Demand Studios

Introducing the Writer’s Success Resource Center

May 25, 2010 by david 9 Comments

I’m pleased to announce the launch of the Writer’s Success Resource Center, a joint project between Freelance Writing Jobs and PoeWar.

The Resource Center, which is sponsored by Demand Studios, features articles, podcasts, webcasts and videos filled with in-depth information to help all freelance writers achieve success. John Hewitt of PoeWar and I will take alternating Mondays for our featured content.

The content will be beyond what you see on our usual blog posts. We’ll be offering in depth tips and practices you can put to use right away and we’ve invited some special guests to join us. Chris Garrett, Carson Brackney and Thursday Bram are just a few of the fabulous freelancers who will be sharing the secrets of their success.

Currently, the Writer’s Success Resource Center will have a temporary home on a static page at the Freelance Writing Jobs blog and a special section of PoeWar. However, in the next couple of weeks we’ll be unveiling brand new, sleek, FWJ and the Resource Center will have a much more prominent location.

The Writer’s Success Resource Center is free and will launch Monday, June 1^st, 2010.

Yahoo! Buys Associated Content: Some Initial Thoughts

May 19, 2010 by david 12 Comments

You probably heard Yahoo! is to purchase Associated Content for $100 million. I feel it’s a smart move seeing as how AOL Seed and Demand Studios are topping the searches with their content. I’m not one to complain about content sites because I think quick web content articles and how to’s can be useful as long as they’re well written and factually correct. Also, I believe content sites are creating jobs, helping to improve the economy, and helping writers to earn money during a time when competition for gigs is fierce.

However…

It’s no secret I’m not a fan of Associated Content. The reason for this doesn’t have as much to do with the pay (though $3 per article sucks) or the writers as it does A.C.’s acceptance policy. I applied to A.C. several times throughout the years just to see if they changed their policy of accepting writers without viewing writing samples or experience. Each time, I was accepted without question. No one asked to see prior work or where I’ve been published. They congratulated me and sent me on my merry way.

I understand that Associated Content wants to give writers of all levels of experience a voice, but there’s a problem; they hobbyists aren’t writing slice of life essays or posting pie recipes. They’re writing serious articles. There’s nothing wrong with this, but because Associated Content’s editors haven’t always been known for diligently checking for quality and factually correct writing, there are some clunkers in there. I’m all for everyone having opportunities and choices, but I’m also against poor content. This isn’t to say everyone who writes for A.C. is a poor writer, but let’s be honest, not all web writers are good, either.

As I mentioned on the FWJ Facebook Group this morning, if Yahoo! wants to compete with AOL Seed and Demand Studios, they’re going to have to make some changes at Associated Content.

1. Be More Diligent About Hiring Quality Writers and Policing Content

I firmly believe the key to quality content on the web is a stricter acceptance policy. You can pay a poor writer $500 and he’ll still be a poor writer. However, if you appoint a few gate keepers to enforce a stricter acceptance policy the folks who bitch about “low quality” content writers won’t have a leg to stand on. Also, if writers are held to higher standards, content sites such as Associated Content won’t be the butt of a bunch freelance writing jokes and barbs.

The new Associated Content should:

Request writing samples to ensure writers can write.
Hire more editors to offer guidance to newer writers and tweak content.
Create better guidelines for writers.

2. Raise Rates

Though I believe a stricter hiring policy is essential in order to provide good content, I also feel that we offer more incentive to quality writers when we pay them well. I won’t argue rates right now as that’s not what this discussion is about. However, A.C. pays many writers below $10 per article which is hardly motivation to research and proofread. Higher pay will motivate existing writers and attract higher priced writers who originally felt A.C. was beneath them.

If Yahoo! wants to create quality content and not to want to be labeled a cheap “content mill, they’re going to have to raise the rates for Associated Content and ensure the ends justify the means for writers to spend the time writing articles that don’t suck.

Do a Massive Cleanup

Yahoo! has the opportunity to build something really big here. However, in order to be taken seriously by their peers, writers, journalists and those who read content, they’re going to want to make some changes and clean up those clunkers. It will be a massive undertaking, having to go through all those years of content, but it will be well worth the effort. Again, I’m not saying everyone who writes for Associated Content can’t write, but let’s be realistic. There’s some pretty bad stuff out there. Yahoo! should hire some editors to patrol the site, edit the stuff that’s salvageable and toss the writing that doesn’t make the cut. Yes, there are going to be writers who aren’t happy with this, but it’s for the greater good. Besides, I think it’s only a few bad apples spoiling a bunch of truly terrific writers.

A Good Investment

Now, I’m not operating under the impression that Yahoo! cares more about quality content than earning money. Make no mistake, every content site is in this for the money. However, if they’re going to keep up and be considered a positive site for both readers and writers, they’ll need to revamp the current model. Money is the motive for everything. Those who understand you have to spend money to make money, and those caring about producing the best writing they can, will win the search engine wars in the long run.

Yahoo! has the opportunity to leverage their name and pull in some hefty sponsors. Let’s hope they invest those dollars where it will do the most good – in the quality of the content and in the Associated Content writers.

Content Mill Writers ARE Business People – And We’re All Proof of That

April 30, 2010 by david 33 Comments

I just read, with interest, Yolander Prinzel’s post at All Freelance Writing entitled “Why Low Paying Gigs Are and Are Not Your Problem.” I’m inclined to comment, except my comment is so long that I decided to just post it here.

Warning: Reactionary blog post ahead:

In her post Yo discusses why you needn’t worry about content site writers as your competition, but offers an enlightening look at some of the things you should concern yourself with. I’m not arguing with most of her points because they’re fair.

For the most part, I agree with Yo in that content mill rates won’t affect you if that’s not what you’re in to. Twenty years ago, freelance writers complained about the local newspapers and magazines charging anywhere from nothing to $10 per article. The folks who aspired to do better, did.

Ten years ago, folks complained about content sites such as Suite 101 and Write for Cash, but they didn’t drive down the rates either. My big gripe was with bidding sites, but I was wrong, because they didn’t drive down the rates for anyone but bidding sites writers. So I’m not going to really pick apart the logic that content mill writers aren’t your problem because there are a world of opportunities out there. No one is lowering anyone’s rates.

So I’m not in disagreement there.

I did want to explore this a bit, however. In her post Yo said:

These low paying gigs keep the hobbyists and uncommitted busy which means they aren’t competing with you. I’m not saying that content mill writers aren’t real writers or that they don’t have a burning desire to create–I’m saying that they are not business people. Many of them don’t know how or where to market themselves, but if you are going to run a successful business you have to either figure out how to do this or hire someone who can do it for you.

Now, I’ve read enough of your blog posts to know that many of you think that “cheap” writers are bad writers and are, therefore, not competition. This is incorrect. They are not competition because many of them don’t know just how much they could be making or how to get there–not because they suck. That’s why blogs like this one are so important–there are good writers out there who need to stop being coddled and instead need a life preserver. We are that life preserver.

As a former content mill writer, I don’t believe this to be true. In fact, the author of the above referenced article is also a former content mill writer. Though we rarely agree, or even get along for that matter, I will go as far as to say we have a few things in common. We both know how to market ourselves, we both love to write and we’re both business people. I don’t think either of us are lazy or naive when it comes to business sense. So why are we the exception?

Because we’re not.

Plenty of content mill writers have higher aspirations but all our circumstances are different. I’m not saying the unmotivated and hobbyists don’t exist, but I don’t believe it’s fair to lump all content writers in the same category. Knowing how many of us (freelance writing bloggers ) are former content site writers who used those careers as stepping stones to better opportunities, I’m not sure the above is true. I don’t think folks who write for content sites are any less business savvy or lazy than we were back in the day. I wrote for several content sites, but at the same time I was finding higher paying opportunities. So are many of the people who write for Demand Studios, Suite 101 and others.

I don’t feel freelance writing bloggers hold their hands as much as we respect their choices while encouraging them to seek more lucrative gigs.

I’ve met people who write for content mills on many occasions, mostly at conferences and meetups. I haven’t met a single content site writer who feels this type of writing is a hobby or long term career choice, nor have I met a single content site writer who isn’t trying to land a more lucrative contract. Most content site writers are doing so to get a foot in the door or supplement their income. Yes, there are some who view content mills as a “Work at Home!!!!” job, but they’re not necessarily the norm. Most want to learn how to market themselves, or already do. They’re happy to write for these places because

A. They get to write
B. They get to earn money in between gigs.

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest most content site writers need hand holding, because that wasn’t/isn’t the case with us.

I think Yolander’s series on writing for content sites is an excellent resource in weighing the pros and cons of these types of sites. However, I’m not sure I agree with her assessment of the types of people who write for content sites.

After all, we were there ourselves.

P.S. In all fairness, Yolander did say “most” content site writers and not “all” content site writers. I still disagree.

Did you ever, or do you now write for content sites? If so, is it your intention to land better opportunities. Tell us about your experience – did you feel it was a good stepping stone, or did you feel it made you lazy?

(For transparency sake, it’s important to note that Demand Studios is a sponsor and pays to advertise on this blog. However, they didn’t pay me to write this (or any post) and I don’t need their permission. )

On Bad Writing, Bad Proofreading and Responsibility

December 4, 2009 by david 34 Comments

Sotp

Credit where it’s due: Carson Brackney’s most recent post discusses Angela Hoy’s latest rant against content sites and the people who write for them. In his post, “Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Writng” Carson explores who really bears responsibility for bad content. This isn’t to argue Carson’s point, more to discuss the difference between bad writing and bad proofreading and also to touch a little on the responsibility part. I was going to leave a comment on Carson’s blog but it got too wordy, so I’m sharing my thoughts here. Warning: This is kind of wordy too.

Every now and then I like to touch on the topic of bad writing. Because anyone can be a writer nowadays, there’s a lot of bad writing on the web. I’m not going to blame it on web content or low payers, because I know a few high payers who employ writers who, well, aren’t very good. I read “columns” written by high paid celebrities that are absolute garbage. I also know of some sales people who write their own content to sell a product, and bloggers with their own personal blogs who also put out some questionable content. On the other side of the coin there’s plenty of content on the web that’s terrific but the author didn’t proofread very well. As this community knows, I’m guilty of this very thing (but I hope I’m getting better). Sometimes, it’s not bad writing as much as it is bad proofreading.

So I feel like exploring this a bit…

Using the “Loose” vs. “Lose” Theory

In Carson’s article he makes reference to Angela Hoy’s most recent “investigation” which entailed searching for the word “loose” and citing examples of articles where “loose” was used in the title instead of “lose” in order to prove how web content pollutes the airwaves. In all fairness, “loose” instead of “lose” is a pet peeve of mine as well. However, as we were only treated to the titles of the articles and not the actual articles, all Hoy proved was that someone didn’t proofread. We don’t know if the content is poor, because we didn’t read the articles. Using “loose” instead of “lose” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a bad writer, it can also mean you’re a bad speller and a bad proofreader. There’s a difference between bad writing and bad proofreading. I post and run all the time, and though that’s not an excuse for publishing sloppy work, the truth is, it happens and it doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to live.

What makes a bad piece of writing?

Granted, some of the articles referenced in her article might be terrible, but Hoy didn’t link to them and I didn’t read them, so I have no way of telling. However, if the whole article was filled with typos, poorly formed sentences and misinformation, I would have to agree it’s a crappy article. If it’s factually correct and well-written, but simply has a typo in the title, I can be forgiving. I’ve found typos in Writer’s Digest on more than one occasion and I don’t see anyone going after them. There’s a difference between bad writing and bad proofreading. Should we publish articles that are victims of poor proofreading? Of course not. However, to say a well written article with a typo is what’s wrong with the world today is kind of silly.

Who bears responsibility

I’m very vocal about writers being responsible for their own writing. I don’t think it’s the fault of the content site any more than it’s the fault of McDonalds for hiring someone who can’t be counted on to show up for work on time. Anyone who accepts any gig needs to do said gig to the best of his ability or move on. However, I also believe content sites need to be more selective with the writers they hire.

The problem here is the content site’s purpose. If it’s a site geared towards hobbyists, there’s a whole different set of standards than the site geared towards putting out “how to” content or news. Getting upset because someone who writes for a hobby site used “loose” is like getting angry at the people who volunteer to put together a community newsletter for not properly structuring a paragraph. You can’t compare a site like Hub Pages to a site like Demand Studios. They have different pay, different requirements, a different purpose, and sometimes, different writers.The content site that wishes to be viewed as an authority and trusted source of information does bear more responsibility than the hobby site. You can’t go after a site for hobbyists and say “you’re polluting the web” because they’re not claiming to put out reputable content. However the site that employs editors and fact checkers has no excuse.

There are a variety of reasons why a bad piece of writing hits the web, but the bulk of responsibility belongs to the writer. It’s the writer who should proofread several times before hitting “send” and it’s the writer who needs to do more than Google and rewrite when researching information. It’s about pride. It’s about not wanting anyone to read something I wrote and seeing “loose” instead of “lose.” The authoritative content sites need to ensure they hire quality writers, and the editors must do their jobs properly, but any writer who habitually turns in poor writing, doesn’t deserve the gig.

Bad writing isn’t exclusive to content sites

I’ve said it before, if you think bad writing is exclusive to web content sites, read the “Twilight” series. Read the church newsletter and the high school newspaper. Read the newsletter at the Senior center or the weekly Mayor’s address. I find typos on a regular basis in books, magazines, newspapers and on websites. Poor proofreading is everywhere. To say content sites lower the quality of writing on the Internet is like saying the moms who started the neighborhood watch newsletter are lowering the quality of journalism.

Typos vs. Quality

Something I worry about more than a writer using “loose” instead of “lose” is a junior high school kid stumbling upon a piece of fluff in his research and thinking it’s good information. Content sites do bear the responsibility to make sure content is factually correct. Thankfully most schools (and parents) have caught on and don’t allow sites such as Wikipedia or Associated Content to be used as sources or references. Still, folks need to back up their facts. If a writer has no medical experience and they’re Googling and rewriting some bad medical writing they found, a disclaimer would be nice. Personally, I feel people who don’t know a thing about medicine shouldn’t be giving out medical advice, but since there’s no way to police this, we need disclaimers. Folks need to know how writers come across their information. I can overlook a typo if the article contains good information, but I can’t overlook bad information.

News vs. Content

Now, the question was asked if web content sites lower the quality of news on the Internet. I don’t know that they necessarily do. Most web content sites with writers who report the news are relaying the facts so it’s not like they’re getting it wrong. Multiple television stations, websites, magazines and newspapers report on the same scandal. Having someone in web content discuss the same thing doesn’t mean it’s lowering the quality. However, most content sites aren’t reporting news. “How to Tie Your Shoelaces” isn’t news. News and content are two separate puppies.

Are you done yet, Deb?

This went kind of long and I need to wrap it up. I hope it makes sense and I hope I proofread well enough.

Content isn’t evil. Web content sites aren’t evil. Bad writers are everywhere and it has nothing to do with where they work or how much they’re paid. It’s the writer’s responsibility to write well and it’s the editor’s responsibility to to edit. If you’re going after web content sites for a case of bad proofreading, you’re also going to have to go after sign makers, newspapers, sales people, newsletters and magazines. Typos are everywhere. Bad writing should go, but using “loose” instead of “lose” doesn’t a bad article make. It will make me stop and pause. It will make me think more about the writer and the writing, but it’s not a deal breaker.

Who bears the responsibility for bad writing?