Over 80 pages so far since the last announcement. Hundreds of desperate people not wanting to spend a dime for opportunities.
Looking at that number of people shouting and not wanting to invest $10-$20 more every month on connects to bring value to the platform in return and find better opportunities, that means a lot to me. That explains a lot. It's crystal clear now that our proposals were sinking in the proposals list because of these people who don't understand business.
The best decision ever made by Upwork. I can't wait for this to take effect. Please make it happen, Upwork. The sooner, the better.
$10/ month will buy 66 connects. That's a whole lot IMO. I've never used nearly that many in a month (although, there really aren't a huge number of jobs in my category). I think FLs will be much more cautious and careful to bid on jobs for which they are qualified, which is certainly one of the reasons for the change. If you have skin in the game, you will certainly pay more attention to what you're doing.
In the "old days", I spent that much on professional looking resumes, postage, parking for interviews and decent interview clothes.
For a number of us 'old-timers' - esp. those from eLance days - we almost always maintained a paid membership. Ten bucks a month - or whatever the Upwork fee will be - is dirt cheap when one considers the costs incurred in self-advertising.
People simply don't think ... and they sure as he// don't reason.
Yep, I'm thoroughly disgusted that so many FLers on this site are too short-sighted and thus fail to understand the WHY and how it can benefit them.
The issue is more nuanced than this. Yes, some (or perhaps even most) of the complaints are just folks not wanting to pay. However, that's not the only reason to be annoyed and I say this as someone who almost never uses connects.
First, they announce this pan-UW plan with no information and expressed thought on how it's going to work for time based contracts. That represents 50% of the contract types. When asked the moderators are forced to provide some explanation which is lost in a sea of responses and not part of the official announcement. The explanation is not exactly fully baked either. Personally I continue to be annoyed with how things are rolled out here and the lack of thoroughness and forethought put into these initiatives. How do you launch something like this and not have a concrete plan for both contract types?
Second, when some thought was put forward about how they were going to handle the number of connects, it was all based on what is easily shown to be consistently bad data. Things like client expressed budgets or expertise levels. These are rarely accurate in my experience. There isn't a day where I cannot find an obvious disconnect between the level of expertise asked for and the very first sentence or two of the job description. We'll see what they do, but again I don't see the thoughtfulness or understanding of how things actually work being brought to bear on how decisions are made.
Third, not necessarily related, but they continue to come out with things but fail to address the Top Rated program. This is just another non-differentiator. Yes, I do believe those that bring in revenues while consistently costing UW less (e.g. no disputes, rarely use CS, etc.) should not be charged the same across the board as others who have not achieved or have used UW resources more than normal. A quick example is the vaunted 20% fee. When that came out it was all about risk of new contracts. However, this "risk" is not the same for a freelancer with years of experience and a strong record compared with a new freelancer or one with recorded issues. However, all programs with a dollar associated are allocated evenly whether you are the most problematic freelancer or the most profitable. I find that wrong.
Scott, I fully agree with
1. I continue to be annoyed with how things are rolled out here and the lack of thoroughness and forethought put into these initiatives. How do you launch something like this and not have a concrete plan for both contract types?
2. Your paragraph 2 highlights what we all know to be screwed up - reliance on consistently inaccurate algorithms
As far as the 'morality' of the change - I revert back to my line about U is a business. Only a rare few businesses understand and live by morality. We can choose to support those companies or not ...
Wendy - my comments are not meant to look at this from a "morality" perspective. I don't see this change as moral or immoral. I am not sure if you are referring to my comments about Top Rated. Again not at all a morality question in my mind. Smart businesses understand how to approach their top employees and how to approach their top customers. I do not get the sense that UW understands this. Perhaps they can go read Jack Welch or Collins' Good To Great as but a few well known examples among many.
Wassim - the amount of money with regards to Connects is completely immaterial to me. I would not expect to spend enough on Connects over the next many years to buy even a small Starbucks coffee. I do not look at this at all from an actual cost perspective. I look at it in terms of how decisions are made, how business plans are thought through, how changes are communicated and how UW values those most profitable to their platform.
It isn't that I don't care about what is happening, because I do care indeed, but when something is announced in UW, well, it will happen, never mind what people say. So... let it be, and then we'll see.