the tinderfication of talent.

I use the phrase “tinderfication of talent” a fair bit. This is what I mean by it.

The open marketplaces removed friction when looking for freelancers - it was seen a good thing for both sides, easier to find a freelancers, easier for a freelancer to find work.

However, just as dating apps created a “there will always be someone better”, slightly different to the “optimal stopping problem”, it created the sense of “always being someone waiting for work”.

And this commoditised working with freelancers.

If you know there’s an infinite supply of something, there’s no scarcity, and therefore no value.

And in freelancing, this manifests as treating freelancers without respect, because of the assumption there will always be someone who is willing to put up the situation.

Additionally, there’s a “nanosecond decision making” problem that further makes matters worse, that there’s a long list of people to chose from, you’re going to swipe swipe swipe, glance glance glance, and choose quickly - without really considering.

This means that people are being selected based upon being a) at the top of a deck (algorithm or salience) b) being available c) ticking boxes at a capability level, rather than an experience and chemistry level.

This makes it harder for those who aren’t on the top of the deck to get work, and removes any process for stopping and thinking whether they’re a good fit on other criteria. It’s “hot or not” over “right or not”.

Friction is a good thing. Taking some time to filter through a pool of people, and consider who is right for a role is a good thing. No, we shouldn’t do it on every job - the point of building a relationship with a trusted pool of freelancers is that you don’t need to do it every time, you’re building intelligence on who is good for what.

But you do need to do it at some point.

Otherwise you’ll be on the apps forever, with a long stream of dreadful first dates.