In recent years, millions of people have turned to online crowdwork platforms, like Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) or Clickworker, for a way to earn money outside of traditional 9-to-5 jobs.
For some, these platforms offer the freedom to work from anywhere, at any time, and take on only the tasks they choose. This flexibility can be a lifeline for those who need to juggle family, education, or other work responsibilities.
However, while crowdwork offers these benefits, it also comes with a significant downside: workers are often faced with financial instability, low pay, and a stressful search for consistent income. The result is what researchers call the “viability challenge”—a term that refers to the struggle of making online crowdwork a sustainable source of income.
A recent study, titled “Understanding the viability conundrum in online crowdwork: The costs of unprecedented autonomy,” published in the Journal of Business Research looks at the complexities of crowdwork and how it affects the lives of those who rely on it.
The authors, Ward van Zoonen and Anu E. Sivunen, highlight that while crowdwork gives people autonomy over their schedules, it often comes with a hidden cost.
Workers frequently find themselves underpaid, overworked, and trapped in a cycle of financial insecurity, raising the question: is crowdwork really worth it?
In this article, we’ll break down the key points of their research, examine how the gig economy works, and explore what could be done to improve the lives of crowdworkers.
What Exactly is Online Crowdwork?
If you’ve never heard of it before, crowdwork might seem like an obscure corner of the internet.
But it’s actually a huge part of the gig economy, which includes all kinds of short-term, freelance, and contract work. Instead of being employed by a company full-time, crowdworkers are paid for completing small, specific tasks.
For example, tasks might include labeling images for a company’s machine learning algorithm, moderating online content, or transcribing audio files. These jobs are often small and require little specialized skill, which is why companies like Google, Microsoft, and others rely on crowdworkers to handle tedious and repetitive tasks.
The catch? Crowdworkers are not considered employees of the companies for which they perform tasks. They have no job security, no health benefits, and no guaranteed wage. They are independent contractors, and their work is mediated by platforms that connect them to employers.
These platforms often use algorithms to match workers with available tasks, but as soon as one task is finished, it’s up to the worker to find the next one.
For many, this kind of work is an attractive option. The ability to work remotely and choose when and what tasks to complete makes crowdwork seem like an ideal way to earn some extra money.
However, the reality is much more complicated.
The Viability Challenge: Why Crowdwork is Harder Than It Looks
One of the major findings from the study is that crowdworkers face what the researchers call a “viability challenge.” This is the struggle to make enough money to maintain a stable income, particularly when the work is unpredictable.
Imagine you’re relying on crowdwork to pay your bills. Some days, there are plenty of tasks available and you can make a decent wage. Other days, there’s little to no work, and your income takes a hit. This leads to what experts call “feast or famine” cycles. It’s hard to predict how much money you’ll make, and even harder to plan for big expenses like rent, bills, or savings.
In their study, van Zoonen and Sivunen surveyed 581 crowdworkers across Europe to understand how they navigate these challenges. They found that the level of dependence on crowdwork plays a big role in how stressful the experience is. People who rely on crowdwork as a significant source of their income—whether it’s to cover basic needs or supplement another job—are more likely to feel the pressure of the viability challenge.
At the heart of the problem is low pay. While crowdwork platforms boast flexibility, they don’t necessarily offer fair compensation for the time workers put in. Research shows that many crowdworkers make well below minimum wage, with hourly earnings ranging from $3 to $5, far below what one would need for a sustainable income. The study points out that the pay structure itself can be deceptive. Crowdworkers are paid per task, but this doesn’t account for the unpaid time spent searching for new tasks, dealing with rejected work, or learning how to complete tasks more efficiently.
This financial insecurity often leads to a stressful work experience. Crowdworkers have to spend extra hours hunting for new jobs, sometimes working late into the night, just to make ends meet. They also face competition from a global pool of workers, which can drive wages even lower as requesters—those who post jobs on the platform—offer tasks to the lowest bidder.
The Myth of Autonomy: Are Crowdworkers Really Free?
One of the selling points of crowdwork is the idea of autonomy. Workers can decide when to work, how much to work, and which tasks to accept. On the surface, this sounds empowering. However, the study reveals that this autonomy is often more of an illusion.
Because the flow of work is inconsistent, crowdworkers must always be on the lookout for the next task. This constant vigilance can feel like a form of control rather than freedom. Workers are stuck in a cycle where they are free to choose tasks, but they’re also forced to scramble for whatever work they can get, whenever it becomes available. Many crowdworkers feel that they have to accept even low-paying tasks to ensure that they continue to receive work. In other words, the flexibility offered by crowdwork comes at the cost of stability, and the freedom to choose tasks is often limited by financial necessity.
Despite these issues, the study found that some workers are better equipped to handle the challenges of crowdwork than others. A key factor in this is something called an “internal locus of control,” which refers to the belief that individuals have control over their own outcomes. People with a strong internal locus of control are more likely to believe that they can influence their financial situation through their own actions. These workers tend to experience less stress, even in the face of the low pay and financial uncertainty that crowdwork brings.
However, this doesn’t mean that crowdwork becomes easy or lucrative for them. Even with a strong internal locus of control, workers still face the same structural challenges—low pay, a lack of benefits, and an unpredictable workflow.
What Needs to Change?
The study by van Zoonen and Sivunen highlights several ways that platforms and employers could improve the situation for crowdworkers. First and foremost, pay needs to be addressed. There is currently very little regulation when it comes to compensating crowdworkers, and many are paid far below what is considered fair for the work they perform. Some platforms, like Prolific, have taken steps to ensure that workers are paid at least minimum wage, but these platforms are the exception, not the rule. Most crowdworkers still face pay that falls far short of what’s needed to live comfortably.
Another important area for improvement is transparency. Workers often have little insight into how tasks are assigned, why certain tasks pay more than others, or why their work is rejected. Platforms could implement clearer guidelines and provide more feedback to workers, helping them to improve their skills and increase their chances of earning a fair wage.
Finally, crowdwork platforms could do more to foster a sense of community among workers. Many crowdworkers feel isolated, competing against one another for low-paying tasks in a highly competitive environment. Platforms could offer resources for workers to share experiences, provide feedback, or collaborate on larger projects. By building a stronger community, workers could gain a sense of empowerment and solidarity, which could help mitigate some of the stresses of the work.
What Can Workers Do?
While the structural issues of crowdwork need to be addressed by platforms and employers, there are also steps that workers can take to make the experience more manageable. Developing a strong internal locus of control can help workers feel more in charge of their situation, even in the face of financial instability. This means setting clear goals, staying organized, and developing a long-term plan for managing income fluctuations.
Workers can also focus on improving their skills to take on higher-paying tasks. Some crowdwork platforms offer training resources or allow workers to take on more specialized tasks once they’ve gained experience. By improving their skills, workers can increase their earning potential and reduce the time they spend searching for low-paying jobs.
It’s also important for workers to stay informed about their rights and to advocate for better working conditions. The gig economy is still relatively new, and there is growing awareness of the need for regulation to protect workers from exploitation. By staying informed and connected with other workers, individuals can push for changes that would improve the sustainability of crowdwork as a viable source of income.
Conclusion
Online crowdwork presents a double-edged sword. While it offers flexibility and the promise of autonomy, it often comes with hidden costs that make it difficult for workers to achieve financial stability. The viability challenge faced by crowdworkers—caused by low pay, unpredictable work, and the constant search for tasks—creates a stressful work environment that can be hard to manage.
For crowdwork to become a sustainable and fair option for workers, platforms, requesters, and regulators need to take steps to ensure fair pay, transparency, and support for workers. At the same time, workers can focus on developing their skills, setting goals, and advocating for better working conditions.
In the end, the gig economy is here to stay, but if we want it to work for everyone, we need to rethink how we support the people who make it run. Crowdworkers deserve more than just autonomy—they deserve a fair shot at making a living.
Citation:
Ward van Zoonen, Anu E. Sivunen,Understanding the viability conundrum in online crowdwork: The costs of unprecedented autonomy, Journal of Business Research, Volume 185, 2024, 114912, ISSN 0148-2963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114912.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296324004168)