Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steve Conan Trustrum" data-source="post: 7735000" data-attributes="member: 1620">And you understand those costs come out of somewhere, yes?As in you either need to ramp up sales to absorb the expenses in your margin, you need to cut back on what you're paying, or you need to put less into the business.You factually cannot increase layout without that money coming from somewhere. Which is my point.But again we're not talking binaries here.One of your projects worked out to $0.21/word after royalties, yes?Well, if it works out to $0.19/word, or $0.15/word, or $0.05/word due to an increase in expenses, it's still "paying for itself." "Paying for itself" is any point where people are actually putting money in their pockets beyond expenses.And where will the money be coming from? Because if you think you'll deal with more expenses while maintaining current rates etc., that money has to come from somewhere. If you think the answer is as simple as "sales," then what happens when you reach the point I mentioned upthread?: business growth plateaus between sustainability and further expansion. This is a point where your business either needs external infusions of cash or you need to cut expenses to keep growing because you can't reach further market growth at your current output levels, and you can't increase output levels without paying more using money that comes from ... somewhere.Which is a model you're able to accomodate. But understand, as I've previously pointed out, you're describing how your payment structure influences your output in ways that are detrimental to larger companies. What you describe is not something businesses with salaried positions, set monthly expenses (e.g., warehousing) can easily afford to tango with.Which works great for you.Honestly, do you consider it an industry-wide model for sustainability, especially for companies with set expenses? Because you've been able to keep at it now because this same model keeps your business low risk. What happens when your operations scale up to the point where you have more risk but this part of it means less certainty?Which is great. No one is disputing that it works for you or that it benefits the freelancers working with you.The point at hand is that not everyone who doesn't pay what you do does so because they are "unethical" or "hoarding" their money rather than paying freelancers more. The point is also that not all businesses can operate under your model.Which is a great mentality to have, but let's be honest: it's the sort of approach to business you can afford before you stretch your wings into the world of larger operations and greater risk. It's easy to say your business is not your primary concern when you're mostly piggybacking it off personal resources. Don't take that as a dig at what you're doing, but it's a fact of what your business is and how it accomodates your philosophy versus a company that also adds in "oh, and paying all those logistical bills also need to be taken care of."Sure, but as you state yourself you're still absorbing many costs with personal resources (e.g., you home) and the good will of the people working with you. Because that's what any royalty-based system relies upon: the providers trust and faith in your ability to deliver. A flat rate is what it is and people can walk away knowing what they get. So far you've a good record with delivering, but it is possible for you to reach a point where you can't deliver on those expctations and that damages that faith. See my previous post about larger business =/= more money to spread around. It is very easy to have a "big" small business and actually have less net worth than one guy publishing out of his apartment.</blockquote>

Verification