Suggestion re: lowball offers

[jellygator]

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?

[Lysis]

Actually, they did implement a limit of $7. There used to be no limit.

[undercoverwaitress]

I wonder if it makes sense to raise the limit to, for example, $10. That may just cause buyers to wait until they can get a 500 word article for $10 sort of like it sounds they are doing now for $7 (if I understand the OP correctly.) Of course, writers are not required to accept offers. Do people think it hurts sales to not at least be open to receiving offers?

[Lysis]

I only open up the option for offers with usage content. Out of maybe 20-30 offers, I received one for $15. The rest have been very low, and to reduce the number of offers and emails I received, I removed the option for articles that are original and up for fullrights.

Once you get used to the system, you'll get a feel for what's right for you.

[jellygator]

Given the quality, I'd hate to see anything less than around 5 cents per word, so a $10 minimum for 250-499 words, $12 for 500-699, and $15 for over 700 for usage rights seems reasonable, and double that for unique or full.

[Lysis]

But you don't have to accept it and CC gives you the option to remove the emails/notices altogether. One thing I like about CC is that the ball is always in my court and no one is telling me what to write or how much I'm paid. The minimums really don't mean much to me, because I know the $1 article farmers will never get through the system.

If someone wants to sell themselves for pennies, that's on them. Now that Panda has rolled out, people can't throw up cheap crap and expect to rank for very long.

[jellygator]

Just looked up what Panda is. (I'm new to this stuff.)

I can see where that may help a little bit, but still don't think it would have much impact overall for us here.

[Constant]

The minimum offer price actually changed a while back. It's now the greater of $7, or 1/3 of the article's listed price.

[jellygator]

Ah, that explains why I saw a sales price of $5 yesterday! I'm guessing there must still be a bug in the system.

Thank you for the reply!

[TamathaCampbell]

Several have sold below the current minimum recently. I think that articles that were already in the system with listed prices below the new minimums were grandfathered in.

[Constant]

Several have sold below the current minimum recently. I think that articles that were already in the system with listed prices below the new minimums were grandfathered in.

That's correct. There are many articles that were listed well before we introduced the minimum article price, and those articles have been grandfathered in.

[jellygator]

Aha! Got it.