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.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.
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
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.
Labels: Demand Studios, markets, pay, rates
posted by Erik Sherman | 9:35 AM
67 Comments:
I'm very curious what Jeremy Reed considers a "good career" in publishing. Paying people peanuts isn't something I'd be very proud of. Unless whatever money Demand Studios makes goes into the pockets of Reed and his fellow execs, earning them a good living while the people who do all the work earn a couple bucks.
He claims Demand Studios cuts down on time sucks. So writing for $2.50 a story isn't a time suck, while investing that time pitching a "real" publication, and maybe earning $500 or $1,000 is?
Also, how much constructive criticism can anyone receive if copy editors are being paid $3.50 an article. PLEASE! I've been an editor for decades. No one can adequately edit an article in five minutes.
And it's so nice of them to send out checks every Friday for a couple bucks. That sure will help writers pay their bills.
I could go on and on picking apart his arguments. Suffice it to say, Demand Studios' model is an insult to anyone who is -- or aspires to be -- a professional writer.
As an associate magazine editor who has worked for major lifestyle publications with 5 million plus readers and a regular freelancer for publications that pay a high freelance rate, you may be surprised to hear that I am a fan of DS. I agree with you on some of the drawbacks, and it's true that, professionally, it's doing nothing to advance my career However, it is an easy way to make extra cash; and quite a bit extra - as much per month as my regular editor gig. Sure, I'm not turning out the same quality work as I would for a "normal" story, but in this economy, I'm not going to quibble over abstract "principles" when those do little to pay the bills.
Ms. Logan, doing a bit of research I notice that you're in a part of the country where living expenses are lower than in New York. So I'm going to make a guess that as an associate editor you make about $25,000 a year, or maybe about $20K after taxes. That would be just under $400 a year. Now, I might be guessing too low, but that actually makes the argument I'm about to make weaker, so let's start there. To equal what you make as an editor, given what we've heard about rates for DS, then you'd have to be churning out an extra ten article a week. From my view, when you could make as much with a tenth the number of assignments, it simply makes no economic sense. But in addition, as you note, you're not turning out the same quality work. That means you're creating a body of work that is at best second rate, simply by the definition of not being the same quality as you usually do. Guess what? Future employers and other business connections can likely find this work on the Web. Not only do you have to work much harder to make the same money as regular freelancing, but you're paying an opportunity cost that you cannot see. I sometimes edit special sections in magazines as well as custom publications. When I consider a writer, I do a thorough search and look at other work. And if I see someone who is cutting corners, I don't work with them. There's always a price for "easy" money, but in this case, I don't think you can even add the easy part, although you do. Because, as I noted, to make the same amount as you get in salary, you'd have to be writing ten articles a week. That's hardly "easy." Finally, there is the price to pay in satisfaction. I focus on doing my best in assignments because a) it leads to better paying work, b) it's part of my work ethic, c) I don't want my name associated with second rate material, and d) I'm not happy if I'm not doing a good job at an assignment.
I wrote a couple pieces -- Photoshop tutorials -- for Demand Studios a while back, for $15 apiece, just to try it out. What I found was that the it took a heck lot more time than what $15 was worth to write a tutorial that's actually useful. What that meant to me was that, in order for the gig to be worth my time, I would need to be writing 2-3 articles an hour, which invariably means they won't be anywhere near the standard I would accept myself.
Then, Demand Studios changed their policy and paid basically $5 a story for most of their assignments, and that drove me off completely. You are right. It is basically a sweatshop. I will never write for them or anyone with similar practices.
Fortunately, your estimates of my salary were significantly lower than what they are. Also, I would like to compose a longer response to your own, but I'd be losing at least $15 on DS. (I jest, of course).
Now, I realize your personal concern with associating your name with DS, but then again no one has asked you to do so. With DS,I'm able to make about 3 grand a month with relatively little effort, which is nothing to sneeze at.
If I were an individual not in a posession of a work ethic, like your own, I doubt I would have written multiple cover stories for national mags by the age of 22 and continue to receive multiple freelance assignments from national mags each month. Working for DS and having pride in your writing are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to suggest.
If I were keeping up my position as an associate editor, DS is probably not something I would even be doing. But, as I failed to mention last time, I am leaving my job and moving to Atlanta to begin volunteering full time with an urban ministry next month. I'll be working 40+ hours a week for free for at least the next six months. Great for my personal growth, not so much for my bank account.
Of course, if you'd like to send a check to my paypal so I can forego the DS writing for the next six months, there's a link on my blog. I would happily accept. :-) I appreciate your sentiments, and look forward to the day when I'm in a position to make enough money to forego "second rate" material.
Suzanna Logan - first, I will say sincerely that I'm happy to have under estimated your income. I've heard fairly low numbers of associate editors even in NYC and figured that salaries are likely higher there than in many parts of the country. So, for that standpoint, I'm glad to hear that people are being paid more reasonably.
However, I've been at this long enough and am good enough to know that an extra $3K per month for "relatively little effort" means that you are doing shit work because you're talking about, what, dozens of articles a month? I know that kind of volume well, and it's not little effort if you're going to have anything worth reading.
That combined with the remark about my work ethic - as if you knew me at all - clearly tells me that you are riding high on bravado. If you're doing all the DS stuff and "multiple" freelance assignments a month all on top of a full-time job, then eiher you are doing nothing but working or, again, you're knocking off work that would not be worth reading because you're not putting in the effort to do that right. By the way, insisting on doing it right even when you are getting paid little? That is work ethic, not getting away with doing less.
Congrats on the stories in national magazines. Clearly I'm not in your league - I've had to settle for bylines in such publications as Newsweek, Newsweek Japan, the New York Times Magazine, Fortune, Inc, and the Financial Times, to mention a few. To say nothing of making considerably more money than your salary and DS work put together over a pretty long period of time. But then, I have my family to support and actually need to work hard when I am working so I can spend time with them when I'm not.
I'M standing on "bravado." And, yet you're namedropping.
Aren't people ironic?
If you post another response, I won't be seeing it. I have enough jackasses to deal with in regular life without finding more to argue with on blogs.
Actually, Ms. Logan, I'm not namedropping so much as publicly pushing your nose into your asinine behavior. If you want to challenge someone's argument here, that's fine. But to start making snide comments is simply ill-mannered at best and - when your experience seems to be a combination of service pieces and thinly sourced descriptions of how wonderful someone's house is - inept and stupid at worst. I don't normally take someone to task publicly, but make exceptions for demeanor that my kids left behind them before they hit puberty. If you're happy leaving the impression of churlishness, a willinness to treat assignments as things not worthy of your real efforts, and being too full of yourself, that's fine with me. But do try to grow up and gain the humility and humanity of self-perspective before working in a ministry and helping all those that I'm sure you consider "less fortunate" than yourself.
Ms Logan,
As someone who is relatively new with Demand Studios, it is refreshing to meet one of the highest compensated freelancers presently enjoying their time at Demand Studios.
I believe Demand Studios serves a purpose, one that each of us can choose to avail ourselves of or not, depending on what our needs are. At the same time, to suggest that you earn "3 grand a month with relatively little effort" is a slap in the face to every hardworking associate of Demand Studios and that claim is actually insulting to those of us who know better.
I wish you the best of luck with your urban ministry volunteering position, even though I would be remiss in my duty if I didn't share with you that there is a delicious irony in that opportunity, one that a talented author like yourself might look into exploiting.
Ken,
It's important to remain skeptical of what people claim. You would know DS rates better than I, but from what I've heard, and a DS rep did not contract this, they're in the range of $30 per article. Let's be generous and call it $50 for a moment. To make $3000 would require 60 articles, or two a day with no time off. I simply don't believe her claim, because I don't think she's doing that volume of writing, in addition to other freelance work that she claims, on top of a full-time job. It stretches credulity, unless she does nothing but work, eat, and sleep. Even then it sounds fishy.
Personally, I think most writers would be better off finding higher paying outlets, because low pay helps further devalue the market for writing services. Essentially, you are contributing to establishing your future impoverishment. But we do agree that such a volume of work conducted with "little effort" suggests at best shoddy efforts.
Erik, (et al)
Let's talk hard numbers here based on my personal experience with well over 100 articles published. Articles range from a high of $15.00 (with an expected 400-500 word count) to a low of $3.00 for roughly 30 words on what is referred to as a Tips sheet. In addition, with almost every article submitted, you are expected to provide several (read three to five) credible citations from acceptable sources that support the content you have written.
With everything accounted for including, searching out the titles to write, writing the content, searching the links to provide references, as well as the proofreading time, I am averaging a 450 word article in roughly 45 minutes - assuming that I am not asked to rewrite a piece. At that rate I am earning ~$22.50/hour. Now, if this is a wage that someone is comfortable with, I am happy to report that the Demand Studios is actually a pretty cool place to work. The writing community is pretty supportive, the CEs try to do the best job they can with the time they can allow, and what interaction I have had with the management has been both cordial and professional.
That said, there are a few "bugs" that need to be worked out in their site, one specifically that logs a writer out, causing them to lose their work. It is pretty well understood that once this happens you will learn to compose your content in a word processing program and then copy it into the site for submission.
As to Ms. Logan's claim that she is making $3K/month, I remember reading that the highest paid associate working with Demand Studios earns under $36K annually and I can assure you that they do not do so "with relatively little effort".
In the final analysis, what we need to accept is that if Demand Studios is collecting sub-grade content to populate their partner sites with the business model will fail. Conversely, if Demand Studios can overcome these challenges and effectively implement a new business model that allows people to earn a living (by whatever reference one would choose to define than term) they will succeed.
From my perspective, I believe this will be extremely interesting development to watch, moving forward.
Ken,
Thanks for the explanation. I should point out that having taught business planning to many writers, the bottom end hourly income they find they need to make usually starts in the $40 range and goes up quickly from there. Also, personally, I'd hate to have my name associated with articles that I had to crank through that quickly. It's bad marketing for future customers.
Erik,
Perhaps you would consider taking up the a friendly challenge and creating a blog post that would briefly outline where a writer can market their work to customers willing to pay the price range you have outlined.
From my experience, the days of being paid over a dollar per word are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Whether we choose to look at the world being flat or, as you mentioned in Ms. Logan's case, the competition having a significantly lower cost of living, what does seem to be happening, is that the better paying outlets for excellent quality writing are being put up for sale, as in the case the Boston Globe. In fact, the Boston Globe appears to be one of the publications that may have a chance at a continued existence where the Rocky Mountain News is gone.
I don't pretend to have an answer or even to fully understand the dynamic but the changes we are all facing are going to be dramatic.
What appears to be happening here is that a few companies are looking at what business models might emerge from this evolution. It will become our challenge to either find ways of working with them or to find financially viable alternatives.
Thank you for the very reasoned discussion. This is a breath of fresh air being breathed into a very serious subject.
Ken, there is no simple blog post I could do. I've got many on finding clients, researching clients, negotiating, and the like, all of which plays in. The big problem is, I think, in the phrase, "where a writer can market their work to customers willing to pay the price range you have outlined." You find better clients by going out, looking for them, and approaching them. The clients worth having rarely have to go looking for writers that way. I'll put in a plug for Freelance Success (I'm a contributing editor there but have no financial stake in how it does) -- www.freelancesuccess.com. It has the best market summaries I've seen in the business, and many of those covered pay $1 and up.
This thread has been fairly long-winded. The problem is, as a wise man once said, "the times they are a-changin.' " We're in the midst of a paradigm shift. Recognition of this is key to understanding what's happening.
Reader's habits have changed—even the act of reading itself is competing with viewing and listening as info-gathering methods. Print advertising has slumped, and can no longer adequately support status-quo business plans; a flood of at-least-adequate writers have hit the market as layoffs continue and thousands — or millions — of new writers pop up.
Does DS create the same quality of content as even a bottom-tier magazine? No. DS — and by extension, their clients — get what they pay for, and they should expect this.
Does writing for DS really dilute the quality of a writer's portfolio, as Erik claims? Not necessarily, as many writers on DS choose pseudonyms.
There is a place for DS, just as there is a place for any mass-produced craftwork. What's important for all parties — writer, client, producer and reader — to understand is that, to repeat myself: You get what you pay for.
>> This thread has been fairly long-winded. <<
We're writers. That's an ever-present danger.
>> Does writing for DS really dilute the quality of a writer's portfolio, as Erik claims? Not necessarily, as many writers on DS choose pseudonyms. <<
I disagree. If you're spending a lot of time for DS, then you likely have far fewer clips with your name. That means having a smaller range of clips you can actually show in your portfolio.
>> There is a place for DS, just as there is a place for any mass-produced craftwork. <<
Bad analogy, I think. DS wants people to write, not machines to somehow generate lucid prose based on research. That means you can't scale up and it can't be mass-produced, because there is no way to easily automate the work.
I've been running a little experiment as to how much money I could make strictly online, meaning money I make in my PayPal account has to go into other opportunities online. I cannot make withdrawals from or transfers to my PayPal account until the experiment is over. I’ve been writing for Associated Content and Demand Studios, and investing the earnings in Lending Club – all through PayPal, but after reading your posts on Demand Studios, I am considering buying a subscription to Freelance Success (through PayPal, of course). I’ve just been a little hesitant to look for other freelance opportunities online because my schedule at my full-time job varies wildly – I make a good salary and so I am not trying to jeopardize that by doing real research for real publications during business hours, which I assume I may have to do. As a contributing editor of Freelance Success, would that be your assessment as well?
Anonymous said...
"There is a place for DS, just as there is a place for any mass-produced craftwork."
I respectfully disagree. We each make our own place, DS is no different. While I find the business model fascinating, whether it will survive the test of time remains to be seen. If DS does, they will have correctly anticipated the changing times and positioned themselves to take advantage of it - if not, it will still have been an interesting experiment.
Another aspect that I find curious is how DS is attempting to weave traditional journalistic guidelines onto the Internet. This clash of culture is going to have to be dealt with eventually and I'm not sure how that will shake out.
Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you chose to post anonymously?
If you intend to deconstruct a reply to you, it seems to me that you might as well go the extra mile and actually focus on the reply itself, rather than focusing on an imaginary reply that you did not receive. As follows.
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.
This is type of fallacy referred to as a straw man. You attribute to the writer a position he did not take, and then argue against the position you created. The text of Jeremy's letter, assuming you recreated it faithfully, says that he "hustled to get as much writing experience as possible" and that he "did not make a lot of money." He did not--let us all be clear about this, he categorically did not--say new freelancers cannot make money. You created that position. As a result, your subsequent arguments against the position you created are nice, but without relevance to Jeremy's letter to you.
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.
Here again you create a straw man, and do not reply to anything Jeremy actually wrote. At no point did Jeremy state, or agree to someone else's statement, that those who write for DS are paid little. That was your creation, and your words. I skip the rest of the paragraph where you argue with yourself, as it is irrelevant to Jeremy's letter.
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.
This statement is a type of fallacy is referred to as a "bare assertion" fallacy, wherein you assume the premise of the argument you are making to be true purely because you say that it is true. If you have a particular set of facts on which you base these statements, you might provide them. However, if this is simply your opinion based on generalizations and impressions, so be it.
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.
This statement is a type of fallacy known as a false dichotomy. In a false dichotomy, you propose that there are only two possible explanations for a particular state of affairs. Setting aside the accuracy of the description of the state of affairs itself, it is clear that there are more than two possible explanations for the situation. To state the most basic and obvious of numerous alternative explanations, it is possible that the "operation" may generate revenue from ancillary product or services independent of the articles themselves. Compounding the false dichotomy fallacy, you introduce a bare assertion fallacy as the second explanation you propose. If you have facts which support your assertion that a particular markup would be unconscionable, you do not provide them.
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.
The phrase "starvation wages" represents a bare assertion fallacy. You provide no facts to support the conclusion that Demand Studios' compensation plan results in starvation wages, nor do you define the vague term "starvation wages" to begin with.
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.
This is an "appeal to probability" fallacy, wherein an argument assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. The existence of assignments that pay a particular rate does not ensure that a writer has access to assignments that pay that rate. And in any event, "if the assignment is paying at least 100 times more than Demand Studios will pay" and "1,000 times more" and "10,000 times more" yield similarly favorable results. Such speculation is entertaining, but not relevant.
... As I've demonstrated in the past, working for exposure is foolish. ...
... Exposure value is roughly directly proportional to pay ...
Therefore, working for pay is foolish.
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.
This is a straw man. Jeremy makes no statement that Demand Studios represents a "steady paycheck." That statement is entirely of your creation. The arguments you subsequently make against the position you created are of no relevance to the actual content of Jeremy's reply.
Unlimited work doesn't exist, because people have limited time.
The proposal that the amount of work that exists is limited by the amount of time people have does not seem to me to be a defensible proposal.
... 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.
Perhaps, in a future post, you could go to the effort of deconstructing Jeremy's arguments. That would be a nice addition to deconstructing statements you made and falsely attributed to Jeremy.
Part 1:
Sam, Sam, Sam, given the nature of your response, you strike me as one of three types of people:
1) a college sophomore who has just taken a course in rhetoric and who feels that he's ready to correct anyone and everyone;
2) an employee of Demand Studios who wants to help shore up the reputation of the company any way possible, because the facts are so disagreeably against it; or
3) someone who regularly writes for Demand Studios and wants to convince himself or herself that it's a wise move, evidence to the contrary.
One caveat is that I'm not taking my deconstruction of Jeremy Reed's response isolated from other things that I and others have learned about the company and its business practices. Discussing logical construction needs to be grounded in background facts, or else you end up making arguments like, "Why listen to you doctor when it comes to health advice, because he or she is only appealing to authority in how they deliver it?"
Me: But to assume that a new freelancer cannot make money is an invalid assumption.
You: This is type of fallacy referred to as a straw man. You attribute to the writer a position he did not take, and then argue against the position you created.
It might be a straw man if part of DS marketing to writers was not about how hard it is to break into publishing. Also, he specifically notes that DS might not be for every stage of someone's career. Clearly that means it's not for someone who is well established -- that is, an experienced and practiced writer. But new writers also don't need to work for extended periods of time at wages that are a tenth of amounts that would typically be considered low pay in the field.
You: At no point did Jeremy state, or agree to someone else's statement, that those who write for DS are paid little.
Here's what JR wrote: "We can argue whether or not we are paying a fair wage at Demand. It is a valid point." If he admits that my statements about the level of their wages is a valid point, why are you trying to pretend otherwise?
Me: 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.
You: This statement is a type of fallacy is referred to as a "bare assertion"
This is my observation based on many years as a freelance writer, editor, project manager, teacher, and coach and also based on the pay rates and amount of time people would then have to actually do the work. But then, this blog is aimed at professional writers who understand the time requirements of the work and how the industry operates. If you want to argue that my point in invalid, you're more than welcome to present evidence that rises above the level of baseless supposition.
Part 2:
You: This statement is a type of fallacy known as a false dichotomy. In a false dichotomy, you propose that there are only two possible explanations for a particular state of affairs. Setting aside the accuracy of the description of the state of affairs itself, it is clear that there are more than two possible explanations for the situation. To state the most basic and obvious of numerous alternative explanations, it is possible that the "operation" may generate revenue from ancillary product or services independent of the articles themselves.
No, it's a business analysis and actually independent of whether there's a third source of revenue, unless you think this is someone's elaborate hobby. If they sell really cheap, they need volume to make money. If they sell at reasonable rates, then they're underpaying the people who produce the work. Or, as you seem to be suggesting, they put a lot of time in so they can sell a small volume at low money and remain broke. That is a possibility, but a pretty silly one. Or are you suggesting that they sell high volume at high prices and still pay small amounts to writers and editors?
>> The phrase "starvation wages" represents a bare assertion fallacy. <<
Oh, please. You might accuse me of an overly colorful metaphor, but they seem to pay $15 to $30 for full articles. Getting $300 for an article is considered a low amount in the business. Given the time needed to write something of quality, you're probably talking about $7 an hour. But sustaining a freelance business, when you work out the math, will require more like $40 to $150 an hour, depending on the specifics of the business. At least, that's what I've found after teaching many writers how to plan a writing business and seeing the figures the calculate.
You: This is an "appeal to probability" fallacy, wherein an argument assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.
No, Sam, I'm responding to their arguments that one good reason for their service is that they pay immediately. I then look at the 10x figure, which is still very low in the freelancing business, and calculate a reasonable time-value money loss over a three month delay in pay, which is considered long. Again, you are showing the problems of trying to apply logic theory devoid of understanding of the content which is the subject of the discussion. It can work to discredit someone's line of reasoning if that person is flummoxed. However, I'm not easily taken in by rhetorical tricks, including the misapplication of labels in an attempt to defuse reasonable and pointed criticism.
You: Therefore, working for pay is foolish.
Uh, you might want to try being coherent. Let's try again: the best marketing exposure for writers generally comes from the highest paying jobs. A paid article in the NYT Magazine has greater marketing cache than a freebie appearance in the Wabash Weekly.
You: Jeremy makes no statement that Demand Studios represents a "steady paycheck."
Sam, he literally wrote that. It's in the post: "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." Are you sure you actually read this post? Or are you so driven to try and defend DS that you are trying to respond to things that don't exist?
DEMAND STUDIO'S IS A FRAUD! They've managed to market themselves heavily and draw mediocre freelancers to the site. Just as this article points out, the pay is dirt. No respectable freelancer would work for $15 per article. What a joke. I've dabbled with them and within 10 articles I saw myself rushing through assignments and not feeling like it was worth it to truly write a good story. So I'd just click submit. Their editors are garbage and would let the stuff slide through. What I quickly realized is; this is not how I want my writings to be generated. I was actually giving myself a bad name by doing work for Demand Studios. Horrible, they're the molesters of the journalism industry.
They are producing too fast at DS. Their titles for content are misspelled or the titles are not easily researchable for the $15 fee. On their forums the writers constantly complain about the inconsistency of the editing, the cruelty of the editorial comments, and the fact that the editors remain anonymous so that you cannot gain an understanding of any editor's particular preferences to avoid rewrites and rejections.
Anonymous,
Demand Studios is many things and may be doing any number of things you don't approve of but as someone who writes there I find your comments way out of line.
True, a number of people do complain about a very small minority of editors who think they're Perry White but found out they are working for Jimmy Olsen's pay.
The overwhelming majority of CEs who work for Demand Studios are nothing short of extraordinary.
Now, as to your claims that content is being created too quickly, I have to agree that some of the writers there don't seem to care what they put their name on, you seem to indicate that this is how you operate. Other writers spend way too much time and effort for what they are being compensated for - but that is their decision.
The question is, will this be one of the new methods of creating and marketing content. The answer is as yet unknown.
The best advice I can offer you is to tell you if you don't like it, don't write for any of the content mills. If your material is so much better than that you should have no problem getting better writing gigs and to be quite blunt with you I would probably enjoy reading what you have to say.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do. For me, I love to write. I have been keeping a blog since before they were trendy and did so for free. I don't write for Demand Studios for the money, I am doing it for all kinds of reasons that you would probably never understand but for me they are valid.
Erik - thanks for taking this on and for being right on the money.
The issue here isn't Demand, it's what they represent. And first off, they're not crooks, the terms are very clear and they pay on time. The problem is the cynicism they operate on, and it's no coincidence they and others have emerged during a years-long economic and employment decline in this country. Nor a coincidence they appeared at a time writing jobs are vanishing and losing their relevance since publishing is dying.
Demand et al utilize the hordes of desperate writers out there, believing rightly thay'll work for pittance. They'd have us work for free if they could, but we're not fully there yet. The rates are indeed insulting, but they're well advertised. But consider that this is the face of future writing gigs and shudder with a mix of nostalgia and dread. If Demand ever get their way, there won't be better paying jobs ever again.
It doesn't build your portfolio as Erik noted, it's too far down the line to be noticed.
The editing is VERY inconsistent, and no wonder. Many editors are plainly unqualified, and many article titles are so vague it's impossible to write the article without getting a rewrite. There is no proper communication between writers and editors, you get one shot at a rewrite and then there's the reject hammer, meaning all that work and no $15 for you!
Research and writing takes at least an hour - and at a max of $15 you do the math, and this is with no rewrites tacked on.
I can "earn" maybe $100 a week with Demand, putting something like seven hours into it. This doesn't include the cost of electricity, internet, transportation if you go to the library...
This isn't a job, it's at best pocket money you have to work for. Erik, your assessment was perfect - this is a new, more sophisticated form of servitute or serfdom.
And the people who say they make a living on Demand - frankly I think they're paid shills. Ignore them.
I've tried Demand Studios for a few months now and I have to agree, it is a sweat shop. They demand a high level of quality and professionalism, but they don't treat or pay writers as professionals. That cheapens the writing profession for all of us. I would recommend Demand Studios for young, inexperienced writers. If you're learning, best to find experience wherever you can. As for the editors, some are indeed helpful and knowledgeable, but certainly not all and not even the majority.
Have you seen this link? Yet, some people actually want to take the company seriously. Who wants to see the people who run this place dress up like rockers and make a video of themselves? It's embarrassing. I think there is something in the water people are drinking. The mentality and integrity of our society is at an all-time low.
http://www.demandstudios.com/staff.html
Dr. J.Stuart Rahrer responds:
Erik, thank you for your outstanding article. Moreover, thanks to the others for their input. I have written 1 article for EHOW. However, after reading the contributions of several gifted writers, I have experienced a pause to reflect. I have written 18 books and I am currently working on 19th and 20th in my nursing home studio. My books can be viewed on Google under J.Stuart Rahrer. Believe me, I'm not trying to toot my horn in this crowd. I felt compelled to add 2 points:
1. I think I'll stick to writting books instead of articles unless I am able to locate a decent organization.
2. Years ago I heard a lecture by John Steinbeck. He made one significant statement. I've remembered it all these years.
" Aii I have as a writer is my gift and integrity to live with."
This may be relevant. I'm not certain. Therefore, Sam, Steinbeck really said this, so please don't nail my logic or integrity to the wall, I'm an old man.
Dr. J.Stuart Rahrer
Dr. Rahrer, thanks for the quote from Steinbeck (one of my favorite authors). True and relevant, I think, because there are many ways to let integrity slip away. One is to let people treat you as though you had none.
Dr. Rahrer,
I would be most interested in how you would define a decent organization.
Respectfully,
Ken DiPietro
LaVale MD
DS just advertised in the Phoenix, Craig's list, Gig section for the first time. I thankfully searched out this most elucidating thread. Thank you to all Breatheren of the Quill who so eloquently took their time to help me decide that DS is a waste of my precious time. On a lighter note, I am now considering seeking bids from out of work computer programers to create a computer algorythm that cranks out acceptable assignments for DS. Based on what I have seen published by them the bid shouldn't be too high. ;)
Thanks, everyone (especially you, Erik) for peeling the layers away from DS. I almost signed to write for them, but something nagged at me to take more time to research them. I've been in the journalism business for almost 20 years and I'm not willing at this point in my career to just "crank out" articles for sweat-shop pay. I'm worth more and though our industry is suffering, all is not hopeless. The Internet is FULL of crap writing and blogs and forums written by people who can barely write their name, much less craft sentences that convey anything meaningful. Don't forget, anyone, including the next assignment editor you're trying to impress, can find your byline in cyberspace. I don't want to write for an organization or be aligned with an organization that I'm ashamed to attach my name to -- hence, the anonymous nature of this post. I don't want anyone to know I almost signed up with DS. There obviously is a place for them in the current market, but it's not for me.
>> Maybe I just don't know all the secrets anti-DS people know. But for me, I just doubled my income. What's the argument against that? <<
No argument against doubling income. There are two major points here. One is that the company depends on being able to pay peanuts (and, yes, it actually is peanuts compared to what most freelancers make) to writers and making significant revenue. It's building a business model on the backs of others and, to me, is morally corrupt. And before someone makes the suggestion, no, I'm not anti-business. But I do believe that there has to be a balance in value.
However, the point more directly addressing you, oh small weekly sports editor, is that you're simply not being smart. You're doubling your income by working significantly harder, because at the DS rates, that's what you have to do to make even $20 to $30 an hour. To do that, you're rushing the work and it's likely to be crap in comparison to what you'd ordinarily do. I know, you don't like hearing that, nor do others, but that's an estimate based on many years of writing and editing. Furthermore, you're not doing the basic research to find out how much you might actually make. I've taught business planning and marketing to many freelancers. An "OK" rate starts at about $35 to $40 an hour effectively, and if you're good, you can get that up to $100 to $150 an hour. Suddenly you're paying off the loans and filling the coffers way faster than at DS rates. That's the thing - there is no secret here. It's simple arithmetic. If, after recognizing reality and making the calculations, someone decides that DS is a good deal, that's fine. Some of us just hate to see people making decisions out of ignorance and then vehemently (and sometimes nastily) rationalizing them, trying to shout down anyone who says something that doesn't fit in neatly.
Good to read the voice of reason is still out there. On top of everything else, DS has the audacity to keep adding more hurdles and get people to do more for the same ludicrous pay. Now they've revised their bio policy -- writers must have bios on their accounts. Before it was anything goes, friendly enough, now it has to be specifically formatted and with a "professional photo". So the bios, which are to be done by writers on their own time with no compensation, are to be professional, but the pay can certainly remain on the hobby level.
The nerve on them is something else. For all the stuff i've done with DS, and some of it i even enjoyed, i now believe if they and their cohorts had their way we'd be back in the 11th century, serfs working for rock soup and the privilege of not being brutally killed for one more day.
Anyone has experience with Suite101.com?
Ken:
Thank you for your request for the definition of a decent organization. First, try the dictionary. Secondly, note the essence of the terms accountability, positive treatment of individuals, constructive efforts, personal responsibility for decisions and, above all, a sensitivity to the needs of others. I assume most company's would consider these terms to be a reflection of a decent organization. The antithesis would be a rag tag group of individuals without any of the above qualities typically using scams as a business tactic. By now Ken, you have gone to the dictionary and know more than I do. Thanks again for your inquiry. It's nice to be needed. I hope you consider the preceding from a decent person.
Dr. John Rahrer
Fort Wayne, IN
Nov. 4, 2009
Article in Wired Magazine about DS:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia/all/1
Is anyone forcing you guys to write for Demand? If you don't like the pay, go somewhere else.
Jeff G
Someone mentioned paradigm shifts. Yes, this is definitely what's going on here. You haters are all missing the point. I listened to (part) of that rock and roll song. The lead singer said it all "making content to build websites".
A lot of these "articles" that need to be made by freelancers do not necessarily need to be 100% perfect by any (human) reader's standards. They just have to be grammatically correct enough to be accepted by a search engine spider, indexer, bot, etc.
In the SEO world, you just build up a bunch of halfway decent content so that your website gets pushed to the top of search engine results.
That's what all of these articles are for. The search engine spider doesn't care if you got paid five bucks or five hundred for your article.
BTW, this thread is really lengthy. How much are all of y'all gettin' paid to write here? Zilch, I bet...
Jeff G
Gonzo said,
"They just have to be grammatically correct enough to be accepted by a search engine spider, indexer, bot, etc."
Because, I know when I'm searching out a company to do business with, if their site is just "grammatically correct enough" I get that feeling of professionalism that makes me want to whip out my wallet and hand them my money.
After all, in today's world, as long as I get goods and services that are just "correct enough" I know I've gotten my money's worth.
John advised me,
"First, try the dictionary."
Actually, if you reread my original post you will note that I asked you "how you would define a decent organization" not how a dictionary does.
While this is a subtle difference it is important.
We are both from a time when many companies promised cradle to grave care in exchange for lesser compensation during our employment only to find out that Ma Bell and GM couldn't fulfill their end of the bargain in the long run.
Many of us learned that the future is not being coddled by some corporation, trading our daily toil for a pittance, but rather carving out our own future.
The projections are that Micro-corporations will soon be the majority employer in this country (and probably the world) as the system has shifted, never to return to a time when people would put their lifelong trust into a company that based their business model on "accountability, positive treatment of individuals, constructive efforts, personal responsibility for decisions and, above all, a sensitivity to the needs of others" because in the final analysis, a business is based solely on earning a paycheck, just like the individual.
I have had the experience of running a small business (having been self-employed for the better part of a quarter century) and learned that the experience is more accurately compared to teaching a kindergarten class than dealing with mature adults. As a contemporary of mine once mentioned to me in passing, every single day an employee provides me with a tale of monumental problems the like of which I can't even begin to imagine. My humble experience showed me that for every employee I added to my workforce another hour was added to my workday. Looking back on that time in my life, I can honestly tell you that out of the 21 people who worked for me I would gladly hire one, or perhaps two, back.
The sad reality is that there are too many Gonzos in this world who are only willing to provide "good enough" efforts and too few people who are willing to turn in an excellent day's work for excellent compensation.
While we can lament the passing of the American work ethic and lack of social contract forever, the harsh reality is that to survive in this new millennium the smart organization is made up of people who choose to work with each other when required.
The times are no longer a changin' - they have forever changed.
Just read the wired article, interesting stuff. Guess the logical conclusion is to one day write an algorithm that replaces the $7.50/article freelancer. And everyone else. But then who's gonna have money to write an algorithm to generate living-wage earning consumers?
Jeff, thanks for calling people haters. That's really helpful. No one's forcing anyone to work with Demand et al. Is someone forcing you to be a shill? Bet you get paid more than the freelancers. Where do I apply?
L A said...
"Guess the logical conclusion is to one day write an algorithm that replaces the $7.50/article freelancer."
Already in the works...
http://tinyurl.com/yhklms3
Ken - those are maybe the early beginnings. But it doesn't talk about generating content, rather gathering existing pages and articles.
As for your other comments, I largely agree we are living through a change, a seachange, one I personally find objectionable. While it's probably not forever, you're right that in our lifetimes and the lifetimes of near-subsequent generations, the (truly) social workplace model is a goner.
DS and other such organizations are both the result of social fragmentation and its frontline troops. They live on the fears and wants of isolated people denied access to large scale, communal employment. While I reiterate there's no evil in this that I can see, it is a very shortsighted model. Precarious in that it ultimately feeds into the "shoot yourself in the leg" thing if we look at resource allocation and the like.
Hey Ken,
I never said I personally provide mediocre work. I was merely pointing out the fact that most of these low-paying articles are not meant to be published in traditional, high-quality printed media. They are just filler to get websites ranked higher.
Don't shoot the messenger, pal.
And why would anyone put in fifty dollars of effort for a five dollar job, anyway?
Jeff G
Hey Ken,
Okay, so maybe you're way smarter than the average bear and can see through all this SEO nonsense. The point is the advertising know that the masses are asses and will fall for this marketing trickery. Maybe you won't open your wallet but, trust me, a dozen others will. There are millions of people who will spend money as a result of even the worst SEO campaigns.
You may see it as an insult to your "craft" (I'm assuming you are a freelance writer of some sort), but do the marketers really care?
Personally, I think writing superficial articles for the sake of boosting search engine rankings is just as bad as all the "black hat" techniques used to artificially boost rankings. But the SEO experts never asked for my opinion, did they?
Perhaps you just fear your becoming obsolete? Just like robots making factory workers redundant, maybe you're upset that your writing skills are going to be replaced by some young programmer's Perl scripts?
You can be a luddite all you want, but it's not going to stop these campaigns.
Jeff G
L A said...
"Ken - those are maybe the early beginnings. But it doesn't talk about generating content, rather gathering existing pages and articles."
The funny thing is, I looked for a different article that I read a few weeks ago that discussed a new patent filing where news is aggregated and a thesaurus is applied to create "new" content. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it.
"DS and other such organizations are both the result of social fragmentation and its frontline troops. They live on the fears and wants of isolated people denied access to large scale, communal employment. While I reiterate there's no evil in this that I can see, it is a very shortsighted model."
Ah and that is the crux of the problem. One small adjustment of the Google search algorithm, possibly designed to make Google more quality oriented, and the DS model is toast.
As an aside, Google seems to becoming more useless to me by the day. If I am looking for some hard information on [insert your choice of subject here] I usually have to wade through several iterations of refined search terms and then several more pages of advertisements for products before I find anything meaningful. At some point Google will have to address this or their business model will suffer.
With respect to your statement, "...the (truly) social workplace model is a goner..." I disagree. It is the mechanism we employ to work together that has shifted, not cooperative work. Instead of the top down business management that had been employed for decades there is a new dynamic, one based on expertise that has replaced micromanagement. Reduced to its most simplistic, a pecking order is established which assigns value. When a project wishes to work with the top talent they will have to offer the best wages or the talent will accept another offer. This is far better than the crap that used to pass for acceptable in corporate America.
With change comes opportunity, use this shift to your advantage.
gonzobrains said...
"Okay, so maybe you're way smarter than the average bear"
I doubt that. I am quite a bit more educated in the shift that's happening, considering that this subject is what my career is based on.
"The point is the advertising know that the masses are asses and will fall for this marketing trickery. Maybe you won't open your wallet but, trust me, a dozen others will. There are millions of people who will spend money as a result of even the worst SEO campaigns."
Somehow basing a business model on millions of suckers is a short term get it while you can idea - at least to my way of thinking.
Still, judging from the number of emails I get trying to sell me penis enlargement medications, maybe you're right. They'll need to refine their advertising models though as my wife gets as many of these ads as I do.
"You may see it as an insult to your "craft" (I'm assuming you are a freelance writer of some sort), but do the marketers really care?"
Don't assume, never assume. I am not a freelance writer by trade, at least not in the traditional definition, but I am interested in learning more about the field.
Do the marketers really care? Of course they do. Marketers only make money when people buy, once you've milked all the suckers and they can't spend any more even the lowliest snake oil salesman knows that you need to move on and find new marks.
Me, I'm a businessman, there's a difference. I survive by making sure my product provides distinguishable value to my customer. I attract new clients by making sure my web page and every single correspondence they have with me is more than "just good enough" and present my services as nothing short of excellent.
YMMV
"Personally, I think writing superficial articles for the sake of boosting search engine rankings is just as bad as all the "black hat" techniques used to artificially boost rankings. But the SEO experts never asked for my opinion, did they?"
And this is a short term money grab that is destined to have the lifespan of disco - maybe less.
"Perhaps you just fear your becoming obsolete?"
Of course I do - just as any thinking individual should. I also understand how to read the handwriting on the wall and change to position myself well ahead of the curve. I have been doing so for the last three decades and hope to continue to do so.
You?
"Just like robots making factory workers redundant, maybe you're upset that your writing skills are going to be replaced by some young programmer's Perl scripts?"
No, sorry.
People don't pay good money for shoddy work. While what passes for intellectual property certainly seems to have taken a dive, good, solid thinking is now becoming rarer. I capitalize on that and look forward to doing so for a long, long time.
You?
What's your plan? Churning out garbage until no one will pay you for it any more?
Good luck with that in the long term.
"You can be a luddite all you want, but it's not going to stop these campaigns."
God, now that is funny.
Let's see, luddite...
Started working in high tech (mainframe computers) in 1974, moved to PCs in 1982, started a broadband only ISP in 1997, started selling consulting in that field in 2001, exited that field in 2005 and now write reports for companies as to how they can position themselves to stay ahead of the curve.
Luddite?
Is this a new definition of the word I was previously unaware of?
I just want to say thank you for taking a stand against Demand Studios and their low rates. I do feel they provide a service, but it is one that is very rudimentary and simplistic. It does deserve more pay, and the way they are taking advantage of writers is pathetic.
They and everybody else it seems don't want to pay money to have someone write something for them. But they will have to at some point.
If you look at technology today and what it does, and how businesses operate without regards to anything but profit, then it is plain to see that in just a few years we will have computers generating all of the content on the net. They will just re-spin the content already on the internet after calculating the amount of profit it could make etc. etc.
Article spinners, rudimentary ones are already creating a lot of the content you see. As a writer, you can either get angry about this, or you can sit back and watch it all crumble as people realize that the content is bullshit, lose trust and faith in it and abandon it.
If you want to learn something, Demand Studios proves that you need to go buy a book and read it. The net is just one more huge time suck.
Ken,
You sound like the characters from Cryptonomicon a bit...that's a compliment!
As of now, I don't see this as an opportunity. I'd take the old corporate model over this from where I'm standing. I don't consider thousands and thousands of people working in isolation communal employment. DS doesn't represent opportunity, the opposite - unless of course you're a major shareholder. Did the wired article say something like DS made $200 and of that only paid $1.7 million to content producers? If so, that's worse than most other industries.
I'm not a business person and have no desire to be one. I just want to make a decent living writing, and DS et al are making that much harder. They further illustrate that the internet hasn't liberated knowledge, skill and insight, it has simply cheapened them and made them more prone to cynical manipulation.
LA,
Some see the glass...
DS is nothing more than one attempt to make money from people who will not or cannot do it themselves. This has been the case as far back as history records and quite likely longer.
Whether you look at the mills in early 20th century New England or the assembly lines of the Ford Motor Company from the same time period, factory owners grew rich paying just enough wages to get the help there and keep them.
And in all of those cases there were people who broke away, some writing for a career - but writing has always been a profession where many toil for next to nothing and only a few make it big.
There is still money to be made in writing but the old model is dead, or I should day experiencing a protracted demise.
The fundamentals of earning money by writing are still the same, produce content, I should say better content then the average guy and sell it to people who find it valuable.
Here's a guy who explains this in rather crass terms.
http://vimeo.com/4671951
Here's another video of him that really drives the message home.
http://tinyurl.com/ye5zyct
Here's my definition of a writer for hire...
What a writer does, or more correctly should do, is produce coherent message out of disjointed thoughts. It is their job to listen to business people who cannot tell their story succinctly and translate it into language that the rest of us can understand. This talent can be applied to technological geniuses who can't put their thoughts into plain English as well as anyone else who is willing to pay to get their message out.
If you think that finding these opportunities is difficult, try being someone who is looking for you and you'll quickly begin to understand how hard their task is.
You seem to look at the Internet as not having"liberated knowledge, skill and insight, it has simply cheapened them and made them more prone to cynical manipulation."
I see plenty of evidence that what you are claiming is myopic and patently false.
Need an example?
http://www.ted.com/themes
I just want to say that Demand Studios saw an opportunity and are cashing in on it big time, off of our labor. However, they do offer an opportunity. These articles are worth a lot of money, you can earn $80 to $100 just on revenue shares from other sites, per article, provided you select the right topics and use keywords. I have done this. The money is poor, however some of us have to do it and can't pass up the opportunity right now. It is always there and you don't need to spend time pitching.
If you need to do this be smart.
Use a pen name, it will crush your career like a cinder block falling on a yellow squash.
I am presently in the process of damage control and can only hope I get another gig soon.
Don't do rewrites that are outlandish, just do another article. Rewrites are a sign the article is going to get jigged for the sole purpose of filling a quota.
Write simply and stay focused, they don't care about style, but facts and readability. Don't do too much, they aren't asking for a whole lot. If you get an absurd rewrite request (and you will, believe me you will get tons of them) just move to another article instead of trying to rewrite it, because the time it takes to rewrite one is about how long it takes to write another.
Write with time in mind.
If you do this you can make decent money, though it is not spectacular by any means. They really need to start paying us more on Demand, or many will find other pastures or other jobs.
Most marketing copywriting jobs are slave ships, I was amazed at how badly writers had it when I started working as a cw. You just churn out content and have to pretend the byline and "fame" makes up for the lack of pay.
Right now, DS is just at the point where it makes sense to do. We get no benefits, no unemployment if the company tanks, and we are taking a huge risk that our careers will go no farther than this.
If the pay doesn't increase, many more will start to pass on this opportunity.
Thank you Erik Sherman for standing up and making this known.
To cut through all the rhetoric and "pathetic fallacies" and so on, I know for a certainty that these low-pay, no-pay newcomers are bending the rate curve down so people can't make a decent living at this. I define decent as above $35K a year. Others may place it higher. To just say, "Well, I dog it because I am not being paid much" is another way the profession is being degraded. But I guess it's OK, because--sadly--no one even seems to know bad writing even when they see it anymore. This whole thing makes me sick. I have a family to support, am disabled and cannot work outside the home, and have seen my profession sink to new depths, courtesy of these exploiters.
Lawrence reiterates the core valid point behind this entire discussion. Even with the best of intentions, DS et al are lowering both pay potential and quality expectations.
Recently, the editing at DS has improved in terms of turnaround speed and consistency. However, editors still often downgrade copy quality, add typos and grammar issues, and render sentences awkward - inadvertently i'm sure, since when they get paid so little, volume is even more of a priority than for writers. Speed first, quality whenever.
I don't agree with Ken and others that there's some magic, hidden potential here. Also, the revenue share articles don't perform as well as some say. I've had a few sit on my profile for a year and generate pennies during that times. Literally pennies. I don't know where anon got $80.
Well this certainly is a fascinating site. I'm sitting at my keyboard, googling all manner of words and phrases in an attempt to determine how one goes about the business of breaking into freelancing, when I hit on DS's page. Uh huh, I thought- there's got to be a catch. Probably another waste of my time like E-How. So I google for opinions on DS and you folks pop up. Many thanks for the invaluable feedback and an additional thank you for slapping down Logic Boy. I've encountered these mouldering,cat-loving,socially marginalized types on various blogs and they are a real pain in the ass.
S'anyway, where does one with little experience, but a genuine gift, go to pursue such work?
PS: It's ok if you love cats, as long as you're not also mouldering and socially marginalized.;)
Despite some bad air, I still think Ken and I agree in some ways. Although we got off to a bad start.
As far as DS is concerned, you can complain all you want about them. Just as loom spinners may have complained when robots outsourced them. I'm not happy about spinning articles. I'm not happy that the net is getting polluted. Hell, I'm not happy that programming is getting outsourced to second world countries. But you, me, and the other guy are not in any position to dictate so we must put up or shut up.
It's a classic working class vs. rich argument right? We are all just pissed off that a bunch of English speaking people in countries with lower costs of liviing can suddenly out bid us. It didn't happen back in grandma's day cuz the Pacific and Atalantic separated us. But now the Internet just fucked your job.
welcome to the new world.
Anthony said...
"S'anyway, where does one with little experience, but a genuine gift, go to pursue such work?"
May I recommend our host's suite of blogs? Erik is a world of information and I can assure you it will take you a while to assimilate the knowledge he so cheerfully shares.
Another contributor to this discussion, Yolanda, has also gone out of her way to make a ton of relevant information available and I highly recommend her site.
http://www.freelancewriterville.com/
Have a great Thanksgiving.
gonzo, the discussion as i understand it here centers on the pros and cons of DS and other similar organizations. What you're saying is not saying anything - that logic can be applied to any topic, from overpriced farm equipment to curing cancer. Calling posters whiners never works, and stating the obvious as in writers will one day be supplanted by AI, well, that also isn't saying much.
Conversely, even i have to admit DS has made some welcome changes recently - something i mentioned earlier. They even got the travel articles back. And content editing/approval seems far smoother than before, so that's something. It doesn't change the core wrongs driving their business model far as i'm concerned. For that they'd have to at least triple their pay rates.
I started out writing for DS when I first began my freelance career over a year ago. I've since moved on to better paying gigs, and haven't written an article for DS in many months. I simply find that it's not worth the time it takes to construct an article worth reading - particularly when their requirements seem to grow, yet their pay rates do not. I occasionally visit their forum just to see what has changed, and it appears that things have only gotten more stringent. QA, yes, for sure, but in the real world, you have to pay more for better quality work. I still consider DS a backup gig - if, for example, I were to suddenly lose several large clients, it would be nice to have something to fall back on. However, in reading the comments here, I must address one point. Ms. Logan claims to work a full-time job and earn $3k additional each month on DS. That equates to ten articles per DAY, five days per week. 200 articles per month at $15. There's no way anyone is turning out that kind of volume without getting massive rewrite requests. Assuming she works eight hours a day at her regular job, she'd have to spend a minimum of five additional hours writing for DS each day - assuming half an hour per article, which again brings quality into question. Just my opinion, but I have a hard time swallowing that assertion.
There's no need to swallow that assertion at all, "Ms Logan" is likely a DS plant. This is by now a common promotional tactic, having people sit around searching for discussions pertaining to your brand and paying them to post positive messages and misinformation. Ignore that and rely on your experience and common sense to see you through.
It's true they've beefed up their article requirements and guidelines. Also, articles require more steps to submit for review, and with such low pay every click of the mouse counts. However, I still have to say their editors have improved, even the tone is less lording over than before, which is something.
I stumbled on this blog while doing a post on whether Demand Studios was related to Demand Media which it apparently is. Let me just say that 1) I'm not a DS Plant and 2) If I wanted to successfully market my blog to freelance writers (either real or imaginary) I might not begin by offending the thousands writing for Demand Studio by calling them virtual sweatshop workers.
I found DS while between gigs as a Television Writer/Producer. I've managed to make around 8 bills a week pumping out how to articles on my own time and schedule. I enjoy what I do, look forward to doing it, and pay my bills. I would be a fool to complain about that.
DS does not promise you will be contributing to the elevation of the journalistic craft or fulfill your literary dreams. What they offer is quick cash for fairly easy work. In this economy, I really don't see where that's a bad thing.
The real insult in both the original post and subsequent comments is towards ACTUAL sweat shop workers.
Having produced several television pieces on subsistence wage jobs in the Southeast Asia, the use of the word "sweatshop" in relation to work performed in the comfort of my own home, regardless of the wages paid, is indicative of the kind of whining American's have become famous for.
>> If I wanted to successfully market my blog to freelance writers (either real or imaginary) I might not begin by offending the thousands writing for Demand Studio by calling them virtual sweatshop workers. <<
Let me be clear on this: I do not market my blog. I do not make money off my blog. I write what I do so I can provide help to other freelancers. If you feel offended, don't read it.
>> What they offer is quick cash for fairly easy work. In this economy, I really don't see where that's a bad thing. <<
When you associate your name with what must be hastily done work that will be mediocre at best, given the time and effort constraints, then you damage your reputation. When you do so even though far better paying work is available, it's crazy.
>> I found DS while between gigs as a Television Writer/Producer. I've managed to make around 8 bills a week pumping out how to articles on my own time and schedule. I enjoy what I do, look forward to doing it, and pay my bills. I would be a fool to complain about that.<<
And given what is known about DS, you probably spent a whole lot of hours doing so. If you were a writer, you'd also have likely made considerably less in the same amount of time. Given that my blog is primarily for freelance writers, that's where I focus.
>> Having produced several television pieces on subsistence wage jobs in the Southeast Asia, the use of the word "sweatshop" in relation to work performed in the comfort of my own home, regardless of the wages paid, is indicative of the kind of whining American's have become famous for. <<
Piecework is piecework. Sure, you make more than you would in Southeast Asia at subsistence wages, but given the realities of taxes, benefits, and expenses, the money paid by a DS or other such writer mill is subsistence in the U.S. economy, and that's the one you have to look at because that's the one in which citizens here live.
Regarding Watkino's comment, 800 divided by 15 is 53 and some, let's say 53. That's 53 how to articles, let's say an average hour work per article. Not accounting for rewrites and rejections, which unless watkino is a major DS shareholder, there will be quite a few of. Fifty three hours a week is a lot, not sure how he/she has time for anything else. Unless by bills they mean tens.
Interesting post. And by interesting, I mean disheartening. I came across Demand Studios some time ago but never signed up with them. I'm taking the plunge now to see what the site is like. I'm still shocked when I see writers taking projects that are paying $.01 or less per word.
As long as there are people willing to write for so little, there will be people who know how to take advantage of that and make money off of it.
supply versus demand, maybe?
I recently signed up for DS against my better judgment. One of my clients is in financial trouble, and I wanted to have a "fall back" in place.
The biggest problem I see is that some copy editors are clueless about the subject matter. A short article I wrote on a medical condition started as an authoritative piece with sound references at the end.
It ended up sounding like fifth-grade paper, with an "according to" appended to everything. The CE even required me to add "according to [expert source]" after a line stating that all surgery carries some risk.
That comes across an amateurish at best.
(Lest anyone start pointing at typos in my post: Good copy editors have helped me immensely. Bad ones not only impair the presentation, but can change the content, rendering it banal or even inaccurate.)
I use a pen name, and I'll stick with DS for a while. Just one or two a week, to figure out the format, so if I have to fall back on it, I can.
Were it not for clueless CEs, I think a subject-matter expert could make about $40/hour. That's well below my rate, but not bad for pocket money. But I have my doubts if it's possible.
Meanwhile, pitching like crazy....
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home