Where are the Quality Jobs?

[#1]

I've been an Upwork Freelancer for 3.5 years and have checked the site every day in that span for new jobs to apply to.  I've applied to nearly 2,000 jobs at this point.  

In the past week, I've seen zero jobs worth applying to, and very few in the weeks prior.  The total quantity has gone down and the only ones I see are offering rates far below the cost of living anywhere in the US.  (And many are seeking US based talent).  

Is anybody else seeing a total absence of quality jobs and a rapid detoriation of average job pay/quality? 

And what can Upwork to do motivate / engage quality, high-paying companies to hire here again? 

My Expert Vetted talent contact says that Upwork gives presentations at various large companies to show what kind of talent is on Upwork.  My feeling is these meetings might need to be way more frequent, or structured in a different way.  There are hundreds of thousands of companies in the world - if there isn't a single quality company posting in my category in the span of weeks, that is proof that Upwork isn't doing its job to foster this community and to grow the platform.  

[#2]

I think clients getting suggestions for budget that's why this occurring. Clients budget is $500 but system suggest $10 and client think oh if their work done in this budget so keep this.

might possible this 🤔what you think?

[#3]

I agree - this is a huge problem.

When clients post in my category (Video Production), for "Expert Level", "US Only Talent", this graph is shown to clients.  I have been complaining about this for over 2 years now... but this graph lists rates that are ENTRY LEVEL RATES IN THE USA.  

Meanwhile... this graph shows the rates of Expert Level US based Video Production freelancers in the US when you search for Upwork talent.  This is what expert Freelancers in the US are actually charging: 

What's significiant about this: Upwork is priming clients to expect cheap work.  Upwork tells Freelancers that the expected rate for Expert Level work is actually Entry Level rates.  So when Expert Freelancers list their rates, they seem overpriced.  This makes amateurs seem more reasonable beacuse it's more likely a client will hire a cheaper freelancer.

And we see the results of this... there are a tiny number of quality jobs on the platform.  

[#4]

This goes back to my assertion that low-skill, low-rate freelancers have dominated this platform over the last few years, and Upwork's algorithm has adjusted. The algorithm adapts to trends and I believe this is why you're seeing this range of hourly rates.

The algorithm's adaptation is done with the goal of improving outcomes. With so many freelancers offering low rates, clients are spending less or avoiding freelancers with the highest hourly rates. That's not a positive outcome for higher rate freelancers, but it provides an immediate positive outcome for clients who lowered their rates due to the high volume of low-rate freelancers here.

I believe the trend towards lower rates is evident in Upwork's most recent quarterly report where the number of active clients has increased, but the Gross Services Volume (GSV) per active client is down 4%. Some clients are spending less because low-rate freelancers are giving them the opportunity to do so.

[#5]

An hour ago client said:

Is it true that 30-years expirience professionals from NY asking $50 for 3 hrs of work? 😹

New LowballWork would be fun but we pay for it. 🤔

[#6]

I've worked in NYC for 19 years.... nobody with experience is doing 3 hours of work for $50.  That's slightly above minium wage.  

[#7]

Here you go. And we are surprised that Upwork offers 25-50.

[#8]

That is why I find it so offensive - the "average rate" Upwork tells every Client are completely unrealistic when it comes to the cost of living in real life.  So every Client expects to get much cheaper work than is actually achievable unless the Freelancers are living in poverty.  

[#9]

I think it's the other way around.  Upwork's messaging and algorithms prime clients to expect the cheapest Freelancers (see the $25-50% hour graph I posted above), and then it becomes inevitable that more cheaper Freelancers will be hired.  It's a preordained outcome.  The system rewards the cheapest, so the cheapest thrive.  Upwork is not adjusting or adapting to this outcome - they have orchestrated this outcome intentionally.  

Upwork could make some small tweaks to their messaging and system architecture that would make more experienced (and yes, more expensive) Freelancers more visible and more appealing, and then these Freelancers would be hired more.  (And... Upwork would make more money in transaction percentage fees).

Instead, Upwork exploits the most experienced and credible Freelancers on the platform by applying pressure to make them overspend on Connects, claiming this will cut through the noise (noise which Upwork has created to boost the amatuers and hide the experts)... which does not actually work, because the system has never been designed in the favor of experienced Freelancers.  

[#10]

---

 Clark S wrote:

I believe the trend towards lower rates is evident in Upwork's most recent quarterly report where the number of active clients has increased, but the Gross Services Volume (GSV) per active client is down 4%. Some clients are spending less because low-rate freelancers are giving them the opportunity to do so.

---

Yes but hmmmm, the thing is, the average GSV per client, as well as the count of clients used to calculate that average, are both based on annualized numbers and does not accurately reflect what really happened during the last quarter.  That said, despite the fact that the number of clients went up, their spend went down.  OTOH, what stands out to me is the hair-raising 20% increased marketplace revenue.  Granted some of that revenue is from clients.  But I’m somewhat hard-pressed to think revenue went up from a bunch of low-rate jobs; I mean, that’s a lot of jobs to account for a 20% increase.  I’m more inclined to think most of it is from connects/no hires.  Of course, since we don’t have enough info to know for sure, all we can do is guess, like everything else on this platform!

[#11]

Yes but hmmmm, the thing is, the average GSV per client, as well as the count of clients used to calculate that average, are both based on annualized numbers and does not accurately reflect what really happened during the last quarter.

I get what you're saying, but I wasn't focusing on the quarter. I stated: "This goes back to my assertion that low-skill, low-rate freelancers have dominated this platform over the last few years..." and Thomas JM mentioned: "I have been complaining about this for over 2 years now..." when referring to the low hourly rate range for Video Production that Upwork shows to clients.

Upwork's report specifies the GSV per active client decreased 4% as of March 31, 2024, as compared to March 31, 2023, so that's an annual assessment, like you mentioned.

And, I agree--revenue didn't increase because of low-rate jobs. Upwork tells us in the same report that marketplace revenue increased (20%) as compared to the same period in 2023, due to changes to existing offerings and other services and features. Specifically, they retired the tiered service fee structure (ranging from 5% to 20%) in favor of the flat fee (10%); increased the number of Connects needed to bid on jobs; deployed ads products; and introduced a contract initiation fee for clients.

My assertion--in response to Thomas JM--is that Upwork's algorithm has adjusted to low-rate freelancers, which drives the logic behind Upwork's marketplace messaging regarding lower rates.

[#12]

But there have always been low-rate Freelancers on Upwork?  And Upwork has (for as long as I've been here), been tilted in favor of the low-rate Freelancers because (at least prior to the Casino Era), Upwork has preferred the easier, cheaper hire rather than the more difficult sell of a more expensive contract.  (They'd rather you buy something rather than risk you buying nothing if they try to match you with a $200/hr pro).   

I think it's an important distinction - Upwork is not adapting to the prevelance of low-rate freelancers, they have created demand for low-rate freelancers and have tailored the platform to cater to these low-rate individuals.  They want you to buy something, rather than nothing.  

[#13]

Yes, there have always been low-rate freelancers on Upwork, but I think the numbers have skyrocketed since the start of the pandemic. Upwork removed barriers to entry and skill tests, which allowed many inexperienced freelancers to join the platform. All of this was done--in my opinion--to boost profits by monetizing the sheer volume of freelancers using the platform.

Before this, I think Upwork actually cared about matching subject matter experts with quality jobs. Unfortunately, they never figured out how to make a profit when following this model, so they found a new model--utilize the high volume of freelancers here, and capitalize on the type of freelancer dominating the marketplace (low-skilled, inexperienced freelancers who will spend Connects).

And Upwork has (for as long as I've been here), been tilted in favor of the low-rate Freelancers because (at least prior to the Casino Era), Upwork has preferred the easier, cheaper hire rather than the more difficult sell of a more expensive contract.

I can understand this viewpoint if you've been watching Upwork since 2021-2022 until now. But before the influx of millions of freelancers during the pandemic, Upwork stated its preference for long-term freelancer/client contracts, and has continued to say the same thing every year.  Upwork's sales efforts are primarily targeted at large enterprise clients and other clients who have larger, longer-term needs and will spend large amounts of money. They target the clients that seek large, long-term contracts because that's where the money is; not the easier, cheaper hire contracts.

Upwork is not adapting to the prevelance of low-rate freelancers, they have created demand for low-rate freelancers and have tailored the platform to cater to these low-rate individuals.

I think we're both saying the same things (sort of), but approaching it from different angles. I believe--like you do--that Upwork has tailored certain sections of the marketplace to invite, cater to, and monetize low-rate freelancers. They never made a profit until the first or second quarter of 2023, so they had to do something.

But my observation about "adaptation" is based on machine learning algorithms and how they work. Because Upwork has allowed a high volume of inexperienced and low-rate freelancers to proliferate, the algorithm is now favoring lower rates. This is why many Expert-Vetted, Top-Rated Plus, and Top-Rated freelancers are seeing fewer invites, declining proposal views, and noticing their profiles ranking lower than inexperienced, low-rate freelancers. I believe the rankings, rates, visibility, etc., are determined by how much the algorithm has adapted to the inexperience and lower rates that dominate the platform.

In my opinion, there are more low-skill freelancers than high skill experts freelancers, and Upwork's algorithm is simply doing what algorithms do--it learns and adapts.

[#14]

Clark, you mentioned that Upwork opened the flood gates for Freelacners and removed barriers to entry/skill tests.  That's a great example of my point that Upwork purposefully engineered the current "race to the bottom" rather than it being an algorithmic adaptation.  The algorithm has adapted to intentional, bottom-line driven choices to make Upwork a place to find low-quality, cheap talent.  

[#15]

Exactly, which is why I said I think we're saying the same things, just from different angles.

Upwork purposefully removed barriers and opened the flood gates to allow more low-skill, low-rate freelancers to join. And yes--the algorithm has adapted to Upwork's intentional, bottom-line driven choices. But I think--which is probably where we differ--that it caused way too many unintended or unexpected consequences. Upwork can thank their high-powered machine learning algorithm for that.

I think Upwork knew they could monetize the large volume of low-skill freelancers, but had no idea it would negatively impact highly experienced freelancers and quality clients the way it has. I think that's a failure of leadership and shows a lack of vision.

[#16]

I wonder to what extent they are even aware of the problem, from both the Client side (Clients are finding the platform harder to navigate and less trustworthy) and Freelancer side (Invitations and Hires have become much less frequent, while platform has become much more expensive).  Do you think they are aware?  Or do you think they are aware and simply could not care less as too many rubes keep overspending on Connects?

[#17]

Oh--they are aware. From the account execs and general managers, up to the C-suite folks. Upwork spends a lot of time contemplating the risks related to business operations, the marketplace, and growth. They know the risks of having dissatsified freelancers and clients, and anything that could negatively impact growth (e.g., scams, increased fees, pricing models, circumvention, clients that don't pay, the quality of freelancer/client, and even the third-party tools used that may not function correctly). They analyze all of this.

So, while they may care about the quality of the marketplace from a high level, I think the first-time profits (thanks to increased Connects-spend and other things) are welcomed, and the unintended consequences that negatively impact the marketplace are tolerated.

[#18]

Is this based on anything concrete or are you speculating?

[#19]

No speculation at all.  Upwork isn't transparent about all of its business operations, but they have been transparent about the risks and uncertainties that may affect their business.

When I mentioned unintended consequences and uncertainties earlier in this thread, I used the same words Upwork has used for years. They use these words (i.e., unintended, uncertainty, unknown, etc.) because they're being truthful about how this system runs. Upwork knows that when you combine millions upon millions of users; exabytes of data; third-party tools; and an algorithm designed to learn and predict, the results are countless problems and uncertainties.

I think what really scares them are the new, uknown risks; the risks that have not yet reared their ugly heads. Neither Upwork nor their algorithms can predict all risks (no business can) and they have no idea how those risks may affect the business, the marketplace/platform, nor the users (freelancers/clients). This is why I mentioned that Upwork chose to monetize the influx of low-rate, low-skill freelancers, but had no idea the impact it would have on highly skilled freelancers and the overall marketplace/platform. But I still think leadership should have anticipated some of the negative things that have occurred over the past 3 years.

For example, Upwork--for years--has talked about how it wants to evolve its business strategies to make things better. This includes their pricing models, site features, and other services. We see them testing and changing these things all the time, and they openly admit that changes in features and pricing creates uncertainties and makes users (freelancers/clients) upset, causes many to leave or circumvent the system, might reduce the rates or sizes of jobs being posted, and could harm Upwork's reputation. They know these things are happening, but they never reveal how much they're happening.

(This part is my speculation). I think when Upwork chooses to make changes or tweaks to the platform and/or its various models, they can predict what will happen only 60% of the time. The other 40%--they have no idea until it happens. Even the 60% might not happen in the amount of time nor at the speed they think it will.  It's like a machine with a thousand of moving parts, and some of the parts are harder to control than others. If you tweak something over here, it will likely break something over there.

[#20]

Keep the rubes at the carnival to buy them cupie dolls and pay a buck a ride!
Those oil barons will go to a cotillion!

[#21]

---

 Clark S wrote:

I get what you're saying, but I wasn't focusing on the quarter.

---

You're correct, Clark.  I did not circle back to your original statement.  And I get what you're saying too, about the algo and low-rate freelancers, though, I'm not versed with algos as perhaps you are.  I will say this though, I've gone back and compared reports dating back to when connects were free (like a benchmark), and while I'm not going to try and make sense out of bundled numbers that I don't have any breakdown for, I feel pretty strongly that connects/boosts are largely responsible for the current cluster.  I also think that for a corporation that relies so heavily on human behavior, Upwork has poor people skills.  Just my opinion and still holding out for the shareholders to wake up and speak 😉

[#22]

I agree - I think the biggest unintended consequence of the Connects Casino is that it's eroded any perception of trust high-paying Clients had in the platform.  It turns the hiring process into a stressful puzzle, trying to look past the noise to find who is actually the right hire for the job.  It blurs the line between qualified and unqualified and adds friction to what was supposed to be a friction-free process. 

This, plus the increased platform fees on the Client side have made Upwork a losing proposition for many high-paying clients.  So they left and did not return.  

[#23]

I feel pretty strongly that connects/boosts are largely responsible for the current cluster.

Yeah--like many freelancers here, I also believe the raging dumpster fires are due to the way Upwork runs its Connects system and boosting. I think boosting proposals is absolutely one of the worst functions Upwork has ever implemented.

I also think that for a corporation that relies so heavily on human behavior, Upwork has poor people skills.

I agree with this. And, sadly, I think the reason they have such poor people skills is because leadership doesn't care. I'm sure the CEO and other company execs will say their goal is to balance profit-making with running a great company and reducing harm. But the scales aren't balanced, and appear to lean more towards the profit-making side these days.

[#24]

I think what we all want is a version of Upwork that is highly profitable for all parties: the company, its stakeholders, Clients and the hardest working/most committed Freelancers.  I do believe that with the suggestions we are coming up with, we will have a version that can still provide great return for the company and its stakeholders.... while actually providing a valuable service to Clients and Freelancers.  

And really, if Clients and Freelancers needs are actually met, there's no reason this site couldn't be MORE profitable than it is now. Did any company ever make great long term profits by knee-capping the quality of its product?  Short term perhaps, like say, Boeing, but in the long term, it never works.  

[#25]

Ads and direct contract flat fee increased revenue 

93% revenue from that

[#26]

Chances are their client will receive Low quality work and they hire another freelancer to do their job and that will be 2-3 and more instead of that they simply hire 1 quality freelancers