- Article
- Comments (26)
Hi Judy, thanks for your comment. It's very interesting when you talk about the pyramid of outsourcing that happens. When I began, I applied for some work through freelancers.net only to find out it was some guy who could "get me 2/3 projects a week". This sounded great until I realised he was not looking at value, only cost. His budget hovered around £80 for a full website - HTML brochure-ware no more than 12 pages - but I would never expect somebody to work for such a low fee. I can only wonder how much he was selling these sites on for.
I also wonder, had it not been for freelance portals, he may not be able to harvest his workers in such a manner. He would probably have to go back to selling fake Rolex watches on street corners.
I honestly didn't read through the response you had from PPH, but in terms of your cutting edge piece of journalism I find it extremely one sided. PPH (and others) provide a service, and that service is in allowing people to match their skills with skill requirements. That is what they do. And you can chose to use that service or not. To claim that it's just people "looking for the cheapest service they can find" is frankly naive, as you know what, that's generally what everyone in the world is doing all the time.
God I could go on for hours - what I would say is this - IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DO IT BETTER! Do it better and put in place what you want PPH to put in place, because if people want it as much as you do then you'll get real interest in a service that can match up on a real level peoples requirements and skill sets. These services already exist in the "real" world of agency builds with the likes of the RAR (recommended agency register) - and it's fair to say that a RCR (recommended contractor register) would probably be just as big a hit.
Just quit moaning about what is bad, stop being a problem person - be the solution, and make yourself a packet in the process.
Boom.
Thanks for your reply Matt, but the article was about my views (which are shared with many others) on the premise of job portal websites and how I believe they could deliver a much better service to both parties. It's very easy to sit back and say "this is what they are, deal with it. if you don't like it, do better", which is essentially what you're saying, but if we all took that stance then progress would not happen.
The platform is already there. In fact I can pluralise that, because PPH aren't the only ones out there - but the one thing they all have in common is that it's a free-for-all. Why not stand out by putting an emphasis on all-round quality, thus creating a community where providers do a fantastic job and clients understand their value?
"this is what they are, deal with it. if you don't like it, do better", which is essentially what you're saying, but if we all took that stance then progress would not happen.
The 'if you don't like it, do better' part is the very esscence of progress dude :) History is filled with people seeing something they don't like (say, candles) and doing it better (lightbulbs).
completely agree.
I'm actually saying exactly the opposite, I'm saying don't expect other people to evolve services for you - sit up, take action and do it yourself. I just don't think you need an "open letter" approach to destroying other services, which obviously provide a service which people are already using. Those people might not be you, but then much like the £12,000 Vertu mobile phone complete with concierge service isn't for everyone, not everything on this planet is "compatible" with the needs and requirements of everyone on this planet. But there are some people who can work for low cost, and just because you can't doesn't mean that you should be dismissing the services provided to those that can.
To answer your final point ... "The platform is already there. In fact I can pluralise that, because PPH aren't the only ones out there - but the one thing they all have in common is that it's a free-for-all. Why not stand out by putting an emphasis on all-round quality, thus creating a community where providers do a fantastic job and clients understand their value?" - You're right, but they'd probably get less business if they did, and while you'd like it more their advertising revenue would probably fall. That's not great incentive.
Plus, it seems in the triangle of contractor, PPH (etc), and contractee - the only person who isn't happy, is you.
Put your money where your mouth is Matt.
Your key point in there - "they'd get less business if they did".
By creating a party where everyone is invited they can boast larger numbers which turns into money through advertising, sponsorship, whatever.
And once again I will take this back to quality. I have been as diplomatic as possible until now, but I'm going to state that low cost work will result in low value work.
So, I have a low budget and I employ an Indian SEO service only to find my money has been completely wasted (and I HAVE trialled numerous providers).
Or, I employ somebody who's quoted me £100 for an ecommerce store. 6 months later I haven't made a penny and my bounce rate is 80%.
What happens? Angry client. This damages industries. And again we're back to quality!
The client often does not know the difference between a quality provider and a poor one. Budget is often a governing factor.
In response to me "doing better" - I have no intention of. This article was partly observational and partly a suggestion of how I think existing sites could improve their service.
In my personal and honest opinion, I would question the value of these sites on a fundamental level. You may disagree.
"low cost work will result in low value work." This is a fact. But unless you're claiming that every single piece of work on these sites is low value then it will always be the person giving the contract out that is going to suffer, while those that pay decent fees will get better work, not only generally from an implementation point of view but also from added value.
However, I also find myself disagreeing with my last comment - there are people out there that for whatever reason may be BRILLIANT and equally able to offer low cost services.
As I've already said before, there are horses for courses, and not everything is FOR everyone. I just don't think you need to be ripping the heart out of these "middle men" for essentially providing a service which benefits both sides of the contractor to work equation. They do it there way and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
That is my final word. For now.
"There way"? I meant "Their way" obviously... My god, you have me so incensed I've started being a retard.
started? :P
/discussion
i also started looking at these job portals (when i started freelancing) but over time deserted them simply because all the offers on the project were way too low and or the description so vague it would spawn an email conversation not worth the time/reward. as you put it, the communication alone would have destroyed the budget. i find "real-world" networking to be way more productive.
Recently I have been using the job portals less and less because of issues just like this. People wanting logos for $5 for example... I just can't bring myself to waste my time for that little. So in relation to the poll question;
"Should job portals put a higher emphasis on quality?" Yes they should. I understand that some people have small budgets for things, but you are only going to get out what you put in. I think there needs to be some set minimums for certain projects. Min of £50 for a logo etc. Designers and developers have bills to pay like you say, and we just can't compete with some of the designers / developers in certain countries.
Really enjoyed reading this article and will probably start reading stuff on here more often after this.
Another problem with these sites is that experienced professionals entering them for the first time may even struggle to get work if 88% of it goes to those with the highest feedback.
Those with high feedback aren't necesarily great developers either, feedback score doesn't tell potential clients anything about the quality of your code or your previous work experience outside of PPH.
Overall though I agree with both sides in many ways, but i do think some kind of JavaScript should be employed on the budget field. Perhaps a tool tip should appear when low budgets are entered with some advice on typical costs etc
that's a very good point actually. i know somebody who outsourced the build of his e-commerce store to an indian provider and it came back completely table based with markup that would make you shudder (and this was only 2 months ago).
but he was happy. i assume this went through a portal website and as such he no doubt gave a great feedback score to the provider. next potential comes along and sees this provider has a good score, and the cycle continues...
I decided to act as a buyer one time on one of these sites (scriptlance.com I believe) for a logo. I offered to pay $10. I decided on a bidder, and waited..and waited for my logo. When the guy finally got my logo to me, I almost laughed when I saw it. It was pitiful to be nice.
You get what you pay for.
At the same time, I honestly think that clients are so misinformed about web design projects in general. We have to remember that the popular internet is only 15 years old at best, and many clients that bid at these low prices "missed" the rise of their internet for their business. What I mean is that websites were not crucial to their original business model, and I think they have a tough time understanding how valuable the internet actually is because they are a bit out of the loop. This has been my experience (and a frequent one at that).
I always tell my clients to do their homework. Go and find sites that they like..try to find out who designed the site and find out their rates. A lot of the time they just say "Oh, I didn't know it cost that much."
IMO, a lot of it has to do with ignorance, but I think this will begin to disappear with the new generation of young businessmen. In general, I think they see the value of a high quality website and realize that it is a huge reflection on their business.
This has been my experience.
"I always tell my clients to do their homework. Go and find sites that they like..try to find out who designed the site and find out their rates. A lot of the time they just say "Oh, I didn't know it cost that much.""
That's actually a really good idea. I wish I'd thought of doing that when I was freelancing.
Bravo Matt for expressing the views of I'm sure a lot of professionals out there, including myself!
Indeed, job markets like PPH and others could use a lot of improvement. Sadly, implementing filters and procedures for eliminating poor quality services and offers that unfortunately have overwhelmed the market today will be a real challenge, if not prove impossible in my opinion. Someone will always be willing to invest and then gain from these types of flawed services.
The root of the problem are people willing to work for 5$ a logo (as Graham said). If nobody would bid on such low priced offers, then these would dissappear. I'm from Eastern Europe and I have watched for years as the local market developed, both price and quality wise. Unfortunately, as prices grew, along with providing better and better quality (a perfectly normal and healty progress), more and more projects went to cheaper so-called professional providers from emerging areas, mostly India.
Truth be told, I've stopped using such job markets as elance since long ago, but I'm afraid this type of market involution will soon expand into the offline world.
The problem of the uninformed client will persist whether services such as PPH exist or not. It already exists in the "offline world" -- when potential clients decide against a professionally created website in favor of the one their neighbor or nephew that "is really creative" makes for them. This website can be visually appealing (often it isn't). 99% of the time the website is not sustainable for the business, because "make me a website" is only a part of a cohesive web strategy. This mindset completely ignores such crucial steps as usability research, user experience design, integration with other online promotion (search engine, social media, etc.), and content management.These steps make the website part of a strategy that is sustainable for the business (i.e. grows and adapts with the changes in their business plans and models).
PPH like sites perpetuate the myth that a "pretty website" is all you need to suceed in the online world. That might have been true in the infancy of the internet, when to be online was a kudo in itself, but the competition is too great for that to the be case for any business. Online reputation, understanding your competiton, and most of all, understanding your user is critical for any kind of online success these days. There is no magic bullet, but folks like PPH keep selling like there is. The low priced PPH vendor too often is the modern day equivalent of the snake oil salesman -- the website that will cure all ills, for only $50.
I started freelancing back in 2000. In 2002 I used rent-a-coder to build a portfolio. Here's the problem. When you're a bottom feeder, it's a long swim to the top before you ever see the sunlight.Something that new freelancers and those from less affluent countries need to understand (which I didn't at the time) is that there is no reason to undersell your services. If nobody did it, consumers would have no choice but to pay a decent rate for work. Unfortunately, that is probably never going to happen. Still, it puzzles me as to why those - although able to support their business on less money than I can - would knowingly choose to take less when they know that I get more for the same work.
I agree that these portals are doing it wrong. My main gripe is that although a buyer may receive dozens of bids on a single project, they have no commitment to accept even one of them. Proposals, even short ones, eat up time. A buyer should have to make some kind of commitment in order to receive proposals whether accepted or declined—even if it's only to commit to finding a provider at the portal of his/her choice. The portals certainly want providers to commit to working only through one portal.
Finally, I don't like the monkeys these portals put on a provider's back. Why is it that they won't allow us to explain to the buyers that their time frame is way too short, their maximum bid amount is way too low, and their specifications are way too sparse?They certainly let their buyers insult us with inclusions such as "All work will be checked against copyscape. If it doesn't pass you won't be paid."
I have never had a private client threaten me in that manner. If one did, I would simply choose to not work with him or her.
I use a detailed contract in my off-portal business that precisely details performance standards for both my clients and for me. I would certainly like to see portals adopt some of them!
Another good point finely put - as mentioned in the article PPH *used* to charge clients a fee for posting a project and I believe it to be a mistake removing that, as it was essentially a filter (not a very good one but better than nothing).
I also quite like that you mention the immediate demands and conditions listed by some clients. Language such as "else you wont get paid" is surely enough to turn off ANY serious freelancer?
@Donna: the Internet has been a very competitive environment for many years now. Also, it's becoming more accessible each day, with tutorials and how-to's all over the place. I'm inclined to think that most of the time "uninformed" is just an excuse for a low budget.
I completely agree, there is no reason to undersell your services (although I think the majority are slightly doing that right now, with the current economy). But I also think that such business philosophy is only valid for those who deliver professional, quality results.
I often see "recently launched websites" that are table-based and inline-styled, built with obviously no planning whatsoever and should I mention usability testing? But then again, that's what you should probably get for $50 a website and/or aggresive specs. Aaaaaand there we have it: the vicious circle.
Hi Guys,
I saw this post on twiiter from Smashing Magazine and found it a fascinating read. I've been freelancing now for little over a year, I've been a web developer for many years and decided to take the plunge un finding my own clients and not being a monkey for the organ grinder - so to speak!
I signed up to freelancer.co.uk/net and found the exact same issues that everyone else here has been experiencing, so, for around 6 months now I've been developing my own 'portal' in an attempt to give something back to freelancers who are being undervalued within their profession as well as clients who receive less than average work.
Some of the ideas I've come up with (which have been implemented) include:-
- Hidden bid cost/time frames - to stop freelancers from undercutting others which are often unrealistic and unermime our expertise.
- No deadlines in order to accept/reject bids, clients want the right freelancer and the right skills, nobody should be rushed for that privilege.
- When signing up to the site, freelancers have the opportunity to enter their own 'work terms', these show on every proposal and must be accepted by the client before awarding a project.
- The site doesn't allow costs per hour/fixed costs, instead, a budgeting system which only allows clients to choose between a range. This will often mean that clients who are expecting the lowest bid to win to be placed lower within the project listing.
- Restrictions based on location, min cost per hour and experience (years).
I really want your ideas, the heart of the freelancing community to give simple yet bold suggestions for what you would like to see added to my idea and get the best for both parties. I firmly believe that the best work comes from freelancers who feel appreciated as well as clients knowing they'll get the best possible work which hasn't been rushed or put on the bottom of the pile.
We all need a good medium and I look forward to hearing your suggestions. Please bullet point so others can throw their hat into the frame.
As part of the ideas mission statment, it really is vital to get feedback.
Cheers,
Tim
I think point 1 is a great idea, I don't see why other bidders should see the bid anyway, point 5 is good as well... keep it British :)
Thanks for the reply Alex. You'll often see that overseas development teams look to generally undercut other bids using their prices, just because they can afford too, point 1 should stop this from ocurring.
Although there's nothing to stop clients from reviewing all proposals and accepting the lowest bid... I have built a system which allows the client to review all bids side by side including location, cost, time scales, feedback, there's absolutely no emphasis on cost (or location), is there something that should be emphasised at this point?
Please note that Tim's discussion can now be found here: dfmag.me/s/10x95
You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to login
User Poll
What kind of Twitterer are you?
In this weeks article, we ask, how do you use twitter?
Thursday, 02 Sep 2010
10:13
I personally think PPH's days are numbered. There is obviously demand for a quality freelance marketplace but instead they have chosen to compete directly with the likes of GAF, elance and odesk. Given the competition from low-rent copy mills and the like, the market for cheap outsourcing is oversupplied and PPH seems the weakest of the main players.
One signifcant weakness is that PPH allows 'clients' to post jobs like 'design my website' without giving the slightest indication of the size of the project. The comments section could be a strength but if you post a comment gently pointing out that writing TV commercials normally attracts a higher rate than filpping burgers, PPH will allow the client to delete it.
You may wonder why anyone would be daft enough to bid a fixed fee for an unspecified amount of work. The answer is that PPH and the like are at the top of an unpleasant pyramid of exploitation. There is now a cohort of 'freelancers' whose real occupation is to harvest jobs at low rates and outsource them for even less. And so on down the line until the fee is almost nothing. This is another key weakness of PPH. Since clients pay a deposit of 50% at least, the fake freelancers simply outsource for much less than that and their profit is guaranteed. If the final provider is stuck with a huge job for a tiny fee, that's their problem.
Sooner or later of course, 'clients' will realise why they are not getting the quality of work they expected, and become as disenchanted with PPH as many suppliers already are.