Another Writer Mill: Atlantic Publishing Co. (APC)

I seem to be on a kick of discussing professional wastes of time, which I'm calling writer mills. These organizations bring in writers, grind them for whatever word juice is available, and pay a pittance. Now there's another to add to the list: Atlantic Publishing Company (APC).

Recently I've mentioned Helium and Demand Studios. Both share some telling characteristics and give insight into the institution of the writer mill:

• The pay makes burger flipping seem like glamorous high-rolling.
• The only way to really make money is to let quality fly to the winds, because you almost need to end the assignments before they start to make a reasonable dollar per hour figure.
• They constantly advertise for new writers, suggesting the deal is so bad that they cannot keep people around for long.
• (Bonus Characteristic) They have executives scouring the web, looking for potential criticism and trying to counter it.

On the first three points, APC seems to be lining up as a classic writer mill. The company advertises fairly frequently. Here's the copy of an ad on JournalismJobs.com (though the ad is set to expire on July 29:

Atlantic Publishing is looking for writers in various fields to write books on subjects such as: Building, Cooking, Farming/Animals, Gardening, Arts/Crafts, Recycling, Internet/Technology, Business/Investing, Real Estate, Finance, Parenting, Pets, Publishing, Education, and Self-Help. This position is a freelance opportunity. The payment varies from project to project. Writers are not required to reside in Ocala, FL, work may be done anywhere in the United States. If you are interested please contact Amanda Miller at amiller@atlantic-pub.com with your resume and writing sample.

I was curious at one point this year and replied to one of the ads. Here's what they said in an email about their projects:

Because we have many manuscripts that need to be rewritten, and each are in different stages of writing, the amount of work that needs to be done will vary. Some of the material in the manuscript may be useable [sic] or the book may need to be rewritten completely. Some sections may just require you to revise information to make the material up-to-date or reorganize. We would like to hear your comments on the manuscript, how much work you feel needs to be done, and how you can contribute to the book.

On the low end it's supposed to be copy editing, and the upper bound is full rewrite. Given that range of scope, what do you think they might pay? Here's the answer:

Upon acceptance of your bid we will e-mail you our freelance author agreement ( work for hire), and research material to complete the work. Typical time frames run from 30 days to 90 days for completion, we pay upon acceptable stages of completion, we check all manuscripts against proprietary plagiarism software, and we typically pay from $500.00 - $1,600.00 depending on the scope of the work involved. Many of our authors have completed several manuscripts for us. We give you full credit on the cover, in online databases such as R.R. Bowker, Amazon.com, B&N.com, and recorded CIP data in the library of congress.

Oh, goody -- credit. And a full typical $1,600 to completely rewrite a flipping book on a work for hire basis (though technically books don't quality for work made for hire under U.S. copyright law). That even makes a publisher like Adams Media, known in the industry for its relatively low fees, seem like a spendthrift. No wonder they check manuscripts with plagiarism software, because they're barely paying enough for a chapter. Why does any writer mill think that people will slave away for laughable sums? Because they get enough inexperienced ones to do so and know when they leave, dejected and squeezed, there will be others whose credulity and eagerness to "get into the business" will leave them vulnerable.

The only point I couldn't verify was the bonus characteristic of whether their executives also troll online, looking for anyone that might question their practices. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Demand Studios Responds

Yesterday, I posted a criticism of pay rates at Demand Studios, calling them "nothing more than intellectual sweat shop piece work." I received a comment from Jeremy Reed, senior vice president for content at Demand. Because I didn't want this to be buried, and also wanted to directly address his points, I decided to treat it in a separate post. Here is the entirety of his response; my points will follow:

I want you to consider this argument.

I freelanced for too many years in my twenties. As a writer just out of college and with no (or few) clips, I hustled to get as much writing experience as possible and as many bylines on different topics in multiple publications. I did not make a lot of money, but it did lead to a good career in publishing.

Looking back, I came across a number of parasites and just generally bad people along the way in the freelance world. There were many publications that paid nothing. There were many publications who checks arrived months late or never. There were many publications I pitched tirelessly for years w/o ever having any article see the light of day. There were many publications with untrained or tired copy editors who butchered my content and sometimes even added wrong facts - but kept my name on the article. Those are just some of the bad experiences - there are plenty more.

We can argue whether or not we are paying a fair wage at Demand. It is a valid point. But, consider all the other time sucks and hurdles Demand cuts down or removes: 1) You don't have to pitch, if you remain qualified you can grab work at any time, any hour; 2) you get constructive feedback on every article you write. We invest in making the writer better because it also makes good business sense; 3) we pay every single Friday for all work done through the Wednesday of that week -- yes, that means you can get paid as early as two days after turning in work; 4) we've offered the chance to get your original work - video and text - published on LIVESTRONG.com, Trails.com, GolfLink.com, and eHow.com -- both also third parties like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; and 5) we are smart about how we've built this so you can expect more work (and have) as opposed to less work from week to week.

I do agree it is not for every writer or even for certain ones at different points in their careers. But, it does fill a need for a writer who wants a steady paycheck, who wants to get better at their craft, and who wants unlimited amounts of work at any hour of the day.

Thanks for considering my thoughts. I only took the time to write because I respect the points you made.

Best,
Jeremy Reed
SVP, Content at Demand Studios

Now I'll address the various points in his post:

I freelanced for too many years in my twenties. As a writer just out of college and with no (or few) clips, I hustled to get as much writing experience as possible and as many bylines on different topics in multiple publications. I did not make a lot of money, but it did lead to a good career in publishing.

Certainly when you have no experience, you need to get some, and I understand that you see yourself as having a background in freelancing. But to assume that a new freelancer cannot make money is an invalid assumption. Yes, you need a few clips to get started, but as those in the business know, you can almost immediately start moving up the value chain, to use some business-speak. Each piece you do goes to leveraging your knowledge, talent, skill, and craft into better markets. To that end, low-paying and low-prestige markets have to go to the wayside quickly. These are the simple mathematics of the business.

Looking back, I came across a number of parasites and just generally bad people along the way in the freelance world. There were many publications that paid nothing. There were many publications who checks arrived months late or never. There were many publications I pitched tirelessly for years w/o ever having any article see the light of day. There were many publications with untrained or tired copy editors who butchered my content and sometimes even added wrong facts - but kept my name on the article. Those are just some of the bad experiences - there are plenty more.

Yes, there are many bad, incompetent, insensitive, and untalented people in the business. One of the best ways out of such experiences is to generally move up the value chain as quickly as possible. The more people are paying you, the more they value you and, paradoxically, the better they tend to feel like they need to treat you. Markets that require more capable reporting and writing cannot afford to develop a bad name, or they risk alienating the writers they need to create the content that will attract the proper reader demographic and advertising that follows.

We can argue whether or not we are paying a fair wage at Demand. It is a valid point. But, consider all the other time sucks and hurdles Demand cuts down or removes: 1) You don't have to pitch, if you remain qualified you can grab work at any time, any hour; 2) you get constructive feedback on every article you write. We invest in making the writer better because it also makes good business sense; 3) we pay every single Friday for all work done through the Wednesday of that week -- yes, that means you can get paid as early as two days after turning in work; 4) we've offered the chance to get your original work - video and text - published on LIVESTRONG.com, Trails.com, GolfLink.com, and eHow.com -- both also third parties like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; and 5) we are smart about how we've built this so you can expect more work (and have) as opposed to less work from week to week.

I am glad that you acknowledge the criticism of low pay. However, your arguments as to the benefits of Demand Studios are actually incorrect, for the following reasons:

• When you are paid little, you must do much more work to try to keep afloat. This keeps you from putting proper attention into marketing that can help you move up the value chain. So, effectively, you become an indentured servant or a worker who must live in company housing and shop at the company store, because you don't make enough to walk away.
• Pitching ideas is one of the key ways to establish additional value to publications. Yes, it's nice if someone hands you a story topic, but it's far better to create your own and develop your own market. That way you are less dependent on the kindness of strange editing. Or something like that.
• The best feedback generally comes from the best publications. Given the rates you pay to copy editors, you aren't paying enough to get the amount of attention required for really solid insight into copy. And given the volume of articles in which you traffic, your in house people cannot have the time, either, to provide really useful feedback on any kind of a consistent basis. Either your entire operation is based on massive volume, or you're marking up the work of writers to an unconscionable degree. Given the markets on which you seem to focus, I strongly suspect the former. And so the entire operation is trapped by the need to churn out copy. In effect, it also lives in company housing and shops at the company store. There are no resources to improve things.
• You say you invest in making the writer better, but that is also contradictory, because you only survive through writers getting starvation wages - and given the rates I've been hearing, and you seem to acknowledge them - I'm not indulging in hyperbole. You can't afford for the writers to improve to the extent that they can make a living elsewhere.
• Quick payment is nice, but given that you lose maybe 2.5 percent value for each month delay, even a three month wait, which would be 7.5 percent, still leaves you far ahead if the assignment is paying at least 10 times more than Demand Studios will pay. That would still leave the writer making 9.25 times as much, including the time value lost.
• When you talk about the chance to have work on a number of sites that apparently are your own as well as third party sites, that's a variation on the "do it for the exposure" argument. As I've demonstrated in the past, working for exposure is foolish. You need exposure to the right markets (that is, editors who might pay), and that comes in the greatest degree from the highest prestige publications in your given niche. Exposure value is roughly directly proportional to pay, and the better paying markets don't have to mention the exposure value because it is an added benefit.
• Of course you are smart in how you've done this, because you're getting copy at dirt cheap rates and presumably selling it at a good mark-up. But smart for you isn't smart for writers.
• To say that this fills a need for writers who want a steady paycheck is disingenuous. It's not a steady paycheck, which would mean guaranteed work, like a job. It's a steady flow of absurdly priced work that leaves you stuck where you are. In business and marketing classes I've taught to writers, I've seen people get stuck in this way at even 25 cents a word, and that would be a huge step up from your rates.
• Unlimited work doesn't exist, because people have limited time. Better to do one piece well than to rush through and do crap jobs on ten pieces for the same amount. You have more time to think, to market, to live. And, to avoid the anticipated argument, getting $300 for a single article is still chicken feed.

I do appreciate Mr. Reed for having written, but I simply could not allow it up as an unchallenged comment. Such arguments need to be clearly deconstructed so writers can see what it is they are being asked to do.

No Demand for Demand Studios

You've probably seen the Demand Studios ads on such places as JournalismJobs.com and Mediabistro. They want experience, they want productivity, they want ... trust fund babies. A thread on Mediabistro's forum is worth reading for comments like this:

I had the same experience when Demand launched the Livestrong site. They asked for cycling and/or medical experts. I was offered work: 10 articles, $300. I wrote back asking if that was a typo and nope, it was not. Not worth it, and at least to me, the low pay puts into question the quality of the site.

A thought that might proceed through the mind of a skeptical journalist could be as follows: "I don't know the poster, so how do I know the observation is accurate?" Good question. I did a quick search on JournalismJobs and found a copy editing ad that mentioned rates. Although I can't guarantee that it will be up indefinitely, I can quote some of what I found:

We are looking for dedicated editors who can deliver quality work in a timely manner and are comfortable occasionally communicating with writers. Some fact checking is also required.

We will only accept candidates with 5 years of demonstrated editing or copyediting experience with a newspaper, magazine or book publisher.

This is a part-time freelance position and all work is done online. While your schedule is flexible, we do require our editors to commit to working a minimum of 12 hours per week, every week.

We pay a flat fee of $3.50 per article, with most editors averaging $20-$25 per hour, paid on a weekly basis via PayPal.

The copy editor must have five years experience, do some fact checking, and receive $3.50 per article. To make even $20 an hour, you'd need to do between five and six articles an hour. That's ten minutes per ... what, maybe 300 to 500 words I'm guessing? From times I've edited and had to hire copy editors, the going freelance rate I found was between $45 and $55 an hour. If the writing rates are equally bad -- and why wouldn't they be? -- the editing must be painful and far closer to mass rewriting.

This type of rate is nothing more than intellectual sweat shop piece work. I'd be surprised if the business owners don't laugh over after hour drinks at the gullibility of those who actually agree to such terms. The scary thing is, this is still better than what you might get at a place like Helium.

[Note: Demand Studios responded.

The Stupidity of Lashing Out

You feel an editor treated you roughly. A review of your novel angered you. A "competitor" gets some notice by a market that seems indifferent to your work. What do you do? If you're like novelist Alice Hoffman, you lash out publicly, in this case on Twitter. And if you do, unless you have a sizeable and unreasonably loyal following, you're burying yourself.

In Hoffman's case, she took particular offense at a Boston Globe reviewer's view of her latest book:

In a series of Twitter posts, Ms. Hoffman fired back with her own opinion. “Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe is a moron,” she wrote. “How do some people get to review books? And give the plot away.” Ms. Hoffman also lambasted The Globe and went so far as to post Ms. Silman’s phone number and email, inviting fans to “Tell her what u think of snarky critics.”

There was only a story in the New York Times because the subject was high enough profile. But it doesn't take such a strong media lens to inadvertently damage yourself. I've seen writers go on at length about idiot editors, unappreciative clients, uncooperative sources, and all manners of other things on various forums.

Guess what? Also on those forums are editors and people in a position to recommend you, or not, for work. This is about the worst type of PR you can create for yourself, so why do it? If something is bugging you, complain to a close colleague or two. But even then, remember that conversations can be repeated, often inaccurately, and emails can be passed on. Better to forge ahead on a new project, close a sail, send an invoice, or do something else productive.

Developing a Nose for Honesty

Warning, there be moralizing here.

Earlier today, I wrote for BNET Media an article titled, Why Is the Press So Freakin' Credulous and Dumb? In it I mention a story about the magazine Paris Match being thoroughly hoaxed by two students who staged a photo essay on student poverty just to show how unquestioning the mainstream press is.

“We pushed the clichés to the limit. We thought the whole thing was so hackneyed that it could never win … We wanted to call into question the inner-workings of the attitude of the kind of media which portrays human distress with complacency and voyeurism,” they said.

I also relate a story debunking that I did last year. (Some regular readers may remember it - an article claiming that Thomas Edison had a rival murdered.)

My point was and is that too many writers and editors are so hungry for a "good" story that they're willing to buy into anything. And that is true. Those wanting to avoid being hoaxed might like to review my 16 tips on verifying information. But there is something even more serious at stake. No technique can help if you are essentially determined to get ahead no matter what the cost. Even when you know better, you will make the wrong choice. Look at Bernie Madoff. A friend said to me earlier today, "He could have invested in savings bonds and still done better." And he knew it, only he was too driven by his desire and by his fear of consequences.

Sometimes writers considering some course of action wonder if they are crossing an ethical bound. The most important rule of thumb, far above the 16 aforementioned tips, is that if you find yourself asking whether you're doing something questionable, chances are that the answer is yes. It could be slightly changing someone's sentence to claim as your own, making up something in a story, poaching another writer's ideas or sources, or even giving a glowing review to a book you've never read. Such actions eat away at the soul and are often eventually uncovered, much to the embarrassment of the perpetrator. The ethical path may sometimes not be as financially rewarding, but you do get the benefit of being able to sleep at night and confront your visage in the mirror the next morning. And, similarly, you have to begin trusting your own nose. When someone has the aroma of the ethically challenged, trust your own reaction. At worse you're unnecessarily on guard. At best, you avoid stepping into a mud bath.

"Free" Author Using Wikipedia Without Attribution [UPDATE]

In a story that restores your post Postmodernist faith in irony, Wired editor Chris Anderson, one of the supporters of giving away chunks of content free and then making money selling a small group of people something else, extensively used Wikimedia as a source in his book "Free" without attribution.

Anderson told us, "this is my screwup... I feel terrible about it." The lifted work was "mostly historical asides and nothing central to the book." But history is hardly simple to document, and it would seem a book on free products would be significantly diminished without its passages on the famous "free lunch" of the 19th-century saloon, or the origin of the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch."

Anyway, what's the big deal? After all, information wants to be free, right? Oh, and you can buy Anderson's book in many places. The list price is $26.99. Can we get a discount for the stuff he, uh, appropriated?

[UPDATE: Ah, but wait, there's more. Much more. Plus a side case of someone accusing The View's Elizabeth Hasselbeck of plagiarizing.]

New Journalism Models and Spot.Us Public Funding

There's a recording of an interesting discussion, including my BNET colleague David Weir, about new business models for journalism. Another participant was someone from Spot.Us, a site at which the public can suggest stories and journlaists can seek community funding for reporting projects. It's an intriguing approach. A reporter can pitch a story and see whether people will pay money to see it. If you, the writer, get the funding and do the story to eventually place it somewhere, you pay back the money you were fronted and the contributors get a refund. If you can't sell the story, it becomes something available under a Creative Commons license, making it open for distribution. Looking at the site, I noticed one story about sustainable school lunches for which the site had raised $120 out of a target $380. Another story had raised $920 out of $1000. This is a site that is definitely worth checking.