PLR Writing Revisited
August 19, 2008 by Deb
Filed under Freelance Writing
by Deborah Ng
About a year ago I wrote a piece about PLR writing. I have to admit, I didn’t know much about it at the time but thought it sounded like a lousy idea. As you an imagine, I received some flack.
I’m still not keen on the idea of PLR, to be honest. Let me tell you why.
Last night I received an email from an old client who wanted me to write some PLR packs for him. He had a long list of topics to make into packs which he would sell as 10 article packs for $10 a piece. He said he sold 100 packs for a few of his most popular topics. See…this is where I take issue. This is the part I don’t agree with.
Each PLR pack is sold over and over – and the new owners can use this content as many times as they want. Some who sell PLR cap at a certain point – some will only sell a pack 20 times, others 60 times. So the same content is sold over and over again. This content can be used as is, or the person who bought the PLR pack can either run them through an article spinner or hire writers to “rewrite” the article. Yet the same skeleton is there. The same information is being bandied about the Internet without any thought to its accuracy. I asked this former client:
- Does he have a fact checker on staff? No. He doesn’t care if it’s correct, that’s not his problem.
- Would it bother him if inaccurate content is being used over and over again – some of it the same and some with the words moved around? No. As long as he’s paid the new owner of the content can do whatever he likes.
- My main gripe is that many people (those who don’t write web content for a living) see something printed and take it as Gospel. Kids are using web content for homework and grownups are using it to look up medical advice and diet tips, does he feel a sense of responsibility? Again, not his problem.
Now, I understand it’s a writer’s responsibility to produce accurate, factual, well-written content. But lets be truthful here. In today’s $5 content world, many content writers are Googling the same regurgitated facts and rewriting what another writer Googled and so on and so forth. As soon as writing became one of those “YOU TOO CAN WORK AT HOME AND MAKE $$$$$ A MONTH!!!!!” jobs, people saw it as a quick way to make some money. Not begrudging them the gig, but there are plenty of people who didn’t see writing as a responsibility. So when a poor writer doesn’t check facts and allows these crappy articles to go through a spinner 100 times, we’re talking about truly b.s. content flooding the interwebs.
Mind you, that’s not to say PLR content isn’t accurate either. I know plenty of friends of FWJ, really good writers all, who write PLR and do a darn good job at it. In fact, some of the writers I admire write PLR, so I know there’s good stuff being written.
The problem is, people who are searching for information start at the top of the search engines. You could write the most God-awful content ever, but still be at the top of the searches if you have the right keywords. So how do we know who is writing the best content and truly checking the facts? And how do we feel about taking well written articles to again be spun over and over again until there’s no originality anymore?
I have to be honest, I’m a little bored with reading the same thing all the time. I know magazine writers rehash too, but editors will generally say, “I just saw that same topic in Vogue a couple of months back. Let’s backburner that idea until January.” People don’t generally go back and re-read the same magazine articles over and over again thoughout the years.
So lets talk about this. I’d especially like to hear from the people who write PLR. Since I never did this type of writing, I welcome any PLR writer to correct me on any details that are wrong. I’d also like to hear opinions on article spinning and rewriting.
I don’t want to knock the people who write PLR and I realize this is one of those subjects that cause passions to ignite, but I don’t understand how we can justify articles to be “spun” over and over again. Do the people who buy PLR hire writers just to do a simple rewrite – or do they pay good money for someone to check facts and insert pertinient information? Many times I see ads from folks who want articles rewritten just enoughto pass a CopyScape test. So that can mean switching words around in a sentence and not really making a whole new article out of a few key facts.
I’m interested in learning others’ point of view.
Discuss…
Disclaimer: This article is Deb’s opinion and Deb’s opinion only. She’s been wrong before and doesn’t mind correction. Please, if you’re telling her where to get off, be gentle with your smackdowns.
For the less experienced among us (like me) what is PLR?
Andrea – I’m sorry. In my passion I didn’t give an explanation. PLR stands for Private Label Rights and means the articles can be sold and used as many times as all parties agree upon.
I was burned by PLR writing. Hired months ago to write 100 articles on baby related topics (10 subjects, 10 articles each subject), I made a nice chunk of change, but two months after completing them and being paid the person emailed me back saying that the cloth diaper articles were utter garbage and that they were supposed to be written from her point of view. She’d never said that in her instructions, so I sent her the email asking where it said “from my point of view.” All it said was to cover history in one, the pros and cons in another, cleaning cloth diapers in another, etc.
She demanded I either rewrite them or she’d file a complaint with Paypal to get her money back. In 3 years I’d never run into this, so I opted to rewrite them just to shut her up. After I’d calmed down and gotten them done, I decided to look into this a little more closely. Turns out she was selling them for PLR content and had already sold 10 packs of these articles at six times what she’d paid me. Her latest buyer wanted the articles to match their viewpoint and offered to pay her more to change them.
Needless to say, I was furious and let her know what I’d uncovered and I’ve never heard another word from her. I watch the job writing boards regularly to make sure I don’t see her posting jobs again because I would warn others against using this mommywriter.net. The Web site’s long gone and I’ve never seen her post since.
I like your disclaimer, Deb.
I have just started writing PLR packs as a way to generate additional income. I think the appeal for writers is that you can spend time writing articles just once, but continue to make money on your content. On Angela Booth’s writing blog, she has this piece of information:
“If you can write ten PLR articles in a week, you can make $4000 a week.”
I don’t know where that figure came from, but it certainly would appeal to many writers. If you wrote 10 articles for one client, even if you made $50 per article, you’d only end up with $500 for the week. Never mind the $10-15 per article jobs – that would only be $100 to $150. $4,000 makes those numbers seem extra low.
As a PLR writer, I write PLR articles just as I would write articles for any client. I may use the Web for basic research, but I stick to using reputable sites. For example, if I am writing an article about pheochromocytomas (tumors that start in the adrenal medulla), I will do a search for pheochromocytomas but only view authority sites such as National Cancer Institute or the endocrinology department site of a major teaching hospital. I don’t use Wikipedia or similar sites, as the content can’t be relied upon.
I look at it this way: I do everything I can to ensure quality content. Even if I didn’t write PLR, and I only wrote for individual clients, I can’t be sure what a client will do with the content once it leaves my hands. All I can do is do extensive research and make sure information is accurate and up to date.
I forgot to mention, I do not write PLR content for clients who want to sell it. I am only writing PLR for my own business. So, I have a vested interest in making sure it is high in quality, as it will have my name on it and represent my business.
Maybe this is a weakness in me, but I just can’t write 20 variations of the same thing. If I write something, I work on it until it is the best version that I can create. I can always think of a few different approaches to the same topic, but after a while I would just be repeating myself. I can’t stand that. I hate repetition and I did not get into freelance writing just to bore myself to tears.
The sad thing is that I see a lot of postings for PLR jobs on bidding sites such as Elance. The person buying the content is making money because they sell it multiple times. However the person writing it only gets paid once, and usually for a very low fee.
In my opinion, PLR is unsatisfying for the writer and the reader. Since those are my primary roles, I avoid buying or receiving PLR content.
@ Jenn: I agree that sometimes writing PLR content can be very unsatisfying for writers, particularly when writing it for a client. I find that writing and selling my own PLR makes it much more interesting; I can write on the topics I am interested in and I am not writing the same thing 10 or 20 times. I wouldn’t write PLR content for someone else though. If I am doing the work, I want to reap the benefits.
The part of it that bothers me is not someone writing original content that they spin or allow to be spun. What bothers me is people taking the hard work of others, changing a few words, and calling it their own. What bothers me is people/companies seeking out/paying people to do this.
On a personal level, it just seems like plagiarism. I have had an article stolen that I found and reported, and to ‘fix it’ they changed a few words.
Um, hello – the article was MY work – but because they got caught and changed a couple words, suddenly it “wasn’t” mine anymore and “wasn’t” plagiarism. It was also an article that I get page view bonuses on, so now I am competing against myself (so to speak) – and someone else is benefiting (the thief even put their byline on it). It is among my top read articles.
So, basically someone is getting paid to steal the work and income of others. THAT is the part of it that bothers me.
@Dani – There’s not content stealing going on with PLR. The people who write PLR know their words are going to be spun around and rewritten and they’re fine with it.
@Deb:
I saw an ad yesterday asking for writers to ‘rewrite’ content – they wanted a bulk order on the same topic – and they wanted the writers to find their own article(s) to rewrite.
To me, that sounds like the same thing as PLR – but the dark side of it. (if they are rewriting the content of others that neither they nor the company owns)
So, if you have a few minutes, would you mind explaining where the difference is? I really don’t get it and want to understand.
@ Dani: I can ‘xplain…When you buy PLR stuff, you shouldn’t use it “right out of the box.” Having duplicate content on your web site might hurt you in your SE rankings. So buyers take the PLR stuff and spin it. They might have a writer re-write it or there is article spinning software available to do this.
Once you buy the PLR stuff, you do own it and you can rewrite it or repackage it in a different format to sell yourself. Does that help?
Dani:
The way PLR is *supposed* to work is that someone writes original content. Let’s say a pack of 10 articles on aquarium products. That pack is then sold to buyers who are able to rewrite that content or use it in any way they wish. The original writer knows that this will be done and is okay with it.
What happened to you (and has happened to me as well) is that some person of ill repute stole your work outright and then rewrote it. The big difference is that s/he did not have your permission to do so, while a PLR writer knows that their content will be used elsewhere. That person’s actions have more to do with their dishonesty than they do with PLR. Unfortunately, PLR has gotten a bad rap precisely because of this kind of people.
Thank you Deb and Leigh!
I’m going to offer a slightly different point of view. I’ve never done PLR work, but have written for “news banks” that take different articles to build customized newsletters. These are legit businesses — articles are fact-checked, payment is low but not unreasonable, but content is indeed resold. I think this is legit, and little different than syndicating articles, cartoons, etc. These may change a little from spot to spot due to cropping and editing for size.
There are newsletter sites that take “crap” content and recycle it, but these businesses usually don’t last long because the subscribers quickly learn that the articles have no value.
This may ruffle some feathers, but if content is legit, I think such a business is legit. If one doesn’t feel compensation is enough because of the amount of times content is re-sold, then I would suggest looking for better-paying opportunities or even consider syndicating your own work.
I have never written PLR articles and don’t know much about it. From the limited amount I *think* I understand, I don’t see a problem with it. With or without PLR, there will always be folks willing to write cheap content, re-write their own work or the work of others, and generally fill up the interwebs with garbage. At this point, I think kids should be taught not to take what they read online as gospel, and any adult looking for medical/diet advice etc should know not to rely on it as the absolute truth. I have read medical websites, lawyer sites, other professional sites, where facts are incorrect or the article is so poorly written that the message could easily be mistaken by a layperson. And many times these are folks who write their own stuff. Sure, I agree that the lack of quality content online sucks. But I don’t blame PLR. I blame the general attitude that most folks will do whatever they have to do to make a quick buck — and some of them do it for survival, so I can’t blame them. I blame Google. I kid, but think about it. None of this was an issue before we had search engines.
Hi all. Great responses.
Amy – I don’t think PLR is the reason for poor web content. But if one poorly written article is spun 100 times, the problem is 100 times worse. That’s my issue with it. I guess I just want to read something new!
While my son and I look things up online, he knows the library is the place to go. I know several colleges have disallowed Wikipedia and Associated Content as sources for papers because that info isn’t always accurate. So at least schools are encouraging reputable sources.
Phil – I don’t think PLR isn’t legit. I think it’s great if it works out for all parties involved. I just don’t like the article spinning thing. It’s legal and I don’t blame anyone or look down on anyone who does this type of writing, I just don’t like the same thing being rewritten over and over again.
Deb — I want to read something new too. I’m usually the first one to complain about folks talking about the same thing over and over until I want to barf.
Maybe I’m naive to the PLR situation, but I don’t see it as any bigger problem than folks simply googling a topic they know nothing about and writing keyword-filled junk just to make a few bucks on some content site, or as an assignment from someone who wants to make money with an adsense site, or whatever. If the PLR article is well-written and original, and it is only sold ten times, and those ten people re-write it and use it well, I would much rather see that then the website of the guy posting on X bidding site for original keyword-stuffed content at .00002 cents per word.
Your son is probably already smarter than many people I know.
I just was chatting with one of the lawyers I write for, and the AP just totally screwed up a story on one of his cases. Of course, by the time he found out about it the story had already been picked up by several papers. I have seen so many errors in AP stories lately that I’m no longer surprised when I find out something they’ve reported is wrong. I’m to the point where I won’t even blog about something on a lawyer blog unless I have fact-checked. Used to, if something was in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, I assumed it was probably correct enough to blog about. Not anymore.
The whole internet seems to be going to [insert word I'm not allowed to say here here].
Speaking of reporting and facts in writing:
When my mom was killed by a drunk driver, I was interviewed, and the police reports were accessed. I was given access to all the same reports – from the officer who witnessed it, to the accounts from all the other witnesses, to the photos, to the coroner’s report – all of it. I also spoke at the hearing and was interviewed then, too.
I was appalled to see how every newspaper and news station here that reported on it had different ‘facts’, and most were wrong through every phase of the story. It was a very eye-opening and disheartening experience from a writer’s standpoint. As the family member of the victim, it was frustrating and disappointing.
I take extra care now about where I get my information, how I verify it, and what I believe in the press.
“My main gripe is that many people (those who don’t write web content for a living) see something printed and take it as Gospel.”
And how is that the writer’s fault or responsibility? At some point, people need to be accountable for their own actions, including the “consumers” of this information.
Vetting information is one of these actions, and failure to do so carries consequences of varying proportions. For writers, it can me the loss of a job or legitimacy. For the user, it can be a failing grade, an incorrect self-diagnosis or making your CEO look stupid.
Hi Tim – We’re in agreement. We should know enough, but many don’t. I’m forever telling my teenaged cousins the Internet shouldn’t be used as a sole research tool and I tell them why. They want to know why people are allowed to post inaccurate information to a website.
I also keep thinking of my grandmother. She passed away in 2000 at the age of 93, but was of the generation that if something was in print, it was the absolute truth. She bought every miracle vitamin or time saving gadget. I could regale you with stories about that until the cows came home. Suffice it to say if Grandma had a laptop you can bet she’d be following bad advice regarding her health rather than going to a doctor. Sure, I know it’s her responsibility – but the fact is if something happened the writer or the website owner could be sued – and I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time until that happens.
Sure it’s up to the reader to get correct facts, but as a writer don’t we have a responsibility to provide accurate information?
Then the writer or the website will be sued. And they will win or lose. And lessons will be learned.
I am not saying that ethical writers do not have an internal responsibility, and perhaps even a legal responsibility, to provide accurate information. Far from it.
But if a person is willing to believe Billy Bob’s Website of Homeopathic Information to the disregard of all others (including actual, live, human physicians…well, some would argue the human part…), then that is not my issue, whether I am a writer or not.
A real-world analog, if I may:
In the K9 search and rescue group I volunteer with, we have a member whose dog was apparently born with the ability to air-scent and alert-the-handler (versus trailing dogs like Bloodhounds who follow trails). The training officer said this dog had one of the most innate natural abilities she’s ever seen in a dog. So what did the owner do?
Followed the advice of another member who couldn’t even control her own dog (aggression), who told the member to train his dog as a trailing dog instead of an air-scent dog because the dog wouldn’t then run away from the owner. The advice-giving member had been a part of our group for….8 months.
So, now the dog languishes in training because the owner is a stubborn cuss who won’t listen to the subject-matter-expert.
So, you have the expert, the writer (advice giver) and the consumer (dog owner). Whose responsibility is/was it to figure out the correct information to best train his dog?
The training expert? Nope. She gave the best advice she could based on her knowledge and expertise. “You can lead a horse to water….”
The advice giver (”writer”)? Some. But she was ignorant and should have kept her yap shut about a topic she knew nothing about, and hadn’t even researched.
The dog owner? Bingo. So narrow-minded was his desire in how HE wanted to train the dog, versus how the dog would best perform, that he decided to go with what he wanted to hear, versus what was accurate information.
Finally, people have been ignoring the advice of experts for eons…heck, even the Bible discusses how you cannot be a prophet in your own home (Matthew 13:54-58).
Tim
I’m so against PLR that it isn’t funny. PLR content will kill the web. I recently was researching something for personal benefit – I wasted over four hours sifting through crap, repeated articles, the same articles with slight variations, spun articles… I finally decided, “Screw it” and headed over to my psychology textbooks.
THIS is good? No. Not by any means. It’s a cop-out and a cheap way to abuse the Internet. PLR will eventually gorge the information system and crash it.
You know what? I’ll be there to rebuild it into something better.
As a writer I do see a need for quality PLR on the Web in many areas that I frequently write about. I have considered bundling my own, but I do not want others to repackage and sell it.
I don’t mind the modification, the rewrite, the insertion of someone else’s name as the author, and so on, to suit their own content requirements and needs, but I just couldn’t imagine allowing someone else buy the content and then resell it. Is the right to resell always a component (granted right) of PLR?
@ Aurora: Somewhere I’ve got some 411 about different rights for PLR stuff. I’ll look for it and then I should be able to answer your question.
Hello! Deb, thanks for such an interesting blog. After reading it, I had to look up PLR because I didn’t know what it was. I then applied to work creating PLR content. To ask, what is a fair rate for a 500-word PLR article in 12 pt Times Roman?
Thanks!
Bobbi
Great post. The jury is still out for me. On the one hand, a different angle inspires readers in different ways. On the other, the repetitive redundancy of repetitious repetition is irritating. Hmmm. Still pondering.