Gresham's Law of the Web: Crap Content Quashes Quality
This is actually a link to a post I did on BNET a couple of days ago. People have asked me what damage writer mills can really cause. Here's my answer - and it's a much bigger picture than how much some writers make:
Gresham's Law of the Web: Crap Content Quashes Quality
Gresham's Law of the Web: Crap Content Quashes Quality
Labels: content, Internet, search engine optimization, writer mills
posted by Erik Sherman | 8:54 AM
5 Comments:
I read this article repeatedly. Just as in health care, when economics come into play, there can be a lack of quality at sites where material is tied to searches and keywords. But is this ALWAYS the case? That is where I have questions.
For those who write for so-called content mills, there is an opportunity for residuals (depending on the site) and for those who have ethics, an ability to write solid articles, well-researched (sources are often required) which also bring keywords into play. Quality and quantity do not have to be separate. I've seen terrible articles in so-called quality publications, including typos galore.
If I do a search on the internet, I want to find information targeted to that search. Keywords do help readers find the material - but the material lives or dies on its own merits. Readers are not stupid. THe info is useful or it is not.
Having written for national magazines, NONE offered more than an upfront payment. With online sites, there is an opportunity to provide solid information and get ongoing monthly payments. Also, I'd be happy to point you to an article where tons of grateful consumers regularly leave comments about how much money they saved on a DIY repair, rather than hiring someone to do it.
I am saving your very thoughtful and excellent article. I hope you reply to this comment respectfully and with equal thought.
Dear Anonymous,
It used to be that magazines routinely paid for additional uses, and some still do. Many will also agree to limiting use or exclusivity of rights so you can go off an make more money with a piece. The way many work is to try paying enough up front to secure the value of rights that they get.
From what I've seen of the mills, they want to own the writing, and the residuals work out to virtually nothing. Even if some extra comes in, given the time value of money, it's unlikely to be worth that much - certainly not the factor of ten or twenty or more that you can get in print. Or even on some web sites, for that matter.
In terms of "quality," you simply cannot get high quality if you constantly must churn content out as fast as you can type it to meet some hourly figure that, from the hundreds of writers I've spoken with in depth, is still lower than what most experienced freelancers make. Now, I understand the volume business. There are years that I write 300K to 500K words, including blog posts and books that aren't paying $1+ a word. But there's only so high a pace you can keep without becoming too tired to continue.
So some articles from mills may be good. But I can't help but suspect that the vast majority are not. And when the keywords and the quantity are what drive search engine results, it gets to a point that it doesn't matter what reader reactions are, because the factors that drive search engine results keep such sites at the top of the list.
I'd love to talk about this in depth. I write for a site which allows writers to decide whether work is exclusive or not. I've put up work where I retained rights and I've seen page views remain high on that work. I've also decided that it wasn't worth it to maintain rights on some work and seen page views stay high on THAT work as well. I still maintain that quality content will be shared by readers -and THAT is the key.
Good writing will be shared. I am so tempted to share my web page. You could then see that quality can exist at such sites. Your point: how often does that happen? That is where I think we agree strongly. That is where I am ambivalent.
One factor that I think is important is communication from readers. I have an article with over 133,000 views and counting. Comments keep flowing in from grateful readers who could solve a simple (but costly) DIY problem themselves. The residuals from that piece are very nice and they appear monthly.
In a magazine, one rarely gets that kind of reader response, let alone a sense of how many readers have actually looked at the article. I could be wrong about this. I'm seen some magazines with tons of angry or emotional reader reactions. Still...there are advantages and disadvantages to both ways of writing and magazine readership is down.
I'd be interested to know which "quality" magazines you speak of that are so error ridden. I'm sure there are more than a few but in a minority. Whereas, most of these user-generated content sites are notorious for publishing poorly written, badly researched and barely edited work. And sure, the mill writers can provide useful DIY advice. Anybody can write a service piece on how to hang shelves, including the employees at Home Depot.
As for the pay in traditional markets, I have several clients that direct deposit my pay directly into my account in about two weeks. Truthfully, most take longer, but it's better to wait net 30 or even 60 for a single $1200 story than have to write 120 crap stories at $10 a pop.
I get plenty of feedback from stories. Usually, stories I've written for print end up on web, and those sections have comment sections. I also get email from readers.
An interesting post from the other side. Not a very good analysis of content mills but a few good points are brought up. A lot of red herrings as well. Read the comments. Love what the last guys says. What a hoot. Writers are in a panic because the rest of the world can do what we do better, faster, etc.
http://carsonbrackney.com/2009/12/content-mills-angela-hoy-search-engines-and-the-quality-of-online-writing/
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home