There are literally hundreds of thousands of courses on Udemy, and not all will be promoted through ads even though they're all eligible in theory. Udemy justifies this 13% additional retention with ad investment, but this investment was not asked for, because it will not benefit all instructors. One thing is eligibility, other is actual investment. So you have a 13% decrease in organic revenue that affects all instructors, and 12% increase through ad revenue that affects only some instructors. How can someone say that this is fairer? This is not "more or less the same", it's just even more control over the way you explore your platform, directing ads at courses that already have traction. To put it simply, those who already sell, will maintain the trend, those who do not, even if they sell, will receive less organic revenue for it. 50% was already a heavy blow, 63% is a, certain, heavier blow to all of us. To some of us a balance will potentially be reached by the (ever more fragile) ad marketing. To a lot of us, no balance will be reached. I find it morally dubious even to charge everyone more than 50% upfront, justifying with a faible investment that will not even occur to everyone. That's a pity.
... View more