|
Full disclosure: I worked at oDesk for 2 years as their staff economist and still consult with the company (I'm now a professor at NYU Stern). A few points on issues raise in this thread: (1) I can assure you---and I really should do some blog posts on this---but client/employers are not nearly as price sensitive as people believe. When you try to model employers choosing who to hire from their pool of applicants, you need to work really hard in specifying the model to get demand curves to slope downward. In other words, "price" often gets the wrong sign, meaning it looks like the higher the bid, the more likely an applicant is to get hired. What's going on is that clients can and will pay more for better, more experienced developers and these developers bid accordingly. However as a freelancer, finding those kinds of employers can be a challenge. To help deal with this search problem, we asked employers up front to state their relative preferences over price and quality. For example, employers could state they were looking for high quality at a high price, or less experienced workers at a lower price. During the experimentation phase, we randomized whether these employer/client preferences were revealed to applying freelancers. We found that we could induce substantial sorting by freelancers to job/employers of the "right" type, raising wages and project sizes at the high end. This feature is now universal and helps freelancers get in front of clients that are a good fit for them. (2) After very extensive experimentation, oDesk did in fact impose a minimum wage. It was set at price point that improved the quality of people getting hired, but was not so high that jobs weren't being filled. Obviously, this level of minimum wage doesn't touch the high-end of the market, but picking minimum wages is a real balancing act and setting it too high can definitely price some work out of the market. It also "pulls up the ladder" and prevents new workers from getting started in the market, which oDesk understandably wants to avoid. (3) There is a problem with too many low quality applications. The problem is similar to what's going on in college admissions---because it's cheap to apply, people apply to almost every school, whether or not it's a good fit. oDesk recently started using the Elance "Connects" system that imposes a meaningful quota on applications, which in turn seems to be improving application quality. It is hard problem though, because if you set the quota to high, you get the bad spam equilibrium, and if you set it too low, you choke off liquidity. (4) There is a problem with inflated reputations---it's a general problem in online marketplaces, particularly those with bilateral reputation systems. However, oDesk has done something quite clever which seems to be working well, which is collecting private feedback from both workers and clients after a contract and then eventually disclosing non-identifiable aggregates of those ratings to future employers/workers. These ratings are far more truthful on a host of measures, are harder to subvert by begging for good feedback and so far, aren't getting inflated. |