WSOs Back To $20!

This is what I don't understand either.

Everyone is acting like there is such a huge difference between $40 and $20

As if people who are going to scam and/or make low quality products are gonna be like, "$20 sweet, let's do this."

Or

"$40 gosh that's too darn expensive for me. I guess I better go somewhere else."

lol

Omnibus reply... While I agree it's worth the investment and more, there's a point here that seems to have gone unmentioned in this whole discussion. I haven't seen anyone bring it up, anyway.

For 17 years, Allen owned the place and could make decisions based on whatever he wanted. As I understand it, Freelancer is part of a publicly traded company. As such, it has a legal obligation to build profits for its shareholders.

While it's possible the individuals involved share Allen's general philosophy about the forum, the fiduciary responsibilities of a publicly traded company place certain constraints on them that will affect decisions.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is very different from what we've become used to. It is also something that must be considered when evaluating changes.

That's the new reality. Keep in mind that every change has good and bad elements.

For example, they could easily go back to the original spirit of the WSO section, and require that you must show that you've actually sold the product outside the forum before you could offer it in that area. That would eliminate virtually all the "made for WSO" stuff. Most of the junk products fit into that category, so it would eliminate a lot of that.

It would also drive out a lot of people who create solid products (software, graphics, themes, etc) and sell them here first, to raise money for further business development.

Is that a good trade-off? Should they take away that opportunity in order to "protect" some people from making what are quite often obviously dumb purchases?

They could always post them in the classifieds section, but would they be able to get affiliates for offers there?

These are the kinds of things that have to be considered when making policy. How does it affect the customers? And how does it affect the bottom line, which will (and properly should) be given more weight now that a publicly traded company is involved. That would be great if, as I've mentioned many times before, there was a way for the forum software to verify that the person doing the rating had actually bought the product.

No way to do that at present. You are far too smart to say things like that, Tom. You know better.

If there were any resistance to buyer feedback, would we encourage people to post their reviews? Would the mods flatly refuse to delete negative reviews that stick to the rules? Would we let sellers leave because they don't like/can't live up to the standards of selling in a responsive environment?

"Resistance is fiction." It does. Precisely.

The same arguments come up no matter what changes you suggest regarding ad pricing. Have ever since Allen started charging for WSO listings. Not my decision, obviously, but I would strongly recommend against that, unless someone were tasked with the specific function of rejecting articles that were primarily ads.

That was the most badly abused section of this forum. Most of what I saw posted in there was purely promotional. Certainly not anything that would encourage me to read more by the same author.

Side note to .X. : If I could thank a post thrice, I'd have done so for yours at #74.

General comments follow (meaning: not directed at the people whose posts I responded to above)...

I'm going to throw a little cold water at some of you: If your posts give the impression that you're here to take and not give, you are likely among the last people whose opinions will be considered when making financial decisions.

People who spend money will be priorities. People who contribute to the discussions in useful ways increase the value of the forum, so they're going to be priorities. People who do anything to make the place better are going to be viewed in a positive light, and listened to.

If the only thing you bring to the table is a pocketful of complaints and negativity, you will not be seen as anything but a liability to be removed.

Constructive criticism is valuable. Whiny grousing for the sake of being heard is not. In a corporate-driven environment, you may also find that it's not allowed.

That would not break my heart.


Paul

Like Allen, Freelancer.com is a business. Actually, freelancer is a public company with shareholders. They're in this for profit. They're responsible for trying to make money any legitimate way they can. They're honoring present War Room lifetime memberships but charging $20 per year for new ones. That will generate a lot of revenue.

Everyone thinking the quality of WSOs will go down with a cheaper price needs to realize the quality went down significantly around the time the price went to $40. The quality of the offers has nothing to do with the ad fee.

As mentioned, quality suffered when affiliates got a strong foothold. People were publishing WSOs on how to make a killing promoting WSOs using affiliate platforms. It was a feeding frenzy.

I highly doubt you're going to see Freelancer limiting the number of WSOs that can launch per day. $20 x 24 (one per hour) = $480 per day. Think of that for a minute. Ain't gonna happen.

I never thought of it in that exact way, but it's a good point. The only fly in the ointment is that some people do fall for those claims.

I think a lot of people forget that the WSO is a good place to learn how to sell. I was making some sales before coming to the forum but really started learning more about the sales process and sales funnels from this forum.

Part of that was putting offers in the wso section.

Some of those previous sales offers spurred a whole line of products for me. All because I tested it there first.

Many of the people that purchased those offers are still customers and friends of mine.

I think that was back before Allen was using vbulletin.

There is much more to this forum then making direct sales.

Tom, If you see that, and they haven't posted disclaimers about being affiliates or receiving review copies, report it. It would be a great thing, assuming it were technically possible. A lot would have to change for that to become the case.

Sandie, Believe it, that would end up getting reported, and people would lose accounts wholesale.

That also steps over the line from lack of disclaimers to outright fraud. Not worth it, for most people.


Paul

Warrior Fourn has a long history of providing quality information. I agree with Xponent. When I look back at the WSO's I've purchased, the cost has little to do with the quality. I've purchased some pretty poor WSO's and some really good ones.

I think that's one of the reasons why Allen raised the price to $40, to keep out the spammy, hit and run WSO's...

makes sense from a navigational point of view, either buying or selling.

I agree that it isn't difficult to cover a $20 fee yearly, but the point is that the War Room membership was great value and has now been changed to be a lot more expensive. If your going to use that arguement you could say that a $47 or $57 yearly fee can be covered easily also. Where do you draw the line.

Along these lines (just a thought), maybe divide the WSO section up by category. Have MMO WSO's, Content WSO's, and another type separate from each other. It'd not only make it easier to find the type of WSO you're looking for but it would also leave your WSO on the front category page a little longer.

Even with people leaving bad reviews, there are even more who will still buy.... People really need to use due diligence, it is the only "quality control" that works.

But the current system doesn't address a full first two pages of a seller's cronies shilling for as product. Implementing a system where only verified buyers could leave feedback wouldn't be a bad thing. It would ensure that the people leaving feedback actually bought the product.

Like I said. Perfect? No. Helpful nonetheless.

All of which true.

However, lets look at a real world indicator.

Generally speaking if a bunch of guys with 20 posts each, and 2 thanks come together to review a product, the algo shouldn't give it a passing notice.

If a number of long term members with solid feedback do so, it would carry more weight.

It's not perfect.

Little is but it's probably better than nothing.

True. And with books a buyer can drop a nasty review and then get a refund. The WSO quality control issue comes up from time to time and we've always been told it's not going to happen. Now, under new management we can't be sure. But I'd bet the new guys have monitored this place and have worked closely with Allen. The system isn't perfect but it works. IMO changing it would just invite trouble.

Of course it will be gamed. Everything is. However, ratings for EVERYONE will be gamed to a degree.

If you line up 10 sellers and 8 of them have 98% (heck, even 80%) customer sat ratings and the other two have 50%, the problem isn't "gaming". If you believe that gaming is the problem, you are being intentionally obtuse.

I signed up for the WSO for $20, but i still can't access to the private threads? any ideas?

I agree. That's why I said "ultimately", that's what should happen.

For it to work, WF would probably have to handle payments. It's definitely not something that's going to happen next week. It's just something that I'd like to see happen.

but then how will I earn 7 billion dollars in 45 seconds???

I like to see the hyped up claims. The easiest way to identify pure malarkey is when you see a promise of $1,000,000 annual income for less than $20.

Why not just go buy a pirate treasure map?