Clients post and just leave without hiring

[#1]

I is really sad to say that clients post jobs and we apply and waste connects but clients just forget about job. Neither they hire anybody nor they close the job. There must be a system to either close their jobs or an option for freelancers to withdraw their connects. It is not our fault if client does not hire and just lets his job posted for months, so why should our connects get wasted?????

[#2]

Hi Shayan,

Thank you for reaching out to us and we certainly understand your concern. However, Please note that we return Connects when a client closes their job without hiring or we find a job post has violated our Terms of Service. You can find more information here.

[#3]

Hello Arjay,

I think Shayan is talking about those clients who fail to close their job and just leave without doing anything. These people 'forget' that they had an open job and it just remains open for months, with no hire. There should be a system in place that eventually expires them and closes them automatically, to return the connects to the freelancers.

[#4]

I always find it interesting when freelancers talk about how it's not their fault if clients don't hire.

If I send a proposal to a client and the client chooses not to hire me, I assume that's because I'm not the right fit for their needs for some reason or other. 

[#5]

I totaly agree with you. It's just like we threw it into a well, or through a window. I asked the same question. And I also get the same official answer - which actualy is not the concrete answer to that question.

[#6]

Well, here is an unofficial answer. You are an independent contractor or self-employed. Upwork is a business. In order to use the platform to find jobs, there are costs. Connects are a business expense. Every platform charges something.

[#7]

it may be a business but I guess it would be better if they set up a system that would protect all parties,,

[#8]

Mr. Arjay its very typical answer to skip the problem. But for freelancers its really depressing and i request you to take up this matter at appropriate forum and come up with solution to this problem. I hope to hear something positive in this regard.

[#9]

Hi Shayan,

Thank you for following up. I would like to clarify that submitting a proposal has a financial cost, just like the other expenses you incur as a freelancer running your own business. If a client never hires but doesn’t close the job, your Connects are not returned.

In this situation, we continue to encourage the client to hire or close the job, but ask that you consider the cost of Connects as part of your business expenses.

[#10]

Some clients' hire rate is below 10% or 20%. They posted more than 30-50 jobs. In this situation, there should be a guideline for them too. If they don't even feel for the job, then why did they post that? I think this is also spoiling the working environment on this platform.

I think if a job is not even interviewed, the freelancers should get at least 80% connets back after a certain period of time.
If the job is interviewed but not hired then or closed then freelancers should get at least 50% connects back.

[#11]

I absoltuely agree.  There is a HUGE volume of posted jobs that have zero follow through.  It is a waste of time, energy, and connects.

Its too bad Upwork couldn't implement some kind of timer where, if after 30 days, no action to hire or close a job has been taken, all freelancers who submitted a proposal would be refunded their connects.

[#12]

---

Jeremiah B wrote:

I absoltuely agree.  There is a HUGE volume of posted jobs that have zero follow through.  It is a waste of time, energy, and connects.

Its too bad Upwork couldn't implement some kind of timer where, if after 30 days, no action to hire or close a job has been taken, all freelancers who submitted a proposal would be refunded their connects.

---

So, in your plan, successful freelancers who are often awarded work more than 30 days after a job was posted would lose out on paying work (and Upwork would lose out on fees) but unsuccessful freelancers would be constantly gifted with more connects to flood postings and drive clients away? 

[#13]

That's not at all what I'm saying.  

I am simply proposing an idea.  A suggestion, to deal with the large number of postings that are posted and essentially abandoned with no interaction at all.  Requiring that a client interact with the posting in some way - perhaps simply logging in to their account?  

It's not about driving clients away from the platform.  It's about null job posting turnover.  If a client hasn't interacted with their job posting for 30, 60, 90 days, chances are they can't be troubled to close it out organically, which could return connects to a freelancer.

There are two sides to Upwork's revenue model.  

1. Clients who bring work to the site

2. Freelancers who purchase connects to submit proposals to perform that work.

While it's obvious that clients make up the largest segment of revenue generation on the site, freelancers who purchase connects also generate some of that revenue.  Upwork likes to keep clients happy so they continue bringing money to the site, which is a reasonable expectation.  That said, a similar consideration should be given to freelancers who perform the work - if freelancers begin to realize that they are spending large amounts of money to purchase connects, which are being disproportionately spread out across the boost feature and null job postings, those freelancers may go on to leave the site or to spread information to others that the site is no longer a  profitable place to work.

It's reasonable to say that connects are a business expense, but it's also fact that at some point that 'business expense' is more of a burden and liability.  Upwork should be concerned about the symbiosis between both freelancer and client satisfaction - their business model requires both sides of the business relationship to derive their revenue and profit stream.  Clients won't use a site where good freelancing talent refuses to work and likewise, freelancers don't want to work where good clientele refuse to post work.  

Upwork should, in my opinion, focus on a healthy and sustainable business model that minimizes the impact of abandoned job postings.  This may not have been that significant prior to implementing the boost feature, but since then, the cost to submit a proposal has tripled (or more).  Sure, boosting is optional, but there is some credibility to freelancers claims that their proposal to hire conversion rate has decreased from this feature.  

The boost feature, in and of itself, is designed to increase the amount of connects purchased and spent on the site.  The effect of that increased purchase and expenditure of connects is to thin the growing supply of freelancers competing for the same work.  This feature can be sugarcoated all day long, but increased pressure to spend more does force out freelancers that are unable to generate enough profit to at least break even.  With that in mind, why not give back connects for null postings?  Those connects would be better used to generate competition among freelancers than being cast off as 'the cost of doing business'.  

[#14]

Upwork has never made a profit, so wouldn't you say that's the main reason for trying to increase the amount of money that they make from connects? And if they returned connects, they would make less money, so why would they want to do that? Because some freelancers are upset and are leaving the platform? Freelancers who make money here are certainly not leaving, and why would Upwork want to incentivise non-successful freelancers to stick around, when more and more are joining every second of every day? There's just no business case for what you're proposing.

As for generating more competition, I'm not sure why you think that Upwork isn't competitive enough as it is. I haven't seen anyone else make this argument. 

[#15]

I wasn't aware that Upwork has never posted a profit.  That's not to say they aren't profitable.  They could also be reinvesting for all I know.

Well, there are really only two outcomes for null job postings.  Upwork either has more null than legitimate postings, or, they have more legitimate postings than null.  

If they have more legitimate postings than null, refunding connects spent on null postings (after a reasonable period of time) should still result in the retention of the best freelance talent while shedding the worst.  The best freelance talent will not go through as many connects as a new, zero work history freelancer.  This is true whether the boost system is implemented or not.  The more experienced freelance talent *should* have a better proposal to contract conversion rate than a new, inexperienced freelancer.  

What difference does it make to the experienced veteran freelancers if these are refunded or not?  Experienced freelance talent should be relying on the merits of their reviews, portfolios, and established work history more than dumping 30 connects just to be on the top of the pile.  I'm convinced that the best clientele is going to place an emphasis on a quality outcome more than a freelancers ability to buy more connects (to make larger bids).

If that's the case, why not return the likely small (possibly moderate) number of connects that sit idle on job postings that are abandoned?  This may result in greater competition among the newest freelancers, but that's where greater competition is needed in order to drive down the supply.

At it's core, the boost feature is literally designed to impact the amount of connects spent (and purchased) by freelancers.  It is designed to manipulate and thin the number of proposals to any given job at any given time.  Essentially, it's a manufactured severance of the lowest performers.  

As in the corporate world, severance packages are a way to part ways with the lowest performers while simultaneously maintaining a good image and an amicable split.  Why not let freelancers with the greatest connect sensitivity feel like their connects have greater purchasing power on the site?  Whether those connects are sitting null on a null job posting or driving up a bid for an active job posting, they're still being spent - with a difference in a users perception of equity.  Similar to both freelancer and client reviews, too many complaints from former Upwork users may divert future clientele from trying the site.  These clients are likely to be more profitable as they care enough to do their due diligence of the site prior to creating an account.  

It's just an idea to converse about.  

[#16]

People have been complaining about idle job posts and having to pay for connects every day, ever since I can remember. I have yet to see a reasonable solution. My own biggest worry is that proposals from incompetent freelancers are driving quality clients away from Upwork, so I'm not keen on the idea of giving these freelancers more connects to spend. 

[#17]

Logically speaking, the best way to reduce the supply of freelancers is to increase the cost of connects.

The real question is, at what price?  

To me, the whole boost thing is counterproductive.  Clients want quality results for their money (or at least they should), rather than hiring the biggest spenders of connects.  By that realization, clients should also gravitate towards the same decision making demographics as they used prior to the boost feature.  The perceived value that they receive for the money they spend.

Perhaps the answer is to get rid of all connect refunds, get rid of the boost feature, double or triple the cost of connects, and limit a freelancer to only two purchases per month?

I mean, if they want to reduce the supply of freelancers, why not actually do it?  I wonder what that outcome would look like.

[#18]

I see no evidence that Upwork wants to reduce the number of freelancers - quite the contrary.

I would personally support increasing the price of connects and getting rid of all freebies, but I'd be very much in the minority - there would be a huge outcry if Upwork did that. Boosting is a better option in terms of it being voluntary, and there's nothing to stop a client from reading the rest of the proposals in order to find the best fit.

[#19]

Upwork continues to let anything be a freelancer, and they have shown no indication they will stop. Some genius decided the flood would bring in more money, and they are slowly starting to realize clients are leaving the platform. I warned of this a long time ago, and of course no one at Upwork is concerned. The short-sighted money grab doesn't work, but they are locked into this mindset that more freelancers equals more cash.

Yes, get rid of all connect refunds/gimmies/whatever, and get rid of the boost feature. Just get rid of the connects and charge a monthly fee. No, do not limit my ability to apply for jobs.

If you got rid of 90% of the freelancers, Upwork would look like it did before they allowed anything to be a freelancer. Not heaven, but there were few scams, much better clients willing to pay decent money, and no 50+ proposals. There were also much fewer people in the forum either complaining of being scammed or that life at Upwork is just so unfair.

[#20]

The weird thing is that they DID recognize it and DID weed out a lot of freelancers and then at some point started going for volume again and recreating the problem they had partially solved. 

[#21]

How can you not know Upwork hasn't made a profit? You have commented on Upwork's financial status and situation, have you never researched Upwork? I have, and many of the other freelancers have as well.

It matters to the experienced freelancers because we like to work. There are still too many connects, and some have already figured out how to game the interview thing somehow and get more connects. When I carefully craft my professional proposal and there are already 50+ applications, do you not see the problem? What kind of stamina do you think a client has to wade through not only 50+ proposals, but wade through 90%+ garbage?

I see nothing to discuss. Freelancing is a business. Upwork's biggest problem is too many unskilled freelancers harassing clients for jobs. I have seen multiple proposals clients have shown me. It's disgusting.

I'm also starting to wonder why some freelancers need so much help - golly, could it be they have no skills, no interest in getting skills, and just want to make money. The few I do feel sorry for are the ones who believe the propaganda and are desperate for work. Unfortunately, those people are never going to find work.

All freelancers started at the bottom. If you don't know what you are doing, don't be a freelancer until you know how, or quit. There is no reason why new freelancers should have free connects. Be an adult in business or go find a job with an employer who will tell you what to do, when to do it, and watch you like a hawk to make sure you do the work.

[#22]

---

Jeremiah B wrote:

If they have more legitimate postings than null

It's just an idea to converse about.  

---

This is a false dichotomy. There are many legitimate job postings that don't result in a hire through Upwork. 

I'm curious about why you think that giving the worst freelancers who never land jobs back their connects to try again and again and again would "shed" them from the platform--and why you think the best freelancers would remain when good clients leave the platform due to the barrage of low-end spam. 

[#23]

What you fail to realize is that flooding the platform hurts every freelancer, including the new ones. It also hurts Upwork in the long term.

Everyone starts out with the same rights and responsibilities, and the same ability through the platform.  That is about as fair as you will ever find. Upwork has acknowledged that the majority of freelancers never earn a penny. This is a fact every freelancer should accept.

The connects return is a horrible idea. Everyone has the same costs. Freelancers need to act like adults in business, not small children who think they should have their siblings treats, too.

[#24]

I'm not failing to understand and I'mnot suggesting that the site should be flooded with new freelancers.  

So what if you give a few connects back to freelancers.  The freelancers with moderate to extensive work history aren't the ones spending 50 connects to submit a proposal anyway (as far as I know).  This segment of freelancer should be leveraging their previous work history, their portfolios, and their reviews as part of their value proposition.  Clients want the best possible product for the least (or reasonable) amount of expense.  Good clients know that cheap work isnt good and good work isnt cheap.  That alone drives clients towards mid-level, moderately priced freelancers.  Not the top tier and not the bottom of the barrell.

Despite how many connects a moderately experienced and priced freelancer spends, the client is still only focused on the value that the freelancer brings to the deal.  Not who is on first.  As a client, would you hire someone with zero experience, zero reviews, and no portfolio simply because they appeared at the top of the pile?  Or would you look through the pile until you have a handful of moderately priced freelancers with good reviews and previous work history?

[#25]

"So what if you give a few connects back to freelancers."

Asked and answered.

"As a client, would you hire someone with zero experience, zero reviews, and no portfolio simply because they appeared at the top of the pile? Or would you look through the pile until you have a handful of moderately priced freelancers with good reviews and previous work history?"

That pile is exactly the problem. No, I don't expect some poor client to wade through multiple proposals from freelancers who have no skills, begging/demanding a job, and no chance of ever being hired. Do you really think it is reasonable for clients to wade through disgusting garbage proposals looking for the gem? Of course not. 

Why can't we act like adults in business? If more people did, there would be less whining about connects and more focus on improving profiles and the quality of work. Upwork has some real issues. Artificially supporting one segment of freelancers over others is a terrible policy.

You have shown no benefit to giving more connects back other than increasing the number of connects floating around, which will increase proposals. Increased proposals are bad for everyone. It would be different if the clients received 50+ quality proposals, but they do not. Some of the proposals I have seen demonstrate so little effort, it would be laughable if the clients didn't hate it. More connects hurt every single freelancer.