What's Wrong with Guru.com?

Most software developers, firms or entrepreneurs will eventually look for sales leads on sites like guru.com where there are jobs-a-plenty -- as well as competitors. This post focuses on my experiences with guru.com as well as other job sites.

First, here is a typical job posting:

I have bought and registered my domain. I already have a webhost. Now i need Someone to program/create my online sporting goods store for me. Im going to need a very appealing site. I will be needing an automatic payment processor that can be set up to take orders from me then automatically purchase the orders from my dropshipper(Wholesaler). There are several other things i will need that we can discuss with your bid. Sorry but my budget for this is below $250 but im not needing an extreme amount of stuff. I need it to go from an Empty site to completely finished and ready to operate.

I'm not sure why people use such strange capitalization as "i need Someone"? At any rate, the punctuation is often incorrect or non-existent and the grammar is often bad as well. Additionally, you typically only get a sentence or two and requirements are rarely included.

In general, most project owners are:

1. Not qualified to assess whether a given contractor can do the job or not.
2. Unable to sum up their project in TV guide style, much less commit to creating a good set of requirements.

This is not uncommon of all clients everywhere, BUT the big difference is when you deal with clients over the phone or face to face, you have a better chance of getting to the root of what needs to be done. The impersonal nature of the site makes it difficult to gather info as well as differentiate yourself from everyone else.

Project owners aren't required to submit a structured request for proposal and their assumptions on cost versus result are usually way off. Furthermore, the typical client usually has no concept of value/benefit marketing, they have no USP for their business or product, and they never heard of a S.W.A.T analysis. This means that you have to produce something that has no measurable goals using only vague requirements.

Sites like guru.com are still the land of dreams and big ideas. You know, that happy place where a good idea gets lots of free programming, graphic design and advertising.

Expectations are often as high as the budgets are low. Nothing about the project seems all that difficult to the client and therefore shouldn't cost too much. Almost everyone on sites like guru.com is shopping based on price alone.

The expectation of minimal cost for maximum result produces a glut of projects on which you will never want to bid; the number of "good" jobs is extremely limited.

To sum up, employers on these sites are quite possibly the worst possible prospects for an independent developer because:

1. It is difficult to differentiate yourself from the competition.
2. Prospects often dream big, but have skewed expectations for features and cost.
3. Most prospects are shopping based on price.
4. "Good" jobs are few and far between.

Is it impossible to win good jobs? No.
If you are a developer, I would say that it is not impossible to overcome these deficits, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the jobs to poor in -- especially if you're a free-lancer. You'll want to develop a strategy that's right for your skills and business and be willing to experiment for a long time with any of these jobs sites.

If you are a prospective employer, I would encourage you to purchase Outsourcing Web Projects: 6 Steps to a Smarter Business from sitepoint.com -- it's an excellent book that will help you be a more attractive prospect, which can get you better bids from better developers.

Message to Elancers

I recently placed a project up for bid on elance.com. As guy involved in sales, marketing, and programming, it's hard for me to give up control of a project. But I needed someone else's time and skill and was willing to trade some money for both.

When the bidding had run its course I selected a winning bidder and since I am involved in the same business as the Elance bidders, and I am not the typical project owner on elance.com, I thought I would send those that didn't win a note on how to do better at sales. I am sharing it here in case it has any useful nuggets on sales and bidding in the world of software and websites.

All,

Thank you for your participation. This project is now closed and I have selected a winning bidder. As you may know, I am a software developer running a family-owned shop. My focus is Web development. I do sales, marketing, and most of the development work. It is important that I do all of these things well if I want to pay my bills and take care of my family.

It is important for you as well, and I wanted to take a moment to offer some unsolicited advice for those of you that did not win the job, so that you might be able to win the next job you bid.

1. I have lots of experience in bidding on sites like elance. The typical employer is unorganized, unprepared, and unaware of the complexity and cost of software development. They are also not qualified to know whether you are a good programmer or not. I am NOT the typical employer. But for most prospects (myself included) it simply boils down to this: Which provider presents the least amount of risk to my business? As both an employer and a contractor, I believe I gave you better and more complete information than you are likely to receive from most employers. Yet

- Many of you submitted a standard "proposal" and had obviously not read any of the information I had provided.

- Some of you said you would follow up after reviewing the information and that was the last contact I saw.

- Some of you bid the maximum bid. Keep in mind that when employers select a budget, it is a range of numbers. Bidding the maximum may put you out of the running immediately.

2. Like most employers, I had a limited amount of time to review your bids. So, I was only interested in those providers that:

- contacted me early,

- had obviously read the information I provided,

- asked meaningful questions,

- offered real advice.

3. Lastly, I view sales as a means of helping people rather than making money. "Sales" for me is matching the right solution for the client. It is the Biblical principal of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." Clients feel vulnerable in many ways. Show them that you are trying to help and not just trying to make money. I know that bidding on a site like elance is hectic and hard to manage. It's easy to submit some boiler plate text, some examples of your work, and then move on to the next bid. My advice is the "three B's":

- Be helpful. Ask questions and offer advice.

- Be available. For client questions, advice, etc., but take care not to leave everything up to the client. Following up is important.

- Become a partner. Show that you are interested in mutual benefit and relationship.

About "Us"

Who's "Us", Precious?

I have been in the technology business for a long time and I have seen a lot of "businesses" come and go. The unique and wonderful thing about the early days of the Web, and to some extent it still applies, is that you could just "hang out a shingle" (that is, a Web site), and be as competitive as the next guy. In theory at least.

The idea that the Web "leveled the playing field" was sort of a valid one, though a guy selling computers from his garage was decidedly not on the same playing field as Dell, HP, or Gateway at the time. I say sort of because the playing field was not actually leveled, it's just that everyone had the perception of business equality on the Web. And what was this perception based upon?

Ignorance.

Someone could create a Web site with the appearance of a full-blown clothing store. Of course, a brick and mortar store is assumed to exist, but this is not necessarily so. To this day, Web site visitors have no way of knowing at a glance if a random site belongs to an establish company or is just one guy in a basement.

This ignorance has engendered a verbal fiction, especially with one-man development shops that I find really annoying. About "Us".

To "compete" and "level the playing field", small development shops (and other business types) try to look big, and in doing so, have created some sort of business schizophrenia.

I Yam what I Yam

I am a firm believer in being who you are. It is disingenuous to represent yourself as something that you're not, whether it's in business or in personal life. I recently updated my Web site and though my wife is a big part of "our" business, and I do work with a number of sub-contractors, I decided to continue with the "I" instead of the "web".

Additionally, there advantages to "being small". I have worked in companies much larger than mine and the ability to determine direction and in some cases make simple decisions is greatly hindered by the size of the company.

Anyone interested in more on the topic should great Chapter 3 of Getting Real, starting with "Less Mass". (Getting Real has been required reading for my staff for a couple of years now.)