Suggestion re: lowball offers
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:20 pm
CC is founded upon the principle of providing only the highest quality of written articles. By allowing writers to accept offers, however, customers often offer less than reasonable prices. Some authors accept these prices, which sets a precedent in the buyer's mind.
This process harms other writers, the editors, and CC's public image. Constant Content must pay an hourly wage or a weekly salary to the editors. This pay comes from the percentage of article sales that CC earns from each sale. If Author A sells a full use license on 500 word article for $7, and Author B sells a 500 article for $50, and both articles have similar quality, then Author B's contribution is greater. Author B has generated more profit for CC, for himself, and a greater pool of funds from which to pay editors, advertising, and overhead.
However, the customer who purchased Author A's article now believes it's reasonable to pay $7 every time a 500 article is needed. This makes it harder for Author B to sell his work, creating a downward pressure on prices as Author B drops his prices when his articles don't sell quickly enough. The customer is likely to feel annoyed when their offers are refused by writers who won't work for sub-minimum wages. Finally, CC is not going to be perceived as superior if their prices are like every other content site available. Quality *is* CC's unique selling proposition.
It would be in everyone's best interests for CC to require minimums for each type of license offered. When a customer attempts to make an offer that is below the minimum, they should see a short message stating "Minimum offer for this license type is $X.xx. This is required because each article is reviewed and edited to ensure the highest quality product for you."
Any chance of doing this? Should I send this suggestion by e-mail?
This process harms other writers, the editors, and CC's public image. Constant Content must pay an hourly wage or a weekly salary to the editors. This pay comes from the percentage of article sales that CC earns from each sale. If Author A sells a full use license on 500 word article for $7, and Author B sells a 500 article for $50, and both articles have similar quality, then Author B's contribution is greater. Author B has generated more profit for CC, for himself, and a greater pool of funds from which to pay editors, advertising, and overhead.
However, the customer who purchased Author A's article now believes it's reasonable to pay $7 every time a 500 article is needed. This makes it harder for Author B to sell his work, creating a downward pressure on prices as Author B drops his prices when his articles don't sell quickly enough. The customer is likely to feel annoyed when their offers are refused by writers who won't work for sub-minimum wages. Finally, CC is not going to be perceived as superior if their prices are like every other content site available. Quality *is* CC's unique selling proposition.
It would be in everyone's best interests for CC to require minimums for each type of license offered. When a customer attempts to make an offer that is below the minimum, they should see a short message stating "Minimum offer for this license type is $X.xx. This is required because each article is reviewed and edited to ensure the highest quality product for you."
Any chance of doing this? Should I send this suggestion by e-mail?