However, I don’t spend a lot of time tossing my hat into the ring with hundreds of other applicants for advertised writing positions.  I’ll do it occasionally when a particular call for a writer really appeals to me, but it’s not my preferred way of generating business.

I know there are plenty of writers out there who would really like to be busier, so I thought I’d talk about an approach that has worked for me.  It’s not revolutionary or anything, but it doesn’t seem to get as much attention as other strategies.  I like creating my own gigs.

Here’s the plan, in its simplest form:

• Find someone who has a great product or idea–something that’s right in your wheelhouse or in which you see remarkable potential.
• Think about how your skills could help them.
• Pitch them.

Example One: Occasionally, I’ll watch press releases roll along the river of a popular distribution site’s RSS feed.  I’ll look for releases that involve interesting topics or ideas.  I’ll pay close attention to those that evidence a need for a much better copywriter.  The contact information is right there on the release.  The pitch is simple in terms of offering them more effective releases and it doesn’t take long to investigate their web presence and to see what else they might need.

Example Two: Have you ever been searching for something that you wanted or needed and then discovered a real diamond in the rough of a website?  Of course, you have.  When I find these sites, I will follow up with the owners, telling them how we might be able to work together to improve their business.

I know.  It’s pretty simple.

But here’s the interesting thing…  It works.

You might think that the percentage of contacts that turn into business would be minimal.  That’s not the case.  The conversion numbers are surprisingly good.  I’m relatively sure that my contact/conversion rate in these situations is higher than most people’s success rate when responding to “writers wanted” ads.

I believe that one reason writers aren’t in higher demand is our collective shortcoming in marketing our gifts and their value.  We have a tendency to wait until people see a need for us when we should be telling them why we’re so damned valuable.  When you’re rainmaking, that’s exactly what you’re doing.

The trick, of course, is the pitch.  You need to be able to show value to the prospective client.  You need to demonstrate an understanding of what they seem to be trying to accomplish as well as a vision for what they should be trying to accomplish.  You need to make yourself accessible and to let them know that you’re friendly, helpful and something other than a moneysucking mercenary with a keyboard.

I generally make contact with an email.  I’ll follow up with a phone call.  It’s not a chore.  It’s fun.  After all, I’m not hoping to find an ad for a job that would be tolerable.  I’m isolating opportunities that interest and excite me.

Give it a shot.  Take some time to find someone who isn’t necessarily looking for you but who could really use your skills.  Pitch ‘em.  See what happens.  You might be surprised.

Some commenters argued that revshare sites were a credible “first step” for new freelancers. A few maintained that it was possible to generate a sizeable passive revenue stream via revshare contributions. I’m still convinced that my position is correct in most cases and I may eventually get around to answering some elements of those objections in future posts.

This post, however, will address another set of comments. More than one reader remarked that it would be nice to hear about some alternatives to revshare operations. I thought that was a more than valid request. While a pure critique may have value, it’s almost always better to combine one’s attack on one option with a workable alternative.

So, if you think I might just be right about the limited utility of revenue sharing sites, here are a few things you might want to do instead. Consider these options the next time you’re about to tap out another article in hopes of capturing a percentage of someone else’s ad revenue.

Build and Improve Your Own Writing Property

If you don’t have your own website, you should. If you’re serious about establishing yourself as a credible freelancer, you should have some presence on the web. Obviously, the quality and scope of that presence will be even more important if you plan to focus on ‘Net-based markets. Your site is a means by which people can find you, learn more about you, discover your skills and contact you. It’s important.

Consider spending some of the time you’d otherwise dedicate to revshare contributions to building or improving your existing website and related elements of your online presence. Admittedly, these efforts don’t directly generate revenue. However, they do create the foundation you need to secure better gigs. In the longer term, it’s a much better investment than revshare work.

Build and Improve Your Own Other Properties

Instead of funneling your awesome articles to a non-appreciative revenue sharing site, keep ‘em for yourself. Build a site or blog dedicated to whatever non-writing topic that happens to trip your trigger or in which you have expertise. If you’d love to be a subject matter writing specialist, hone in on that subject area.

You can buy a domain for under ten bucks. You can get hosting for under five bucks per month. It’s free to install and use WordPress if you’d like. It’s a teeny tiny investment that can really pay off. Even if you’re not interested in aggressively promoting and monetizing the site, you can still point potential clients to your work, making it a showcase for your writing skills and knowledge base. If you do put forth a little effort, you can probably start earning just as much from your posts to your own site as you can with your revshare submissions.

Spend the Time Marketing Yourself or Pursuing Paying Gigs

Tom Chandler, the head honcho at The Copywriter Underground, recently commented on a post at my site. The rant in question objected to the way people automatically tend to make assumptions about one’s position on all freelance writing issues based on one’s position with respect to a single topic. I illustrated my complaint by referencing some of the comments left at my anti-revshare post. In his comment, Tom made a point about the world of lower-paying gigs that certainly applies to writing for revenue sharing outlets:

I firmly believe that investing the same time spent writing $10 articles in new biz development (cold calls, client searches, etc) offers better ROI down the road.

He’s right, too. In most cases, the return on smart self-marketing has the potential swamp the value of revshare contributions other lower paying gigs. If you’re ready to give up on collecting fractions of Adsense clicks, you might want to spend your time working to secure more substantial opportunities.

Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I think lower-paying options are a mistake for all people under all circumstances.  That will probably become clear as I keep moving through my list, but I just wanted to point that out.

Take a Crappy Writing Job or Two

The alternatives presented thus far don’t directly put cash in the coffers and I know that’s an issue for many people. If you’re ready to give up on the revshare game but aren’t ready to wait to bring in at least some cash, reach out and take a few gigs that don’t pay particularly well.

If you do, you’ll make some money. Not much, but it will be as much as you’d make with revenue sharing contributions in the short run (actually, it will actually be a little more). Plus, it will give you something you don’t get by writing for the revshare sites–a real human contact on the other end of the transaction.

If you’re completely new to the game, the process of working with an individual will help you get experience with client communication, invoicing and all of the other processes that will become a part of your freelance writing business. That low payer may be willing to spend more money with you when he or she sees how damn awesome you are. He or she may spread the word to others who could use a writer. He or she can certainly write a positive review or testimonial you can use in your own marketing efforts. The nickel and dime material you write will show up somewhere, and you’ll be able to point future prospective clients in its direction. And trust me–those articles will carry as much, if not more cache, with future potential clients than something tossed up at AC or Infobarrel.

A few el cheapo gigs can put a foot in the door while dropping a little change in your pocket. The gigs at the shallow end of the rate pool may not be what you want in the long run, but if you need a few quick bucks and something that passes for experience, they’re probably better than an article at Bukisa.

Those low-pay gigs aren’t hard to find. If anything, they might be too easy to find. The Internet marketing forums are crawling with potential clients and Craigslist is overflowing with “I need ten articles about _____”-style clients.

Work for a Slightly Better Mill

Instead of writing revshare articles, you could always write for a content mill that pays you a little more than the potential of future money. It will only take you about thirty seconds to find a year’s supply of articles and blog posts decrying sites like Demand Studios and other pay-per-piece content mills. I’m not interested in answering the complaints. I’m not interested in defending this option, either.

This option and snagging a few lower-paying gigs may not be great ideas for everyone. Some folks may benefit more from some of the other ideas. I’m just saying that it makes more sense than writing for most of the revenue sharing sites.

Volunteer Your Talents

If your goal is experience and an opportunity to create materials you can use to prove your competency to others, consider volunteering your writing talents to make the world a better place. Offer someone engaged in a charitable pursuit a little pro bono copy.

No, it doesn’t pay. Then again, revshare doesn’t usually pay much. You’ll be trading a little hunk of dough for a much heftier hunk of feeling good, I guess. Oh, and pointing others toward this material will undoubtedly work better than showing them your ListMyFive posts.

I was going to put “Try Your Hand at Affiliate Marketing” on the list, but decided it wasn’t a great fit. Even stripped down versions of so-called “bum” article marketing strategies require a great deal of non-writing work. It’s a credible option for those who want to learn how to make it work, but it just didn’t feel like it was part of the same world, so to speak. That applies to a few other online moneymaking plans that involve content production, as well.

Well, there you have ‘em–a few alternatives to writing for revshare sites for new writers. I think they’re all credible alternatives to using your professional skills to supply user-generated content to sites willing to pay you only a fraction of the ad revenue they generate and that have so many other shortcomings.

I mentioned my overall disdain for involvement with most revenue sharing sites in the front-end of my post and thought I’d go into a little more detail about why I feel the way I do.  I’d hate to think that my story of an exception to the rule would encourage anyone to dive headfirst into the revshare waters.

Here are four reasons freelancers shouldn’t be contributing to revenue sharing sites–and why there are occasional exceptions to the anti-revshare rule.

Note:  Just to be clear, I’m talking about sites that will accept your article submissions and will subsequently pay you based on a percentage of ad revenue the article generates, the number of page views it attracts or some other secret formula.  That includes a massive number of sites including Associated Content, Bukisa, Infobarrel and others.  While sites like Squidoo and Hubpages may have additional utility to some Internet marketers, many writers utilize them as “pure” revshare outlets, as well.  Though some revshare sites (like Associated Content) may offer a nominal up-front payment, the criticisms still tend to stick.

PAYMENT UNCERTAINTY

If you’re writing for a hobby and aren’t actually worried about using the income you generate to pay the bills, revenue sharing sites may occasionally provide you with a little pocket money.  If you feel an overwhelming urge to express yourself on a pet topic and think you might expand your audience via use of a revshare site, you might also make a little dough while standing on principle.  Who knows?

Nobody knows.  And that’s a problem.

Those of us who actually rely upon our earnings to pay the bills should be acutely aware of what we’re making and how much time/effort/etc. it requires.  When you fire off an article to a revenue sharing site, you have absolutely no idea what you’ll make.

Sure, you can make predictions based on past experience.  Overall, you may be able to project your like per article earnings over any given time.  However, making safe assumptions requires a sufficiently large sample size and an adequate period to assess results.  So, you’re going to be sinking a fair amount of time into a revshare experiment before you can even do that.  And once you have done it, you’ll realize that those averages are just that–averages.

Some articles may perform admirably.  Others will turn out to be nearly useless.  In time, you’ll begin to think you’re developing a strong feel for what works and what doesn’t.  You’ll improve your keyword analysis and selection skills.  You’ll learn to write the “right” way for the sites.  Then, you’ll discover that the highs and lows are still far removed from the average.

My lucky article may very well earn over a grand before it dies.  Others in the same niche with superior keyword optimization (produced at the same time as the lucky one) have earned next to nothing by comparison.

Why do some kick ass while others lurk unseen in the back of the Internet’s junk drawer?  It could be just about anything.  Maybe someone more serious than your revshare mill of choice decided to go after the same keyword.  Maybe your article caught a lucky backlinking break.  Perhaps Google just hiccupped and the algo failed (or succeeded, I suppose) to your benefit.  The list could go on and on for pages, but all of the potential explanations share one thing in common–they’re out of your control.

So, unless you’re planning on doing a lot of tracking, refining, and writing for the revshare sites, youR likely earnings for any individual piece of work is virtually impossible to predict.

Again, that’s fine if you don’t care about money.  If you do, it’s an ugly state of affairs.

SITE CHANGE RISK

When you sell your work in a revenue sharing environment, you’re almost telling the buyer to pay you whatever they’d like, whenever they’d like.  You’re also agreeing to trust them to present their site, themselves and your article in an effective manner.  That’s a whopper of an agreement.

What happens when your favorite revshare site decides they need to keep more of the cash their content is earning and they opt to change their payout system?  You’re at their mercy.  Check the terms to which you agreed when making a submission.  In a best case scenario, you may have the right to yank the material off the site.  Whoopee.  Where are you going to sell it now that it’s been out there for months or years and has been scraped by a million lousy sites operated by those who really don’t have a grasp on intellectual property right?  Are you just going to try to dump it on another revshare site?  Check their terms with respect to material being previously unpublished.  Oh, and remember these five reasons why the whole strategy tends to stink in the first place, too.

What happens if the revshare site decides to make changes in their structure, promotion or design and Google isn’t happy with them?  Tough luck, Bub.  What if those changes result in inferior ad placement and fewer click?  Sorry.  What if the whole site shuts down or changes direction?  You’re back to square one.

When you start performing those incredibly imperfect revenue projections, they don’t account for these “risk of ruin” situations.  Once again, unpredictability is a huge problem.

CRAPPY PAYMENT

Revshare sites don’t pay much.  If they paid a lot, they couldn’t make money for the people running them.  That’s not an insult to site operators.  It’s a fact.  You’re getting a percentage of your contribution to a business that’s based on volume–and unless you’re a two-handed army, you probably aren’t a volume producer.

I know the idea of creating a passive income stream is enticing.  The thought that you could eventually just sit back and watch the residuals pour into your bank account is the stuff of dreams.  However, it just doesn’t happen absent insane volume.

Every day, I see people talking about how to maximize their revshare earnings.  They provide tips for others who’d like to give it a shot.  You could write a five-volume dissertation on revenue sharing strategy.

Do you know what I don’t see very often?  Credible evidence that anyone is really making a living from revshare article money.  That’s not because the big winners are keeping their success on the down low.  It’s because the success stories are so few and far between.

Look at your flawed per article earnings projections.  Now, do the math.  How many of those revshare articles will you need to write to be in a position to develop a truly meaningful (and, we should remember, always at-risk) revenue stream?  Big number, right?

Now, ask yourself how much you could make per article if you wrote them for a reasonable payment.  Multiply that number by the total you’d need for your dream passive income stream?  One last question:  Would you rather have that amount of dough in your coffers months or years earlier or would you prefer to roll the dice on the value of your high volume output?

That shouldn’t be a hard question to answer.

EXTRA WORK

The revshare hint-givers will tell you that you need to promote your articles in order to encourage the page views necessary to generate a reasonable income.  When you’re playing the revshare game, you’re not just a writer.  You’re an Internet marketer.  Unfortunately, you’re marketing someone else’s product for a potential share of advertising revenue.

I don’t know about all of you, but my workload is heavy enough without becoming a backlink builder for a third party in hopes that it might make my little article slightly more valuable.

When I look at some of the strategies I see people using to promote their revenue sharing articles, I scratch my head in utter amazement.  If those individuals built a simple landing page for a product with an affiliate program and promoted it with equal vigor, they’d make much more than they do helping the revshare mills.

Even if you put that alternative aside, anyone playing with revshare must account for the time and energy expended in the promotion of their content when determining whether process is anything other than silly.  That means taking opportunity cost into consideration.  What could you do instead of promoting your content and would it be more or less valuable than what you’re doing?  Just about anything is going to be a better deal, by the way.  That includes walking your neighbors dog for the change he found under his couch cushion.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

Sometimes there are moments where a revshare article may make sense.  However, most of them don’t apply to folks who consider themselves to be writers exclusively.

In some cases, they can be used as a means of backlink development.  They serve as a paying version of article directories like EzineArticles.com.  Of course, that is limited only to those sites that don’t over-restrict your ability to successfully link out to the site(s) of your choice.  One should also do that only if they can find a series of revshare sites that don’t insist on completely original content–those links, after all, aren’t that valuable considering the sites upon which they appear and the likely Google mojo of your article’s page.  This exception would also include those who are experimenting with variations of “bum marketing” and other article-driven marketing strategies.

In other cases, one can use a series of revshare articles as a means of adding to an overall presence on the web.  It’s not that valuable for a freelance writer, but some businesses may find it worthwhile to improve the number of search results featuring company names or non-competitive business-specific keywords.  That would also apply to those who might use the revshare outposts as a means of pushing back other search results as part of an overall reputation management plan.

There are rare cases where one may have surplus content due to a client’s order cancellation or some other bit of weirdness where dumping the stuff on a revshare site or two would be a better option than letting it rot.  However, there are usually better options available–even for those who aren’t interested in using the content to create their own sites.

There may be situations where the revshare component of providing an article to a website is secondary to the exposure it may provide.  If a top-notch site that attracts the specific audience you’d like to reach is willing to toss a little coin at you, that wouldn’t be the end of the world.  However, if it’s not the kind of place for which you’d write GRATIS anyway (i.e. a wonderful guest-posting opportunity at an authority site in your niche), the revshare probably won’t be enough to tip the scales.

IF YOU INSIST ON DOING REVSHARE WORK

If, for some unfathomable reason, you just can’t bring yourself to give up on the idea of writing articles for revenue sharing sites, at least try to participate in the most sensible way possible.  That would mean:

• Spending very little time writing each article
• Streamlining your keyword analysis process
• Targeting the best revshare sites
• Looking for opportunities to use the content in multiple revshare settings
• Automating the bulk of your article promotion efforts

Even then, in the immortal words of WOPR, “The only way to win is not to play.”  At least that’s the way I see it.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Writing for revenue sharing sites is not the road to riches.  It’s not the road to a middle class existence.  It’s not even the road off food stamps for most people.  There are better ways to make more money.

This is coming from someone who has experimented with the option and who often finds himself on the opposite side of the “fair rate” debate with those who argue against the so-called exploitation of writers.  In other words, if I’m telling you it’s a bad idea…  Well, I really think it’s a bad idea.

I can’t wait to hear from those who do the revenue sharing thing to tell me how I’m wrong.  I would love to find out if they’ve “cracked the code” and make a solid living from a revshare passive revenue stream.  Really.  All I can tell you is there are plenty of folks talking about how they’re working toward that goal and not too many who have reached it.

To me, it’s all a matter of making the smartest possible choices with the most important finite commodity you have–your time.  On an hour-per-hour basis, it looks like there are much more lucrative things one could be doing.

So, am I wrong on this?  Let me know.  I can’t imagine that I’m too far off-base, but I’m more than willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.

FYI: Per commenter request, I’ve put together a list of alternatives to revenue sharing sites.

Brett Giddens has a slightly less dramatic secret life.  Then again, he’s a real person.  He’s an Oklahoma high school basketball coach by day who spends his nights singing in small casinos as an Elvis impersonator.

I have a secret day/night life, too.  Mine doesn’t rival the Angel story and it isn’t as fun as Giddens’ tale.

Sometimes, in the evening, I write things that pay next to nothing.  And I do it just for fun.

Tonight, I noticed a content writer on a forum who mentioned that she was struggling with a deadline and had some overflow work to do.  I couldn’t resist.  Within an hour I was composing a series of six SEO articles on an incredibly uninteresting topic.  I just finished them moments ago.

Last night, I signed up for a little-known content writing site that supplies material to webmasters who believe the road to awesome SEO is paved with short keyword-heavy articles.  I actually wrote one of the entry-level articles for a rate that would make even the staunchest content mill supporter blush.

When I’m done with this post, I might take a minute to write a “Top Five” list at ListMyFive.com, which may or may not produce more than a dollar in annual ad share revenue.

Brett swivels his hips for Oklahoma grannies willing to take a break from the slot machines.  Angel scoured the sad streets of late night LA for tricks while avoiding murderers.  I check forums and search out low-rent content sites.

I don’t spend much time on these endeavors–just an hour or or so here and there.  Sometimes, I’ll do a little something as a break in the action between my everyday work.

Why?

Why would an honor student become a hooker?  Why would a seemingly normal guy want to paste fake sideburns to his face and singe “In the Ghetto”?  Who knows?

Okay, Angel had to do it to make ends meet.  North Oaks was an expensive school.  And lots of people dig Elvis.  I suppose I do need more of an explanation than they do.

Here’s why I maintain my secret life:

• I’m buying my neighbor’s 150cc Tank scooter and I don’t want my wife to find out.  Thus, I need secret cash.  That’s not really why I do these things, but it will be fun to buy it without anyone knowing how or where I got the dough.
• It’s a nice change of pace from the rest of what I do.  I guess it’s sort of like those perfectly normal people who have an inexplicable love of a stupid sitcom or who spend hours reading the worst romance novels you can find at a granny’s garage sale.  It’s a mental break.  I turn the brain off and play with words for awhile.
• It’s a zero pressure situation.  I don’t need to sweat every word.  I don’t need to play with multiple title variations or fix that inadvertent use of the passive voice in the third paragraph.  It’s a liberating kind of writing because, quite frankly, almost anything goes.
• I meet cool people.  Many of the folks I’ve met doing things like this turn out to be good buddies and great people.  Some are new writers who are just getting started.  Some are experienced content writers who grind out articles on the side.  Some have no idea of what in the hell they are doing–but they’re still cool.
• Occasionally, real opportunities emerge.  Occasionally, you’ll accidentally kick open a door that leads somewhere more interesting and more lucrative.  It doesn’t happen most of the time, but it does happen.  In other cases, I’ve been able to do something for someone and then convince them to do more/better/different/etc.  That’s always fun!

How about you?  Do you have a secret life?  Do you do things that would make Angel blush?  Maybe you impersonate Elvis Costello instead of Elvis Presley?  Are you churning out Associated Content articles under a pen name?  Watching sitcoms?  Are you racing me to find these stray gigs at odd hours?

I can think of few sillier endeavors.

Money Talks

The ICSC thinks ad spends should go to the producers of rock-solid content.  That wouldn’t be a bad argument if they could convincingly demonstrate that an investment in top drawer material would yield a superior return on investment compared to buying space with the content mills.  If they could prove the link between “quality” content and higher profits, they wouldn’t even need to worry about the mills.  The market would dismiss them and they would wither away, as do all non-competitive business models.

Unfortunately, they don’t appear to be winning the argument.  As Mike Shields noted, the content mills are generating massive traffic numbers and they supply advertisers with highly-targeted eyeballs very efficiently.  Companies spend dough to make dough, not to support an organization’s interpretation of what constitutes proper writing.  When they see a positive ROI with the mills, they take their wallets to the mills.  It’s that simple.  Right now, they’re lining up at the mills.

Constantine von Hoffman noted that there are already sources of content that would undoubtedly meet any standards the Council might cook up.  We all know that The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. are there for us.  Their content tends to rank well, too.  Oh, and they get good traffic.  Yet the money isn’t flowing in their direction–at least not enough of it to keep the big boys plump and happy.  Why do these quality sources with trained professional editors and acclaimed writers struggle while an army of cut-rate freelancers and the mills who pay them thrive?

Welcome to today’s economic realities.  You might think they’re ugly.  You might not like them.  They are real.  The mills are delivering bang for advertising bucks.  As long as they continue doing so, all of the quality credentialing in the world won’t make a difference.

Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe the big ROI lies far, far away from the mills.  If all of those people are putting their cash in the wrong spots, all the Council needs to do is to present those facts.  If they could conclusively demonstrate that spending with sites that carry a higher grade of content would increase profitability over the alternative, the alternative would be gone.  Poof.  No need to credential a single word.

A Problem with Standards

The Council’s initial proposals with respect to content quality don’t really do anything to change the character of the allegedly rotten mill pieces.  They quickly recognized that the subjective nature of writing quality made it impossible to set standards.

Instead, Ellie Behling notes:

The point of the guidelines is not to evaluate content itself — which would be a subjective task — but to develop procedures companies can use in creating or publishing content, said Tim Duncan, executive director of the ICSC.

More specifically, the four principles push for proper fact-checking, clearly stated dates of publication, timely corrections and updates, and clearly displayed credentials of the information sources, according to a release from the council.

Wow.  That’s really going to keep the ‘Net free of shitty content.  Factual content?  Dates?  Corrections?  Credentials?  Give me a break.

When someone writes the 9,278th content mill article about removing stains from your carpet, she can probably manage to maintain factual accuracy.  The mill can slap a date on the page.  She can write up a paragraph discussing her unquestionable qualification to address a common consumer issue.  If someone points out a mistake, I suppose corrections could follow.  That still won’t address common mill-related gripes like

• Redundancy and lack of originality
• A lack of writing talent
• The fact that the article will play well with Google

The standards themselves are ridiculous because they fail to address the real problem ICSC members have with the mills–it’s stealing business, money and power from established industry veterans.  However, if they really went after mill content with the degree of transparency required to ‘fess up to that motivation, they’d be left with no alternative but to engage in obvious, untenable cries to credential or approve content on the basis of whether or not it’s something they like.

They may be trying to get to that point through the backdoor.  Matthew Ingram mentions that another proposed guideline is to ““ensure that all content submitted is vetted by established and qualified editorial reviewers.”  Whatever that means.  Established by whom?  When?  What qualifications?  Why?  What standards should these eminently qualified professionals use?  The questions are legion.

It Starts with a “G”

The Council is tilting at the wrong windmill in the first place.  The content mills exist and currently succeed because they understand something others don’t:  Search.  They know that money word starts with a “G”.

Google.

The mills kick ass on the search engines right now.  Thus, they get the eyeballs.  Thus, it makes sense to spend with them.  If people didn’t rely on search to find the kind of information supplied by mills and their writers, no one would want to partner with them.

Content mills succeed in search because (1)  they’ve figured out the long tail of search, (2) they’re creating content in response to expressed market desires (i.e. providing information for which people are already searching), (3) know how to build G-friendly sites, (4) capably exploit the limitations of Google’s search algorithm and (5) recognize that Google is interested in providing relevant search results, a goal that doesn’t necessarily line up with providing quality results.

Nonetheless, the Council is making content standards a priority instead of fighting Google.  When they do address the issue of search with respect to mills and the perceived deficiency in content quality, they do so very carefully.  Do you think they’re more comfortable griping about the mills than they are in actually confronting the core cause of mill popularity?

After all, as Frank Reed argues

In all honesty, unless the action comes from Google itself …there will be little that will be done. Consumers will have to ultimately judge what content they like or dislike and then advertisers can say whether or not they want to be linked to it.

And for that to happen, someone will need to show Google the err of its ways.  Here’s a hint:  The only persuasive arguments are the ones with dollar signs attached.

I’ve personally maintained that a change will, in time, come from Google.  That won’t happen because some insider Council dislikes crappy content, though.  It will come when actual users grow sick of search results that don’t measure up to their expectations and when Google starts losing numbers because of that dissatisfaction and/or the appearance of alternative means of information organization and acquisition.

Until then, all of the standards, credentials and concern about the allegedly lamentable state of Internet content won’t make much difference.

Note:  I’ve intentionally avoided discussing whether the Council’s initial assumption–that content mill articles carry the stench of inferiority–has any basis in reality.  That’s because (1) I’m not really interested in another discussion of quality, mills and the folks who write for them and (2)  it doesn’t really matter–even if the Council were right, their approach wouldn’t fix any problem. I’ve also intentionally avoided trying to portray the Council as a group of old-schoolers who just don’t “get it” or who are simply scurrying about, looking for a way to preserve their incomes.  While it would be convenient to run with that notion, I don’t think it’s quite fair.  Quite.

Writing for the web is different than writing for print publications. Magazine articles have a lot of help to look pretty for the reader. On the net, many pieces are like the ugly duckling – inside there is a bevy of beauty, but no one can get past the outside. The majority of articles need to be visually appealing for readers to click, stay and link.

White Space

When people pick up a magazine they often go straight to the headline story that captured their attention, but they are mentally ready to settle in for a good long read. People read web articles with a different mindset. These people hop on the net, look for information/news and once found, they scan for important points and main ideas. They don’t want to give a lot of time to a piece unless it’s critically important or if they are in deep research mode – like in the case of government conspiracies or celebrity sex tapes.

Admit it, you’ve clicked on an article only to see paragraph after long paragraph of words and thought, “Oh I don’t have time for this.” In fact, I’d wager people do it more often than they care to admit, which is why white space is needed.

White space refers to the paper or in this case, screen space people see when they look at a page. In other words, row after row of 20 sentence paragraphs – not appealing to the eye. It’s like your neighbor who takes off his shirt to mow the lawn only to expose his shirt made of human hair. Breaking up paragraphs into smaller bite size pieces is like giving your furry neighbor a shirt. The stuff’s still there but now it looks better.

Bullet points help as well. It tells the skimmer, “Here are the important points, cut up and chewed for you.”

Photos

Photos help break up all those pesky words and brighten up the piece. Take hairy neighbor again, put him in front of a wind machine, add a professional photographer and said neighbor becomes rugged and manly. Photos help illustrate the point and mood of the article.

Let’s face it writers, while most people know words and reading are necessary, most don’t value them as much as we do. Look at this period   .    Isn’t it beautiful? A beautiful dot that represents so much – a pause, a finished thought or if you have three of them … an unfinished thought. Literary ants marching to the next set of words if you will… We appreciate it. Everyone else? Slap a shirt on it so they are not bored or horrified.

Visual appeal in web writing is nearly as important as the words. Beautifully crafted and executed articles with great visual appeal are sure to land more hits and links than boring pages full of dense text. Take a look at your pieces to make sure they look as wonderful as they read.

To me, writing for free and allowing that content to be published on websites and in media that will help build awareness, recognition, and loyalty to a brand equates to free advertising.  Rather than investing hundreds or thousands of dollars into advertising placement and creative, you can invest your own time and your own creativity into building awareness, recognition, and loyalty to your brand using your own words and choosing your own “placement” for those words.

The key of course is to evaluate free writing opportunities to determine whether or not they can help you reach your goals in the short or long term.  For example, writing for well-known and popular websites and blogs can help you boost authoritative incoming links to your blog, which helps with your search engine rankings.  Furthermore, writing amazing, shareworthy content that people want to talk about and share with others online helps to further boost your online platform and drive more traffic to your website, assuming you’ve set up a core branded online destination that all of your content leads people back to.  Writing content for free with a strategic marketing plan in mind does far more for building a business than the time it takes to write that content.

With that in mind, everyone has to start somewhere.  Is there value for beginner writers to publish content on free article sites and other sites that have reputations of publishing low quality content?  Looking at it from a marketing perspective, my answer is — it depends.  Does the site have strong linking potential that can bring more attention to your content than you can get on your own blog or website?  If so, it might be worth it to publish some content on that site and drive some link juice for your own branded online destination.  If the free site doesn’t have a strong presence of its own that has the ability to draw attention to your content, then there is little benefit to publishing content there.  You’d be better off writing your own high-quality blog and seeking out guest posting opportunities on larger, authoritative blogs to build your online presence and links back to your branded destination.

Bottom-line, there is more to the argument of whether or not a writer should write for free than the simple debate of how much your time is worth.  There are few occupations where you can prove your own abilities and worth thanks to the ability to publish content online.  Writing is one of them, so think strategically and choose writing opportunities that lead you to your ultimate goals.  If writing for free to raise your online exposure, build incoming links to your own branded destination to boost search traffic, and demonstrate your skills and talent will help you build your career (and I’d be hard-pressed to find any business or entrepreneur who could argue against those three objectives), then you should integrate the best opportunities into your marketing plan.  Free advertising is something companies looking to grow would be crazy to miss, and if you’re trying to grow your writing business, you shouldn’t discount it either.

Of course, being strategic in choosing free writing opportunities is the key.  You always want to make sure your brand is associated with sites and other content that is representative of your own brand promise.  Building incoming links to enhance your online presence and boost your search engine rankings in order to generate more traffic to your website and more business is important, but you should never sacrifice your brand promise by confusing consumers and clients.  Always make sure free writing opportunities truly benefit you and your business before you dive in.

Finally, while there may come a time when a free writing opportunity is too good to pass up, you should try to only accept free writing opportunities that allow you to retain ownership of your content.

Image: stock.xchng

A big part of writing is knowing when it’s time to remember that you don’t always have to reinvent the wheel to make an impact on an audience.  If you write evergreen content for a blog or other media that can get lost in the clutter over time, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing that content back out to the front and center of your stage.  The trick is to revive it in a manner that makes it interesting again.

Andrew offered five great tips to do exactly that.  He suggests that to revive old blog posts (and these tips work for various forms of online content) you can do the following:

1. Repost old content, but do so within boundaries so your search engine rankings are not negatively impacted by it.
2. Feature old content in a list such as a “Best of” list.
3. Include a link in a current post to related and valuable content in a past post.
4. Resubmit old posts to social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.
5. Rewrite old posts so they’re not exactly the same as the original but still communicate the same evergreen ideas (with new thoughts added as appropriate).

These are great ideas, and you can follow the link above to read Andrew’s entire article with all of his suggestions for breathing new life into old online content.

The concept also works when you write for multiple clients.  Just because you already wrote about a specific topic for one client doesn’t mean that topic is off limits when it comes time to write for another client.  The key is to rewrite the content for the specific audience that will read it and include unique ideas and concepts each time you write about the same topic.

If you’re an expert in a particular area, then you’ll undoubtedly be called upon to write about similar topics again and again. You’d go out of business if you only wrote about a certain topic for one client then never touched it again.  As long as the words, structure, and voice are unique in each article you write about the same topic, your varied clients will get a piece that their audiences will gain value from.

Bottom-line, great content can live many different lives.  It’s up to you as the writer to give it the various lives it deserves and get it in front of the various clients and audiences that can benefit from it.

What’s your top trick for breathing new life into old content?  Leave a comment and share your tips.

Image: stock.xchng

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.

Prohibitive technology costs and connection speed limitations made graphic-rich pages a gamble.  The idea of communicating with video was laughable.

Now, even cheap laptops come with installed cameras.  Phones and other portable video devices are dirt cheap.  Server space is more than plentiful and those old slow, dial-up connections are rapidly becoming the online version of 8-track tapes.

Video is gaining ground.

Many extremely successful online businesses have virtually abandoned traditional text in favor of video presentations.  Video content, video sales pages, video blogs, video, video, video.

Speaking of which, here’s a video I put together for this post:

This whole video thing really isn’t bad news for writers.

I doubt that the increasing popularity of video will have a negative impact on the amount of writing work available for quite some time.  The size of the overall marketplace for content and copy of all sorts is growing so quickly that more video us shouldn’t have a huge impact on the ability of freelance writers to secure opportunities.

It also creates new opportunities for those who can work with video, whether they offer complete solutions or know how to write effective scripts, etc.

Nonetheless, I think video’s gains are important to those of us who make a living with words.  Even if it’s not influencing our space much today, I can’t help but to think that it eventually will.

Personally, I haven’t done a great deal of video to support my business.  I should probably do more.

Unfortunately, I’m more than a little bit camera shy.  If I could convince myself that I was extremely photogenic, I’d probably do short video blog posts once in awhile along with a few other things.

I can toss together slideshow-style videos very quickly–the one above took about fifteen minutes, top-to-bottom.  No, it’s not Oscar material, but it’s something.  When I spend time on a project, I can actually create some fairly attractive and effective videos.  I do them for a few clients with some regularity.

I think I should develop my video skills, invest in pro-grade video creation and editing software and find a way to overcome my camera shyness.

I’m curious.  What are you doing on this front?

Are you playing with video?  Are you updating your blog with little clips of you chit-chatting directly to your audience?  Are you peppering your site with video?

Are you providing video services to your clients or do you regularly collaborate on video projects?

—

Note:  If you’re still seeing “Obama Girl” bikini as the video’s preview, it wasn’t part of that “use a bikini shot as the preview to drive traffic to your video” strategy.  It was purely accidental.  And it’s been changed.  It just takes YouTube some time to make the thumbnail switch.

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. )

The Big Question

Why do people pay you to write?

Is it because…

• You’re so damn talented?
• They can’t do it themselves?
• You can make the content creation process more efficient?
• Clients love your website and/or pitches?
• You have a special skill or area of expertise?

No.

Those may be reasons why clients choose you over other writers, but people come to the marketplace in the first place for another reason.  They think they can use what you produce to turn a profit.  They want to make money.

Sometimes I wonder if too many online writers spend way too much effort thinking about how to get work now and how to compete for gigs while spending far too little effort thinking about that bigger, core question.  I wonder if many web-based freelancers may be setting themselves up for future struggles because of it, too.

A Change is Gonna Come

That’s not because I foresee a sudden drop in the demand for online content.  On the contrary, I think that a variety of new and even lucrative opportunities is on the horizon.  However, I do question the longer-term viability of many markets upon which writers are building businesses.  I wonder how many writers will survive and/or react as the Internet and the way we use it changes.

In order to protect yourself and your business, it’s important to delve into the reason why demand for writing exists–the profit potential of the output.  That means having both a solid understanding of the strategies clients are employing in pursuit of revenue and the greater trends that will undoubtedly force changes to those strategies and to the marketplace as a whole.

For instance, any writer who isn’t thinking about inevitable changes in the nature of search engines is making a mistake.  The search engines don’t stand still.  Google and its smaller competitors are constantly refining their approaches and there are a number of reasons to believe that they’ll be forced to make some major adjustments in the relatively near future.

Those changes could have a major impact on what are “bread and butter” for many writers.  Traditional article marketing and the mass production “content mill” approach will have a difficult time thriving in an improved search environment.

Last week I posted an interview with SEO Kieran Flanagan here at FWJ.  He made a point of discussing both the changing face of link acquisition for SEO and the growing role of social media in his business.  The days of using 500-word articles at a pre-ordained keyword density level and fueling them with a series of  easy-to-acquire, low-grade links is on its way out.  At the very least, the writing is on the wall.

At my blog, I recently posted about the less-than-rosy long-term future of low-quality content mill work due to market forces within the search sector and the increasingly untenable hypocrisy of Google in terms of how they’ve “banned” paid links yet are allowing other intentional methods of subverting their search algorithm to have an impact on SERPs.

You don’t need to agree with my perspective to recognize that there’s a lot boiling under the surface in the way people find and use information online.  No matter how you think it all might unfold, you can be certain that, in the words of Sam Cooke, “a change is gonna come.”

Preparing for Change

We often talk about the need to spread risk when developing an overall approach to building a freelance writing business.  That need is usually expressed in terms of “not putting all of your eggs in one basket.”  That’s rock-solid advice–in the short run.  In the longer run, it’s just as important to have a sense of what future eggs may look like and if there may be new ways to store them.  Hell, the eggs we gather today may be poisonous before too long and we might all be laughing at the antiquated notion of using baskets.

People pay writers because they want to make money.  Writers who aren’t sufficiently prepared to transition their talents and to apply them to new contexts aren’t going to be in the best position to help clients make money.  Writers who have over-invested in strategies that seem to have a limited lifespan could be setting themselves up for a more difficult future.

That doesn’t mean anyone should abandon any part of his or her business that’s currently producing a nice stream of revenue.  Make hay while the sun is shining.  However, one should probably do that with an awareness of the need to move on to new markets and new approaches once the limitations of those activities start to become increasingly visible.  Otherwise, you might find yourself well behind the curve while other writers profit from being ahead of it.

The Moral to the Story

Continue to focus on being a badass writer who offers the world’s greatest customer service.  Continue to work on distinguishing yourself in the marketplace and do everything you can to become the best choice among those who are looking for a writer.

At the same time, look ahead.  Make a point of learning more about why potential clients are looking for a writer in the first place and study the hell out of the marketplace and the kind of changes in advertising, search, social media, and all of the other things that are going to force changes in the way people conduct business and information acquisition on the ‘Net.

If you’re going to focus on online markets, be smart, nimble, well-informed and an expert in larger trends.

However, I’ve found that working with SEO people doesn’t necessarily involve banging out meaningless junk.  Writers who flat out dismiss SEO content may be missing some great opportunities.

No, it isn’t for everyone.  No, it won’t usually net you a buck per word.  I know there are many freelance writers who will pass even on the sector’s higher-paying work.  That’s a ll a matter of preference and I have zero interest in turning this into Round 1,394,201 of the fight over rates.  I do think people should know that SEO writing is not the mindless, evil drag many imagine it to be.  Well, not always…

But you don’t need to take my word for that.

Kieran Flanagan, who  owns SearchBrat.com and who has extensive professional experience in the SEO sector, was kind enough to answer a few questions about SEO firms and freelance writers.

Kieran is based in Dublin, Ireland.  SEO services are in high demand there and all around the world and I’ve had the opportunity to write for him and have served as something akin to a project manager, organizing and overseeing production of content for some of his projects.

Kieran is a great guy with whom to work and his perspective on writing and search engine optimization is indicative of what I tend to encounter when dealing with the “right” people.  He’s the kind of person I’d recommend to anyone looking for someone to provide link building services.

Don’t get any funny ideas about stealing my client, either.  I’ve asked Kieran to tip me off if anyone tries to muscle in on my turf, lol!

Without further ado, here’s the Q&A:

1. You hire writers and you work in the SEO field, which has a reputation for being more interested in keyword use than in quality writing.  Do you think it’s accurate to describe SEO experts, as a whole, as being focused more on the mechanics than they are on excellent writing?

Most SEO experts do understand the importance of the content they put out. The problem is, a large portion of the SEO industry is made up of people who are not experts and only see content as a means to generate some links.

This isn’t necessarily wrong, you can get a lot of links from low quality articles that have been spun to death. But the landscape of search is changing. Quality of content is just as important, if not more so, than the links you get as a result of that content.

Producing one quality guest blog post can be a lot more beneficial than getting 100 links from spun articles seeded across low level article directories. That guest blog post not only results in a single quality link from a themed site, but also highlights your knowledge on a particular subject and can product traffic in it’s own right.

When building links, you should always ask “Would a user click on this link”

2. What about you, personally?  Do you find yourself in search of great writing or more interested in keeping prices low while simply hitting the “mechanical” benchmarks of density, original content, etc?

I used to try to keep costs low, but we’ve completely changed our view on content. I would prefer to get 10 quality articles that will leave a good impression on a reader, rather than 100 articles with questionable English.

In terms of keyword density and other SEO factors, I only look for a couple of keyword variations to be used in the first couple of paragraphs. Keyword density was never something I paid that much attention to.

3. Many freelance writers are really dismayed at the kind of money they’re offered for “SEO work” like keyword articles.  Can you provide a little insight as to how and why SEO firms pay the way they do?

This is a great question and comes back to what we discussed in the first one. Most SEO firms purchase content in bulk and then plaster it across the web, with very little strategy behind it. They don’t expect the content to be read because it’s only used for links purposes. This results in the SEO firm looking for low level content, with no quality control on it (it doesn’t get proof read). In saying that, there are a huge amount of content houses that service this market by offering extremely low prices. It results in a race to the bottom, putting added pressure on those content services that do offer great articles for a far greater price.

In the end it comes down to knowledge and results. There is always going to be a demand for low quality content as plastering it over the web for links still delivers results.

4. I find myself frequently preaching the virtues of providing clients with insights, recommendations and ideas instead of just “following orders.”  Do you find that’s a valuable asset in a writer or would you prefer a simple “follow the specs and deliver on time” model?

The future of search is going to be massively effected by social media. Although I don’t feel social media has proven itself (in terms of delivering targeted traffic), it has certainly opened up a lot of opportunities when it comes to building links. Generating quality content for your market, that gets picked up by social channels, is a sure fire way of helping your site increase traffic.

This is where there are lots of opportunities for companies who deliver content to partner with SEO firms who understand it’s importance. An SEO expert can research any market and build a mind map consisting of popular keywords (topics) to target. They should be able to hand these of to a company who can deliver quality content around those topics, using familiar language and themes that will resonate with that market. For me there should always be some input by the content team.

5. List the three things you look for when hiring a writer.  What’s important to you?

a. Online Marketing Background – For me it’s critical the writer has a background in online marketing and understands the purpose of each piece of content being produced.

b. Flexibility – This is an fast paced environment and things change a lot. I look for someone who is flexible enough to work around my hectic work load.

c. Quality Content – It goes without saying, I look for someone who can produce quality content.

6. What do you think is the most exciting new development in content creation and SEO?  Is there anything new writers should be learning more about, etc?

For me social media is the biggest shift content writers should be paying attention to. It’s now possible to tap into the very language your market is using, by listening to twitter, facebook etc and create content that will connect with your market. Creating “social content” is something all content writers should be looking at.

The content site discussion is getting old. Some freelance writing bloggers see the merits, others don’t, and neither the twain shall meet. What strikes me about the content site debate is that we focus on one or two evil sites as if they’re the only problem. If we’re going to be discussing the best places for freelance writers to work and caution them against certain other opportunities, I personally feel that there are worse places and those are the ones we should be discussing.

When we debate content, we generally focus on two main issues; pay and poorly written content. When it comes to both of these, I don’t necessarily feel web content sites are the worst offenders. There are other types of freelance writing sites that flood the web with crappy writing and the pay is a lot less or not at all. Yet, most of the time when we see blog posts or articles about these other types of sites they’re along the lines of “the benefits of…”

Today, I’d like to explore some of these sites and discuss why (I feel) they’re  bad idea. I’m really interested in your thoughts as well.

1. Article Directory Sites

Article submission sites are sites that pretty much accept any old article. They’re not listed on freelance writing jobs sites and we don’t discuss them as being a gig, because they’re not. They don’t pay writers and they don’t pretend to be anything but a place to submit writing. However, if we’re going to gripe about content sites not having high standards and flooding the web with bad content, it would behoove us to discuss article directory sites as well.

I never wrote for an article directory site for several reasons, the first is that they didn’t pay and the second is because I’ve seen so much truly bad writing coming from article directory sites that I didn’t want my name associated with them.

Here’s the thing, we hear from many people, even some freelance writers we know well, saying article directory sites are terrific marketing opportunities.

I don’t know about that…

I don’t think an article directory submission is any more terrific than having a bio at the bottom of a guest blog post, personal blog or even a content mill article. Lately all the content I see coming from article directory are marketed to sell products or drive traffic to a blog or website, which makes it all rather spammy. Moreover, more than half the content is poorly written, SEO articles. So how come we don’t see enough folks calling for higher standards on these sites?

Another issue with article directories is the same marketers are submitting the same articles on multiple sites, so the web is being inundated with the same “article” over and over. If the article isn’t well written, then we’re seeing the same really bad piece of writing more than once. Again, I don’t hear too many arguments about this in the “cheap” or “free” web content arguments.

Most people who use article directories are doing so to create links to blogs or websites, build up name and brand recognition and drive readers to a particular product or service. So we can argue that the purpose of the articles submitted to these sites isn’t necessarily to educate. Some folks who use article directory sites also hire writers to create content for them. Since the article directories don’t pay, many times the cheapest possible writers are hired, again flooding the Internet with questionable content. Not all article directory writing is bad, but I’m willing to bet there’s more bad than good.

I personally write off any article found on an article directory site as a marketing tool and don’t use them as resources or tools because I can’t count on the validity of the discussion.

2. Bidding Sites

I used to believe that bidding sites would lower the rates for all writers.  I no longer believe this. I feel there will always be high payers and there will always be low payers and neither has to worry about the other. However, if we’re going to throw out the argument that web content sites are low paying and promote poor writing, we have to go after the bidding sites too.

Disclaimer: Not all bidding site gigs pay .50 cents per article, nor are all bidding site writers of the amateur variety, but there are enough bad to overshadow the good. (Just like content sites)

Here’s the thing: I didn’t last long with bidding sites. The reason I didn’t stick with them is because I couldn’t get work at a decent rate of pay. When I quoted my usual rate I was told I had some nerve bidding so high when I wasn’t even rated. When I showed these potential clients my resume and long list of writing credits, they said it had no bearing. I had to be rated at that website which means I have to start very, very low and work my way up. I didn’t last long.

Another thing about the bidding sites is that they are a true global market place. A bidder in America might think $50 is a decent starting bid (and good luck getting that one), while a bidder in India or Romania might think $1 or $2 is a decent starting bid. No matter what you bid, there’s always someone willing to go lower. Granted, there are clients who are willing to go higher, but I don’t see clients paying over $10 or $15 as being the norm. Most bidding site clients are looking for the lowest bid possible. Moreover, there are plenty of unrealistic expectations. For example, 100 articles needed in a two week period. A person bidding $2 a pop on 100 articles about anti-freeze isn’t going to put in a best effort. I’d like to submit that bidding sites are a major contributor to poor content on the web, yet I don’t see many people raising torches or pitchforks in front of these castles.

(We”ll be exploring a popular bidding site a little later this week).

3. Crowdsourcing

Crowdsourcing is another way of getting something for nothing. It’s sort of like a big hippie commune of everyone working together to produce a product because of the good vibes. You might see crowdsourcing in action on Twitter or Facebook without even knowing it. Rather than head to the library or even the closest search engine, someone might research by asking questions on the social network and gathering the answers. The problem with this is, many of the responses are long on opinion and not always factually correct. (Don’t come after me, I said, “not always” which is different from “never.)

Crowdsourcing is more than research. There are plenty of people who don’t want to spend money to hire freelancers for design or writing projects and crowdsource instead. The problem here is that the idea of crowdsourcing takes front and center over utilizing qualified people for campaigns and projects. Yeah, I’m all about the social media love, but sometimes I think we take it to the extreme. Not everything has to be so Up with People.

Crowdsourcing can be sort of an open audition. Big corporations are crowdsourcing projects where hundreds of people compete and maybe one person will land a paying (or non-paying) contract. It can also be a call for ideas. For example a business may ask for slogan or design ideas and open up a forum for discussion. They don’t have to hire a team for the creativity and brainstorming process, because folks from all over are offering thoughts for free. Eventually the winning idea will have cost nothing but a little time and web hosting space. With so many people willing to give away their ideas, why not do away with freelancing altogether?

PLR or Private Label Rights Articles

PLR or Private Label Rights articles are inexpensive article packages sold to webmasters and ebook compilers to use as often as they like. This means the same set of ten or twenty articles about dogs can be sold to 25 different people and spun as many ways as possible to produce completely new articles. PLR writers will tell you this is a lucrative package – selling the same ten articles to $25 people for $60 a package but that’s not always the case. Also, since the purchasers now own the rights to spin the content as often as they like, PLR articles are responsible for putting the same bad content out many times over.

Now, like all of the above, not everyone who writes for these sites are hacks producing poor work for little money.  My biggest problem is with the article spinning. Even if it’s the greatest writing in the world, do I want to see the same article posted over and over again on the web? Some webmasters only require enough changes for the writing to pass a CopyScape test. They’re looking for inexpensive content, not originality. If we’re going to discuss bland web writing, then why aren’t we talking more about PLR and article spinning?

Why am I talking about this?

I’m tired of the web content site debate. (I know I’m just as guilty as everyone else, but go with me until the end, please. I swear there’s a point to all this.)

Web content sites aren’t the only reason the web is polluted with garbage. Web content sites aren’t the only places that take advantage of writers. I’d like to submit that web content sites are a convenient scapegoat. There are other types of freelance writing sites that we should also discussing with our readers. There are plenty of places that use cheap, poorly written and even plagiarized content. There are plenty of places that don’t pay writers well at all.  If we’re going to show anger, let’s give it where it’s deserved.

Lots of places take advantage of writers and cheap content.

Why don’t we talk about them? ]]> http://www.freelancewritinggigs.com/2010/03/four-types-of-freelance-writing-sites-we-should-be-talking-about/feed/ 19 http://www.freelancewritinggigs.com/2010/03/demand-studios-now-accepting-uk-and-canadian-writers/ http://www.freelancewritinggigs.com/2010/03/demand-studios-now-accepting-uk-and-canadian-writers/#comments Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:06:37 +0000 Deborah Ng http://www.freelancewritinggigs.com/?p=7572 [Read more…]]]> Full Disclosure: Demand Studios is a sponsor for this site. This means I can have first shot at breaking their news, if I’m so inclined. Today, I’m so inclined.