally isn't it the freelancer's job to make sure that he should apply to jobs he/she specilises in and not randomly?

[feed_my_eyes]

---

Haris F wrote:

Well, I take it that new freelancers may have a bad reputation to begin with but is it fair to say that every new freelancer who is bidding on a job doesn't deserve it?

---

No, that wouldn't be fair, and that's why nobody has said that.

---

Haris F wrote:

Isn't it upwork's job to create an influx of clients?

---

Yes, but advertising costs money, that's why Upwork can't afford to provide this website for free to everyone who fancies trying it out, but never actually gets a job or contributes to its running costs.

---

Haris F wrote:

Isn't giving some information, not all! - regarding the project necessary to proceed with projects where you provide a service?

---

Yes, but again, who is contradicting this? Nobody.

---

Haris F wrote:

Finally isn't it the freelancer's job to make sure that he should apply to jobs he/she specilises in and not randomly?

---

It should be, but it's not. A lot of freelancers think that it's a numbers game and don't actually put any effort into ensuring that they have the skills necessary to fulfill the clients' requirements. Connects are already too cheap to discourage them from spamming clients; it would only make matters worse if they were more affordable.

Sorry, but this is a simple supply and demand situation. There are thousands of times more freelancers than clients. As the boosting system has already demonstrated, manyfreelancers are willing to spend hundreds of connects just for the chance of being seen. If connects were cheaper, they'd boost even more, and bid on even more jobs. How would that help? Instead of there being 50+ bids per project, there'd be hundreds of bids and you'd have even less chance of being seen, let alone hired.

[harisfaisal1]

---

Christine A wrote:

---

Haris F wrote:

Well, I take it that new freelancers may have a bad reputation to begin with but is it fair to say that every new freelancer who is bidding on a job doesn't deserve it?

---

No, that wouldn't be fair, and that's why nobody has said that.

---

Christine A wrote:

---

Haris F wrote:

Well, I take it that new freelancers may have a bad reputation to begin with but is it fair to say that every new freelancer who is bidding on a job doesn't deserve it?

---

No, that wouldn't be fair, and that's why nobody has said that.

But that is exactly what raising the price for bidding does. It would also create a barrier to entry for newer freelancers. Which would help old freelancers because they would be able to afford to bid.

I would suggest that the connects system be reworked by adding a limit to the connects that someone can buy per month, with this change people would apply to jobs that they can perform well and there wouldnt be an insane amount of bids on all jobs. But then again why would upwork limit the amount of connects sales when they can maximize profits from connects sales(hence he bidding system)

[feed_my_eyes]

---

Haris F wrote:

---

Christine A wrote:

---

Haris F wrote:

Well, I take it that new freelancers may have a bad reputation to begin with but is it fair to say that every new freelancer who is bidding on a job doesn't deserve it?

---

No, that wouldn't be fair, and that's why nobody has said that.

---

Christine A wrote:

---

Haris F wrote:

Well, I take it that new freelancers may have a bad reputation to begin with but is it fair to say that every new freelancer who is bidding on a job doesn't deserve it?

---

No, that wouldn't be fair, and that's why nobody has said that.

But that is exactly what raising the price for bidding does. It would also create a barrier to entry for newer freelancers. Which would help old freelancers because they would be able to afford to bid.

---

I'm not worried about competition from new freelancers, I'm worried about unqualified people scaring off good clients with their spam bidding. And the barrier to entry is practically nothing - anyone can sign up with no experience or skills, put in zero thought or effort, and start sending out bids within minutes. What other kind of business can anyone start so quickly and cheaply? If someone is serious about starting their own business - which is what freelancing is - then they should be willing to invest a few dollars. 

[6bfcdaf8]

its not the cost, its the distraction that hurts. i'd pay 5% more comission to remove connects system altogether

[harisfaisal1]

But that would also mean you would be getting fewer jobs since more people would be applying while at the same time you would be paying a higher rate of comission. So in reality the cost must be managed in a way that maximizes quality and not corporate profits.

[tlsanders]

So, I was trying to point out the obligations of this type of corporation to focus on profitability, and that it wouldn't do any of us any good if this platform went broke and left the marketplace. 

No matter how I phrased it, I got a message telling me my message contained "one of our predefined bad words, which is not permitted in this community." 

[tlsanders]

I've been using this space to test the words one at a time. No red flags at all when I add the one phrase at a time. 

[the-right-writer]

Some people make comments, and they are removed, while others make not nice comments and they stay. Not to mention how many of my posts are "edited for community guidelines" when it was an Upwork link. Or the ones that are labeled "Invalid HTML" and can't be posted... but the only HTML is the writing. Different moderators find different things offensive, apparently. Or maybe it's a big dart board.

[tlsanders]

This is a different thing. It's a red notice that appears when I click to post, much like the one that says there are html errors. It asks me to remove the predefined bad word and try again, but I can't find the predefined bad word. 

It has happened to me today with two unrelated responses that I don't think contained any common words except...really common words. 

[kochubei_valeria]

Tiffany and Jeanne, 

Please, see my response here for more information about the errors you've been experiencing when posting come comments. 

[harisfaisal1]

Yes there is a need to be profitable like in any business or enterprise , but I don't think encouraging the purchase of mass connects is the correct way to do it.

[tlsanders]

I agree with you. I think the best way would be to charge $100 r $200/month as a subscription fee and then make proposals free, but to put a hard cap of maybe 20 proposals per month per freelancer. That would really help with quality and keep more good clients on the site. But, it would lock out a lot of freelancers who couldn't afford the fee, even if they were highly skilled. And, it would mean that Upwork made a lot less money. (less revenue might not necessarily mean less profit, though, since it might b far less expensive to run the site with fewer, higher-quality freelancers and clients)

[harisfaisal1]

So you can be a freelancer only if your can afford it? that sounds too cruel.

[the-right-writer]

Freelancing is a business. When you are self-employed, it is your responsibility to pay for your needs. No business starts with zero money and makes money. Every business has expenses. Whether it's connects, access fees, or another form, there is always a price to pay. "Too cruel"? Why? Because you have to put something into the business?

You don't have to pay any company. You can freelance on your own. That means finding your clients and taking responsibility for your own actions when dealing with clients. No one is preventing freelancers from working on their own, as many of us do. If you don't want to pay anything, you can find your own clients and figure out how to get paid.

[tlsanders]

Can you open a restaurant if you can't afford it? Manufacture a product if you can't buy the materials? Be an Uber driver if you can't afford a car or gasoline? 

[john-devnoza]

yes exactly. 

[the-right-writer]

Like it or not, it is true. If you can't afford connects, you aren't going to make it here.

But where in the world can you be self-employed for free? Too many people here expect employment benefits for doing freelance work. It really is not for everyone. I keep saying if you don't have marketable skills, money to invest, time, patience, determination, energy, and most importantly - the real skills, you aren't ready for freelancing and you won't make it.

Self-employment comes with no guarantees, and you have to pay for everything you need to work. If people can't handle the responsibilities and requirements, they would be better off seeking employment where all costs are absorbed by the employer.

[hoyle_editing]

Obviously, what business is free to start and run?

When I was about 11 years old I would make money washing cars in the village I lived in. My friend and I would go door to door until we found someone that said yes. 

I remember my mum used to laugh at me because whatever money I made, I'd take most of it and buy new equipment, fancier shampoo and wax for cleaning the cars. I did this because even at 11 I knew that I could then charge more because I could do a better job and offer more services.

Even a very simple business like that cost money to start and operate.

[12b3a93a]

They should make an Upwork International and not let other countries bid on US jobs.

[fd1a3637]

Clients are free to make their job "US only"

[john-devnoza]

finally best comment!

[harisfaisal1]

To be fair imho if the objective was to maximize quality of work and regulation of applications it would result in more profits for upwork through sevice fees which would be much better for upwork's work ecosystem.

[atlinguist]

I strongly disagree that limiting the number of connects available per month would solve the problem of unwise bids (or help finance the system). I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck half way through the month because all my connects are gone. My bids don't win every time (sorry!), and I rely on sending out as many bids as possible. Limiting bids is equivalent to admitting that there aren't many good job offers anyway. (A bit like in a planned economy.)

[harisfaisal1]

I never said that you should be ridiculously limited however it doesn't mean that bidding on everything you see is the correct approach!
 if there aren't good job offers then why bid on them?

And if there are good job offers then why not?

But that's not the point the point is this , imagine having the freedom to apply to any job you want throughtout the month without having to pay large sums of money for connects.

[the-right-writer]

I can imagine, and it's an unholy nightmare. The clients are drowning in garbage proposals. If everyone could just bid, the number of real clients would go further down than it is, and the scammers would take over every freelancer and client position. Unlimited proposals would be the end of Upwork. Even fiverr has fees.