But, putting that aside for the moment, my big issue with Fiverr, as of late, has been the fact that they don't make it unavoidably clear to potential merchants that their payout requirements are nearly impossible for the bulk of merchants to achieve. And, gauging by the countless articles from people extolling the great, clever virtues of Fiverr, it seems as if I'm the only one who's spotted this so far.
In my 2nd Fiverr article, "Using Fiverr Can Make You A Loserr - Solution Enclosed", I presented a possible solution for what I discovered was Fiverr's virtually IMPOSSIBLE payout requirement ($40 = 8 Sales). The reason it's virtually impossible is because everyone has to make 8 sales to get paid. And while they are trying to make those 8 sales, their offer sinks to the bottom of the list as countless other new arrivals throw their hat in the ring as a Fiverr merchant.
Now, if a merchant doesn't make even one sale, that's one thing. However, the moment they make their first sale, THEIR $5 from the service that THEY performed, is retained by Fiverr until the merchant reaches the payout minimum of $40. It doesn't matter that most newcomers to this marketing phenomenon won't even know anything about a Terms of Service, prompting "realists" to say, "Hey, it's caveat emptor, you know, buyer beware." What matters is that along with nearly impossible payout requirements and an ever-growing number of new merchants, Fiverr is going to end up "unjustly enriched" by the WORK OF OTHERS.
In other words, in a very passive, and quiet, way, Fiverr makes it VERY easy, and VERY likely, that many, if not most, merchants, will leave some of THEIR earnings behind. In fact, it's SO easy, and SO likely, that many, if not MOST, Fiverr merchants will end up leaving THEIR rightfully earned money in the hands of Fiverr, that it would seem to fall under the legal heading of "Unjust Enrichment." Here is a section about it from Wikipedia:
QUESTION 1: Do you think whoever is behind Fiverr actually anticipated this? Or, do you think they meant well but only realized it afterwards and aren't yet willing to change it?
At common law, a claim based on unjust enrichment can be submitted to five stages of analysis. These can be summarized in the form of the following questions:
- Was the defendant enriched?
- Was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?
- Was the enrichment unjust?
- Does the defendant have a defense?
- What remedies are available to the claimant?
QUESTION 2: As per the Wikipedia article, *wrong-doing* does not need to be proven in order for there to be a case for being unjustly enriched (by their merchants good faith efforts). Do you think, therefore, that Fiverr would be found guilty of unjust enrichment?
In your opinion, professional or not, what do YOU think the solution to all this should be? Should Fiverr be penalized? And will you link to this article (or tweet it), as a service to help protect others, just like yourself, avoid such a problem?
If so, thank you. So, your thoughts?