The Fiverr IPO and the Motley Fool

I’ve skipped the first 50 seconds, as it’s rather dull introductory lulz about how hot it is in their respective locations (80something made-up American weather numbers), but the rest is quite interesting:

If you don’t want to listen to these two slam Fiverr, then there’s a transcript on the website!

My favorite bit (edited):

Lewis: I’ve been a little curious why they’re going public, frankly. You look back at their funding rounds as a private company, they’ve raised a little over $100 million, but their last raise was in 2015…But it kind of seems like this [Fiverr IPO] is a liquidity event to me, Dan.

Kline: [laughs] It’s funny, I hadn’t put those dots together…Yeah, there’s a lot of people here probably who have their net worth tied up in this company. It’s a good thing to let them get some of that money out…But I don’t like that they’re not saying, “We’re going to invest heavily in the platform,” or, “We’re going to invest in building a better marketing platform so we can cut that cost in half, which would make us profitable.” That is a little bit of a red flag.

Quite a few interesting other details in there too, worth a listen (or a read). And Fiverr’s definitely not winning as many people as it would like for its Pro sellers. I’ve already pointed out to them billions of times they need monthly bloody retainers and all kinds of other useful things like that!


Couldn’t you just join A Clear Voice for that? Or Contently?

In either case, I think what kills Pro is the $100 price tag. It’s fine for some things, but not things like a blooming blog post, which you need 10+ of every couple of weeks to see any kind of real marketing results.

Then there is the fact that you Pros enjoy consistent pride of place in the search, while us norms move around and disappear faster than booze and Pringles when you let a kleptomaniac into Sainsbury’s. From a buyer perspective, that makes Fiverr suck eggs as far as finding decent non-pro sellers is concerned. My experiment with a ‘Rising Star’ crypto article seller on the first page proved that.

As well as all that, you still have the VOP backlash. Fiverr still can’t post a Tweet without accusations of them baning VOP and other sellers being fired back.


Then you have the new outsourcing tend which is a time bomb waiting to happen.

IDK. I think as the video points out, $1 billion is a big ask. Especially if (and I’m assuming here) your main influx of new freelancers are mek sellers. (Like seems to be indicated by everyday activity on the forum.)

Also, Fiverr is :poop: at marketing. To this day I’ve never seen an ad unless I’m linked to it. They seem to pour all their annual budget into big flash campaigns people just don’t understand.

On top of that, the first thing you do when you see an ad for a company which piques your interest? You look at reviews! You look at social media! You do a bit research. In the case of Fiverr, that brings you to some of the most damning critiques of any company I’ve ever seen online.


I agree with some of what was said. It is indeed rather frustrating to use 5r these days. They are so focused on making money they are eliminating the basics of what made this company appealing to people like me. I used to search, test and experiment with different sellers to see who is the best of the best. I can no longer afford to do that.

Every darn thing has a transaction fee. Geesh, give it a rest.

This is a site that boast millions of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: reviews on every seller. Yet Fiverr platform reviews on sites like Trustpilot, Sitejabber, etc. are just awful. Something just doesn’t jive.

Fiverr is the only freelancing site I use where the seller/vendor is not vetted by the site. I am skeptical about using sites like People per Hour, Freelancer, etc. because I know they also do not vet their sellers.

I had no idea that Fiverr was using up to 60% of their revenue in advertising to get new clients. The business model that I am used to says it is cheaper to keep a client then fish for a new one. How about them cleaning up their reputation and working to keep good clients instead of trying for new ones? :roll_eyes:

The lasted innovative idea of reviewing the buyer is nothing but a huge turn off and quite disappointing. I bet this darn thing is more of a pain than anything for the sellers that used to beg for it. I guess it’s not what they were expecting.


NOOOOO!!! Be gone with you putting that idea into Fiverrs head! Vetting doesn’t work. At least, not unless you are talking about sellers offering high-value services.

When freelancing sites do vet sellers, they vet them against generic criteria. i.e. If you create videos, sites only vet you against your proficiency using Adobe After Effects. Sites like Guru and Upwork also make sellers pay for tests and certificates, when there might not e a test which reflects a sellers actual skill or competency.

The only decent platform I’ve come across which which vets sellers the right way is Writing Bunny. They make sellers submit test articles for review before they can start selling. Then they have a team of editors check work before if goes to the end client. At a minimum, though, that results in prices starting at $35 per article. (Of course, I’m not complaining as a freelancer on that front).

The worst part is that even after sitting tests on platforms like Guru and UpWork, new sellers have to go through the misery of low ball clients who want you to prove yourself because you are new. In almost every case, most of those clients are resellers selling work on for a much higher markup.


Nickel and diming - not good when any company starts doing that. I still don’t understand why buyers put up with paying a ‘transaction fee’.

The customer acquisition costs are high. Is it this high for all businesses?

If Fiverr themselves find it difficult and expensive to find new buyers, I’m not surprised that the Wordrpress developer or VA who’s wondering how to get more orders is told to find their target market and bring them to the platform is more than a little overwhelmed by that suggestion. If Fiverr has a large marketing budget, experienced marketers etc. it seems a bit unrealistic (and unfair) to expect somebody without those assets to do it themselves, especially if they’re offering lowish priced gigs. It’s simply not going to be worth their time,if they’re doing it themselves, or money, if they’re paying for advertising. There will be exceptions who can do it of course! :slightly_smiling_face:

The commission plan for affiliates gives an interesting insight into how much Fiverr are willing to pay to bring one new client onto the platform. I’m not going to give out any figures - anybody who wants to find out can sign up as an affiliate and see for themselves. :wink:

I thought you were joking at first. Now, I just saw an article that Fiverr really goes public. :joy:

Their stock would perform worse than Snapchat.


Israeli online freelancer platform Fiverr will begin trading today on Wall Street at a company value of $650 million. The company announced that its Initial Public Offering (IPO) is being held at $21 per share on the NYSE and the share will trade under the FVRR ticker, slightly higher than the $18-20 per share it spoke of last week (at a value of $560-620 million), probably after encouraging indications about investor sentiment.

I’ve only seen negative sentiments about plummeting stock!

1 Like

Why did Fiverr’s stock skyrocket like that?

Here is a succinct summary of what is likely to happen:



TechCrunch doesn’t like fake Fiverr sellers. The story is pretty much what you might expect!

“Obviously the integrity of our marketplace is something we take very seriously as authenticity is a cornerstone of the Fiverr community,” a rep for the company told me. “Any Fiverr profile page and gig created with the intent to mislead is against our Terms of Service. Therefore in order to ensure a safe and reliable customer experience, we are implementing ID-verification protocols across the marketplace which is successfully routing [sic] out instances like this.”

Could be this be the first of many horror stories to come? Would be quite fun to see all the things we’ve moaned about for years suddenly thrown into a rather more critical limelight - after all, bad news actually hurts rich people’s pockets, now…

…and that just won’t do.


This article (speaking as a writer) is a joy to read. Needless to say, everything went badly. Guess who went to BR-Town?


And I’ll bet that they hired (thanks to Fiverr’s insane gig placement algorithm) rising talent and newby writers from the first page of the Fiverr search…

It would likely be a different story if they had hired an established seller with a few hundred reviews. Plagiarism like that mentioned is the most rookie mistake any writer can make. In this case, I’m reluctant to believe that these were established sellers with years of happy customers under their belt.

Worse than that I’m afraid - they did a buyer’s request. So they didn’t really ‘use’ Fiverr the way it was intended (the $10 was directly contacted and the worst one):

Found the request. I have a bit of a workload this week, but I’m a little tempted to poke them.

Hm. Is this an opportunity to get some free news coverage as a pro? :thinking:

I found her account, too. It’s pretty obvous. No reviews though :frowning: I was hoping for some spice there.