The WMF Archives: Are You Angry Yet, Writers? $5 A Story For You, $100 Million for Associated Content's Owners

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Are You Angry Yet, Writers? $5 A Story For You, $100 Million for Associated Content's Owners

6:00 AM

For those of you who missed the news yesterday, content mill Associated Content has been purchased by Yahoo! for roughly $100 million. As a longtime business reporter, I knew this day would come -- the day a mill writers had slaved at for peanuts got bought for big money. A lot of mill-watchers thought it would be Demand Studios' public stock offering first, but AC has beaten them to the punch.

For those of you who don't know how this works, let me explain the deal. You got radically underpaid writing articles for Associated Content...and now the owners of AC are going to be given $100 million dollars for their company.

How much of it are they going to give you? Not one red cent. They made $100 million off your back. If you don't feel mad, it's unlikely that you will end up earning a good living from writing. You might want to consider selling toner or something.

I gather the site has 360,000 writers. My limited division skills tell me that if they split the money with all the little people -- the writers who made this fortune possible for them -- you'd each get about $277. Not a lot, but a nice bonus for all the work you put in for a pittance! OK, the founder had an idea, so he should get some part of this...but all of it? Well, AC raised $21 million in funding over its six-year life as a private company...so back that out, and you still get about $220.

If I wrote for AC, I'd contact them right now and say, "Hey, congrats on the deal...where's my $200 for helping make this happen?" I'd start a petition, but I don't write for them.

Anyway...let me count the other ways this screws writers, besides just AC writers not getting any money from the deal:

1. More crappy content legitimized. Yahoo says it's going to use AC's famously uneven, sometimes plagiarized content to provide more local color than its Associated Press stuff can give it. They'll be running AC stuff side by side with professional reporting. This is not a good trend for the future of journalism, for having trained eyes helping us find out what some would keep hidden, helping explain our ever-more-complex, fast-changing world, helping us speak truth to power.

2. More writers wanting to write for AC. With its Yahoo connection, more writers with no sense of their own worth will want to write on the cheap for AC for the great "exposure" they might get on Yahoo. Bulletin: I write for a part of Yahoo right now, in part for the great exposure...and I get paid several hundred dollars a story. You don't have to do this.

3. More mills. No doubt this purchase will inspire the birth of many new mills, as other entrepreneurs with dollar signs in their eyes seek to be the next Associated Content-type success story. So expect oodles more low-pay writing opportunities in future.

4. Kiss your residuals goodbye. For those unfamiliar with what happens to companies in an acquisition, the deal you made with AC may well be toast. Yahoo has no obligation to uphold it. It's a whole new ballgame. Your agreement is with AC -- and they don't exist anymore.

Translation: They will find new ways to screw you. Those of you who have been counting on AC to be some kind of retirement fund for you with pageview royalties coming in forever...well, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but Yahoo will probably change your deal. Maybe not today, but within a year or so. Or all new writers will get a different, even worse deal. Or something. Just watch for it. They could decide to shut down the main AC site and just run their content on Yahoo, for instance, disconnecting your royalty stream (views from the AC site is what's in your agreement, right?) forever.

And it's all made possible by you, writers who're willing to work for $15 a post or less. The more people work at these rates, the more work is available at these rates. Only you can stop this cycle.

What's your reaction to the AC/Yahoo deal? Leave a comment and let us know. I'd love to hear from some AC writers on this development.

Labels: Associated Content, Carol Tice, content mills, writer pay

47 comments:

Nicole said...: It is very upsetting. If I am hired to do some writing then I want to be paid for more than $5. I feel that I am worth more than that. I have written for free when I first started out but you find is that newspapers take advantage of you, especially the local ones. This is very sad! The big rat takes the cheese...again!; May 20, 2010 6:36 AM
Rebecca Dienger said...: I'm going to chime in as a reader and not a writer. I've paid attention to how often these articles pop up in my daily searches and how little solid information I come away with the majority of the time. I feel used because my innocent click casts a virtual vote for mediocrity and I can't take it back. I know that someone just made money or climbed higher in the search rankings thanks to my need for information and I got nothing in return. It's not just the talented, legitimate writers who are being taken advantage of in this SEO, pay-per-click, content-for-the-sake-of-content landscape. As usual, thought-provoking information in this space. The keyword here appears to be "caution." Thanks, Carol for an AHA moment first thing this morning.; May 20, 2010 7:01 AM
Pam Houghton said...: Carol - I'm finally getting it! With posts like these and the discussion links over on Linked In (i.e. LinkEds/Writers) writers too quickly undervalue their skills, therefore making it that much harder to recognize and reward the skills/talents/contributions writers make to the marketplace, and well, society. It took a while (for me) for the message to sink in...but it finally has, for good, I'd say.; May 20, 2010 7:20 AM
Lindsay Woolman said...: Thanks for posting this. I didn't know about this deal -- and yes, I am having an anger reaction, as well as a desire to tell writers everywhere to stop doing cheap labor -- it's not helping anyone to keep feeding into it. Great post!; May 20, 2010 10:19 AM
Carol Tice said...: I'm with you Rebecca -- I have yet to read an eHow article that was accurate. Very frustrating.

But help is likely on the way. At some point here Google is going to create an option to screen out mill content from searches...or another great portal will rise that's designed to get rid of it, and put Google six feet under. My prediction. Oh -- and of course all the mills go bust once that happens, or find a whole new business model.; May 20, 2010 11:41 AM
Deanna said...: I have to disagree with this post and I take offense from it as well. I've been writing for AC since 2007 and I can say that I don't add unprofessional "crappy" articles to their site. While I agree that there is a lot of junk on AC, there are also many professionally written articles there too. Over the past year, AC has been trying to upgrade their site by offering Featured Contributor positions to help enhance the quality of writing there. And while I agree the pay there is low, it is a good starting point for many people who are just beginning their online writing career. Not everyone can begin with a writing job that pays several hundred dollars per article. If you are being paid that high writing for Yahoo, maybe you'd like to share with everyone how you got that job so we can all apply for such a position.

I am no stranger to the world of writing and have been writing for print media and the internet for almost 20 years. I've explored many of the "content mills" to see for myself how much money can be made. I've read thousands of articles through the years by excellent writers at these sites, so I don't think it is fair for you to judge the writers by where they sell their writing. Looking down your nose at people who sell articles for $10 to $15 each is wrong. These writers are only trying to make a living and there are not thousands of plum assignments out there for everyone.

Yes, AC built its site on the work of the writers but it also gave some writers a place to showcase their work and earn some money. Writers knew what they would be paid and submitted their work willingly, no one twisted their arm. I don't understand why it is such a big surprise that AC would sell out the site for a huge profit - that's what companies do.

No one knows what the results of the buyout means to AC writers, so you shouldn't try scaring people by stating that Yahoo will try to find ways to "screw you". For all you know, it may have a positive effect for the writers on AC - it remains to be seen.; May 20, 2010 12:04 PM
Carol Tice said...: I'm not judging you or looking down my nose at you, Deanna. I'm trying to help you earn more money. That is my mission when I blog about writing. I'm trying to help you understand how these sites exploit you. This acquisition deal is a perfect opportunity to grasp the full extent to which you're being ripped off in this model.

Especially for someone experienced like you, being on these mills means you're tarred with the brush of all the substandard work that's on AC. How does that help your career?

You're right that it may turn out to be a great thing for AC writers...but as someone covering business the past 20 years or so, let's say I'm betting it goes the other way.

But you haven't answered the primary question, Deanna -- are you not angry to see the owners of AC handed $100 million thanks to the work you essentially "gave" them, at inappropriately low rates?; May 20, 2010 12:32 PM
Lauren said...: Thanks Deanna. Well put. As a single mom, I can't afford to simply build a portfolio and spend hours every day seeking out the "plum" jobs you're referring to. I'm building up my portfolio and exploring options, but content mills are keeping my head above water for the moment.

I read everything I can get my hands on to stay informed and expand my skills set. From everything I can gather, the amount of "plum" jobs hasn't gone down. More opportunities have been added at a lower rate, but this isn't affecting the amount of well paying jobs available. If you don't want to take advantage of those opportunities, that's fine. Just don't hate on the people who are doing their best.

In addition, writing is a business. Content mills may (sometimes) provide lower quality, lower priced content. That doesn't decrease the value of the better content. Some companies sell $60 jeans, and others sell $20 jeans. There are markets for both. Same here.

We don't know what the results of the Yahoo purchase will be. Until we do, fear mongering is hardly productive. Did AC make a killing? Absolutely. When X company buys Y company, do the CEO's give a payout to the mail clerks? Hah. Yeah right. It's a business. They made a business decision. No one's getting screwed yet, so perhaps we should focus our energies on more productive activities.; May 20, 2010 12:42 PM
Michael E. Newman said...: Great post, Carol! Professional writers -- real professionals who wish to be fairly paid for the amount of work they do -- should join you in fighting fight against content mills. That means a boycott of working for such virtual sweatshops and spreading the word to as many peers as possible. When groups like Google pay top dollar to acquire content mills, our fight gets more difficult ... but not impossible. Thanks for leading the way!; May 20, 2010 12:52 PM
Carol Tice said...: Lauren -- prospecting doesn't ordinarily take hours a day, done right. It's not as scary and hard as so many people think it is...but your perception of it is exactly why content mills exist -- they take advantage of everyone who feels unable to market themselves.

But marketing yourself is so very worth it -- one $95 an hour client really makes a big difference on the bottom line.

So far, I have yet to hear one AC writer answer the question on the table -- do you not feel angry? You think it's great that AC's owners made $100 million while you made...what you made?; May 20, 2010 12:59 PM
Denise Bertacchi said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2010 1:31 PM
Denise Bertacchi said...: AC writers are not shareholders. They don't own the company so they don't get a cut. Where did you grow up, socialist Russia?

And seriously, if you think the AC writers are all so crappy, maybe that's why they aren't working national glossies. Telling an AC writer they should be mad is like telling a burger flipper he should be pissed off because Food Network isn't knocking down his door and offering him a cooking show.

Please stop painting all content writers with the same brush. Some of us need the flexibility of grabbing a quick title and making a buck--or 15.

Don't you dare say that all the stuff on eHow is crap, I've written some of that. Some just do it for a hobby that actually pays. Some do it to moonlight. Some do it because its the only way to write with a screaming baby on your hip. There's no harm in that.; May 20, 2010 1:33 PM
Deb Lamb said...: Wow! A little heated discussion, that's great!

While I agree with what Carol is trying to convey, and I feel there are those who are missing what she is saying, I prefer not to write for those types of companies.

However, I also understand someone who is just starting out and wanting to tweak their writing skills and choose to actively participate in those types of companies.

I see how it hurts writers and their pay, and it sucks! We can all choose the sort of income we want to make. Ultimately, it is all up to us. If you are not making the kind of money you desire from your writing business, get out there and start marketing in the right places.

Continue to pursue every lead, and get creative in your strategies. It takes consistent hard work to build a writing business where you can earn a good living. If you are up to it, then it will certainly pay off.; May 20, 2010 1:58 PM
Carol Tice said...: Some of us actually think there's a lot of harm done in the wide dissemination of inaccurate information, Denise. I've heard from medical personnel who're concerned patients may die from following the advice in "hobby" articles they read on the Internet.

It was traditional at many dot-com era startups to profit-share at the IPO or big acquisition with line workers...happened with Amazon and Yahoo itself, as I recall, and most famously at Microsoft, spawning legions of Microsoft millionaires...so it's something AC certainly might have entertained.

It's seen in some progressive quarters as a great way to cultivate loyalty in the workforce, not communism. But now the bar's been set, and as Demand and others go public or get acquired, I think we can expect them to also not recognize the writers who made it all possible.

To my mind AC writers have done the equivalent of what many dot-com startup workers did -- they worked long hours for cheap in hopes that there might be a payoff at the end of the line. Sure, there was no explicit promise, but when you're radically underpaying people, I think it'd be good business to bonus people. There is precedent for it.

Here, there's a big-time payoff, but not for those who took the pay hit on the front end. I just think that's wrong.

I don't think all AC writers are crappy, Denise...the problem is enough of them are that it gives AC that reputation. Which is bad news for the experienced writers who're spending time writing for AC.; May 20, 2010 2:11 PM
Carol Tice said...: Some breaking news on the AC front I need to add -- apparently many AC contributors are deeply concerned by the Yahoo deal -- so concerned they are looking to form a union. That's usually easier to do when you're a full-time employee...but still reflects the concerns the deal brings. Apparently AC has been unwilling to explain what the sale will mean for the writers...hmmm...that's never good.; May 20, 2010 3:18 PM
Jenn Mattern said...: "These writers are only trying to make a living and there are not thousands of plum assignments out there for everyone."

Actually there are for any writer whose work is worth it. They just often aren't found publicly advertised. That's nothing new in the freelance writing world. And the problem is that so many freelancers settle for what's easy, because they have misconceptions about how "difficult" finding those better gigs is. It isn't. It doesn't take hours per article either. If anything, the gigs start coming to you sooner rather than later.

A writer I'm currently coaching went from Demand Studios to $175 per blog post in just 2 weeks. Yeah, it was that hard. By writing just three articles she was able to earn 50% MORE than what she could average at mills in a typical month. Those opportunities exist all over the Web, so thinking they're not out there is a pretty poor excuse for anyone who wants to do better. Given, not all writers have higher ambitions, and that's okay; that's why mills are great for the hobbyist crowd.

All you have to do is make yourself visible and network. And in the meantime, reach out to companies or publications directly. If people don't want to be judged by who they write for, then they should be more careful about who they choose to associate with professionally. You can't expect people to think of you as a master chef if you're flipping burgers at your local fast food joint -- no matter how good you might be. Being a great writer is a wonderful thing. But if you want people to truly respect your abilities, you can't constantly surround yourself with the mediocre. And like it or not, that's what the truly decent mill writers are often doing.

Just for the record, that's coming from someone who's been there working with mills in years past. I've not only bought into the "greatness" of their models, but I've been on the backend seeing how management wanted us to sell writers to pull them in. And I did it. And I'm ashamed of it to this day. That's one of the reasons I'm personally so outspoken against mills, and why I put so much effort into helping those writers who do want better things work to make them happen.

I would never look at you and think you're automatically a lousy writer because you work for mills. But as someone who's also hired a lot of freelancers in the past, I can also see the side of editors and business owners who automatically dismiss writers focusing on those mills. If that's the what someone considers worthy portfolio material, what does it say about their ability to do better for the client? For the most part, they want to see that you're already familiar with working in their specific market -- not that you can post quick articles to a site with little to no barriers to entry. In many cases, you'd impress them far more with a blog of your own, because at least that shows more initiative. You might not like to think about it that way, but you can be sure many folks hiring do. After all, it's their job.; May 20, 2010 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: As a writer for DS and AC I can honestly say I don't feel screwed. At only 20-years old I am making over $1,200/week on my four websites that I write for as an "underpaid" writer. Considering I barely ever put in more than 20 hours per week, I think the accusations here are entirely false and misleading. All these content mill sites are what you make of them, some of us will make a lot in a short amount of time, others will be selling themselves short.; May 20, 2010 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey at least you got to be another "Real Writer" taking shots at those dumb ole content writers. When I saw that I just figure it's more of the same agenda of slamming us.; May 20, 2010 5:36 PM
Carol Tice said...: I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have an agenda of slamming writers who write for mills. I'm trying to help writers make more money...so they're not so ashamed of what they're doing that they feel the need to be anonymous!

And BTW, a lot of us make a LOT more than $1,200 a week...out here in the world of finding your own clients. It really is worth it. Clearly you've found a way to work the system pretty well...hope your earnings don't drop after this AC/Yahoo deal closes and they change the rules.; May 20, 2010 5:53 PM
Jenn Mattern said...: I'm curious of a few things:

1. If you're so thrilled with your success, why comment anonymously? That immediately lends less credibility to the point you want to make, so it doesn't make much sense.

2. How many articles do you write every week to earn that?

3. Much more importantly, how many total articles have you written and how long it you spend on them to earn that? (For example, I know writers who "do well," but they also previously put in years of earning pretty much nothing to write thousands of articles -- what you earn now is only valid when you crunch all of the relevant numbers.)

4. If you're really earning $1200 per week from mills, you've found a sustainable way to do it over the long term, and you find the work rewarding, then I'm extremely happy for you. Really. But you would still be the exception to the rule. And it's never smart for writers considering their options to assume they'll be the exception to any rule, especially when it comes to relying on 3rd parties and their changing policies (like the sudden sale -- these things have happened pretty often in the past with these kinds of sites -- sales, changing revenue share models, closing down, etc.).; May 20, 2010 7:22 PM
Jenn Mattern said...: Blah. Didn't proofread before commenting there. Sorry for the typos.; May 20, 2010 7:23 PM
Nancy Tracy said...: This article came off as condescending and naive. There is a market for all types of writing, and AC would not be as successful as it is if it had no value in the market place. As for sharing the Yahoo buyout money with freelancers, I can only ask what you're smoking. AC writers were never promised a stake in the company and obviously feel their efforts were well compensated, even if you don't. I personally enjoy writing for AC for a variety of reasons, not all of which are monetary. What's ironic is that on one hand you patronize AC writers, and on the other you think we got shafted. Which is it?; May 20, 2010 10:25 PM
theBarefoot said...: You tell 'em Norma Rae! I can only say, "Good on Luke and his cronies." He took an idea from birth to death and collected on the life insurance policy. Their profit doesn't diminish my writing nor does my participation in their business detract from anyone's livelihood. I didn't take one scrap of food from another writer's plate. Anyone who thinks writing for a mill is equivalent to earning a living wage needs their head examined.; May 20, 2010 10:34 PM
theBarefoot said...: The only drawback I've found publishing with AC is the prejudice from people who can't distinguish the difference in a byline and a URL. There are some good writers who publish real gems at AC and they do so for reasons that make sense to them. Sadly, they are tarnished with the same varnish of those who pan the whole site without a second look.; May 20, 2010 11:04 PM
jcrn said...: I do write for Associated Content as well as magazines, other sites online and more. The income from page views on AC is a part of my budget.

As far as professional or higher paying jobs, I would urge anyone here to read the recent NY Times article, "Putting a Price on words" found here (or look up the title if the link doesn't work. Here is a portion and the article also ties into Associated Content:

"Though journalists tend to shudder at Demand Media’s approach, mainstream publishers are starting to co-opt portions of its model. USA Today, for instance, has contracted Demand to supply the content for its Travel Tips Web page, while AOL recently started a Web site called Seed, edited by Saul Hansell, a former New York Times columnist, which generates story ideas from search data. More generally, there is a growing appreciation among those who practice journalism of the Internet’s capacity to tell them what readers want to know."

“For traditional journalists, this is a difficult concept for them to grasp, and one reason it’s difficult is because it’s scary — it’s scary to actually have that data in front of you,” Dvorkin said. “It’s scary to say, wow, this is the audience, and now all of a sudden I have to respond to the audience because this is what they’re interested in.”; May 20, 2010 11:57 PM
Carol Tice said...: Well, apparently not all the AC writers feel well compensated and like the Yahoo deal is great for them, or they wouldn't be hastily trying to unionize and asking for a seat at the bargaining table...even though the bargain has already been struck. The time to care about writer rights and pay was in years past. Now the fix is in, and Yahoo will say what goes for AC writers in the future. Hopefully AC pageviews weren't too much a part of your budget, jcrn.

Generating story ideas based on search data is a valid idea that I'm sure more and more news outlets will be picking up on...but some of us would like to see better quality execution on those ideas than we see in the mill model...and better pay for the writers, too.

It fascinates me how much vilification you can get for suggesting the AC writers deserve better than they got here.; May 21, 2010 12:31 AM
jcrn said...: Here is the thing about budgets and writing for AC: the residuals on articles already written can add up to a fairly predictable amount per month. That happens without writing another article. Get enough articles on AC, ones that have evergreen status and you can count on a certain amount.

No, it doesn't have to be a large part of the budget. But who would throw away hundreds of dollars a month in residuals, as well as upfront payments and the possibility, very real, of making plenty overnight on certain articles?

By the way, AC has more page views per day than the New York Times. That might explain the $100 million price tag. I don't see why the writers should expect a part of the sales profits when no one is forced to write for the site. The terms of agreement have always been clear.

Who sells a business and gives the profits away to employees, unless they have stock sharing plans or something. Freelancers don't get a portion of profits when magazines are sold to another publisher, either.; May 21, 2010 12:44 AM
Rebecca Dienger said...: I can see there is a heated debate about content mills and clearly there are talented writers, just trying to get some experience and a paycheck who are working for them. I'm not about to take issue with that. But I think Carol Tice's observance of the industry and passion for writer's rights is admirable, highly informative and is creating good discussion for all of us to learn from. We must pay attention to the environment in which we work. I witnessed firsthand the practice of using eLance writers for a pittance because it wasn't superior content but qualified leads that needed to be generated. Some of the articles were decent. Most were in the "you get what you pay for" category. The information wasn't false, it just wasn't all that, well, informative. It was designed to be just relevant enough to capture the right person's attention. This is marketing. My concern- and again, commenting as a reader and consumer - is that this practice in general opens the web to false and misleading content from writers who aren't as skilled and well-meaning and would never involve themselves in this kind of discussion because they probably wouldn't care like the people I see commenting here. This environment does not foster, encourage and most importantly, renumerate good writing and honest writers and it doesn't help honest people looking for good information on the Web. Seems to me that we are all in this boat together.; May 21, 2010 6:37 AM
Loretta Snyder said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 21, 2010 6:49 AM
Loretta Snyder said...: Quoting Carol Tice from May 20, 2010 11:41 AM

"I have yet to read an eHow article that was accurate."

-Wow,Carol...way to slam your fellow writers!

Angela Atkinson -- http://www.ehow.com/members/ds_angela14173.html

Kerrie McLoughlin -- http://www.ehow.com/members/mommykerrie.html

Lindsay Woolman -- http://www.ehow.com/members/ds_9ceca7b3-5e81-4343-89d3-f165eaa36ab9.html; May 21, 2010 6:53 AM
Davida said...: I'm sorry, but what you say makes no sense at all. Say the New York Times gets sold, and the owners get millions. You think they will split that money up among their staff - giving them all an equal share of that? How generous of you. And while we'd all love to be employed by you if this ever happens to you, it just isn't realistic. What the staff of the NYT will want is to know that they'll still have their jobs when the old owners hand the keys over to the new guys. That's why I'm not angry at AC. I get my $10 per article for my featured content, and I get an average of $3 for every short, timely piece I do, and I also get my page views (which is tiny, but then I'm new over there). I'm hoping I'll still get that when Yahoo takes over. If you can offer me a writing job I can do in my spare time that makes me more money than this, I'd love to get your recommendation. And don't tell me Design Studios - I like to keep the rights to my work, thankyouverymuch!; May 21, 2010 7:30 AM
Carol Tice said...: The NY Times staff is paid orders of magnitude more than AC writers. There's not a comparison between those business models. When you're paid appropriately, you don't expect a back-end payoff for your work. You also don't need one, because you're getting paid a living all along!

To my mind the AC writers are in more of a classic dot-com startup scenario -- you work long hours for peanuts, but if the model makes it, there's some kind of reward waiting for you. I really wrote this post because it breaks my heart that there is no such payoff for those who've toiled for AC.

I think if the owners are smart, they will still make some kind of payout, at least to major contributors. To me, AC writers are like the software developers in other dot-coms -- there would be no AC without them. They essentially created it.

Even though they were freelancers, I think there should have been some kind of participation, at least for major contributors. But we'll see how many AC writers fade away if Yahoo changes the deal and royalties vaporize. Ultimately, that's the only power mill freelancers have -- the power to walk away.

And one aspect of this deal we haven't discussed yet is that if writers don't like the Yahoo regime, they could desert en masse, and Yahoo could end up with a $100 million property that is rapidly worth very little. They're really taking a big gamble that they can transfer this model to their ownership, change where work appears and possibly the royalty or pay-rate parameters, and it will still work for the wrietrs. Maybe writers will expect to be paid more if they're on Yahoo...or maybe they'll drink the 'exposure' Kool-Aid even more than before. We'll see.

As far as eHow...I'm sure there's a good article or two in there somewhere, Loretta. But when I'm searching for info, I never seem to turn it up. Just talking personal experience there.; May 21, 2010 11:28 AM
Brandon said...: Since you don't write for AC, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. I have been with AC for about a year. In that time, several of my top articles have made well over $100 each (and still earning residuals). Also, like others have said, I don't publish "crappy" content to the site. Sure junk content exists all over the internet (even AC), but don't lump all AC writers into the same group. Many of us write for AC in addition to other ventures simple because we have the option to write what we want instead of what we are told to write. As for you saying that the writers are being kept in the dark.... how would you know? There has been plenty of information through blog posts, press releases, special FAQ section of AC, and forum conversations with AC management.; May 21, 2010 12:04 PM
Carol Tice said...: Writers frantically trying to unionize in part as an attempt to get more information to me indicates they feel left in the dark about what the deal will mean for them, Brandon.

I think if you read back through the thread, I'm not lumping all AC writers in as bad...the problem is they're all guilty by association. There's a reality that these content sites don't have a good reputation for accuracy and quality.

Many print editors I've spoken with -- editors who might pay you $600 or $1,500 for your article right up front, without rolling the dice on pageviews -- won't even consider writers who include mill work on their resume. If you write for content sites, your reputation takes that hit even if the stuff you individually write is Pulitzer quality. That's the tragedy of it.; May 21, 2010 12:29 PM
Brandon said...: Carol, writers who claim to be left in the dark are because they didn't pay attention. Period.

Guilty by association is a load of crap. So, should we just group you in with all of the other crappy bloggers on the internet?

As for reputability... Sure, AC articles don't hold much merit on their own. However, there are many good writers who frequently get their articles picked up and used by major media outlets (CNN, FOX, etc.). That is reputable. I also know quite a few writers that were hired by private clients to write because of an AC article that the client saw and liked.; May 21, 2010 12:46 PM
jcrn said...: How on earth could AC know what the deal "means" for them now that Yahoo has bought AC? However, I don't believe Yahoo would spend that kind of money if AC didn't have perceived value (and that value is real).

The value also resides in many of the writers, people with a proven record of knowing how to tie in relevant articles to the AC model for making a profit. We help AC and AC helps us. But that doesn't mean we own the company or get an automatic share of any sales.

Again, more people come to AC daily than the New York Times. It is a wild and rough ride for writers on the Internet. Here is an article WELL worth reading about How Much Online writing of ANY kind is worth: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16Journalism-t.html?ref=magazine. If links work in comments here, you can find it here It is worth discussing.

None other than Lisa Collier Cool sent a tweet out about that. For those unfamiliar with her, she makes excellent money as a writer. When Collier Cool posted that tweet, she noted that online writing is worth very little. My take is it has to do with the ads (and the article makes that point as well).; May 21, 2010 12:49 PM
Rose K. said...: I cannot wait to see the changes! I do extremely well with AC (as do dozens and dozens and dozens of others) and I am looking forward to the future. Writing sites (like AC, DS, BH, SEED, etc.) provide me with an incredibly comfortable income and a portfolio that has scored me dozens of amazing private clients. I am proud of my work and will continue to do it.

The beauty of writing sites is that they allow their writers to grow and be themselves. We choose what we want to write. And, we don't wait months to hear back on a query. I do not like magazines. Their articles are all the same and 99% of them bore the heck out of me. The internet is the future whether anyone likes it or not.

And, my reputation has yet to take a hit due to my preference to write for the writing sites I love. I have yet to have a hospital or pharmaceutical company turn me down. Actually, many think what I do is quite interesting.

In the next ten years I do not see many of your print editor friends even having a job. Print is quickly becoming a thing of the past. They will find themselves applying to places like Demand Studios just to keep their lights on and food on the table. The New York Times jcrn posted here hit the nail on the head. Times are changing. We can choose to go with the flow and continue to follow the writing career path that we love or not. Those who are currently writing for writing sites will ultimately have the upper hand because they will have established themselves and will have already established a client base. Print writers will be struggling to learn web-writing and will be struggling to find clients.

This crap about us holding you back and causing you to make less money. You are the only one who can hold yourself back from making more money, not those of us who love and make a lot of money writing for outlets, such as Associated Content and Demand Studios.

In the end, I love what I do and who I write for. I will not change this for anyone. There is just way too much money and exposure writing for writing sites and I will continue to get it, as will my fellow writing site writers.; May 21, 2010 1:15 PM
jcrn said...: I have no idea why the above link doesn't work. People will have to copy and paste the URL or do a search under the title "Putting a Price on Words."; May 21, 2010 1:17 PM
jcrn said...: Carol Tice said: "The NY Times staff is paid orders of magnitude more than AC writers. There's not a comparison between those business models. When you're paid appropriately, you don't expect a back-end payoff for your work. You also don't need one, because you're getting paid a living all along!"

The NY Times is going to be charging readers to view the pages online.If they are doing so well with their offline profits, I doubt they would do that. They need the extra money.

"Jill Abramson, managing editor for news at the New York Times since 2003, will be stepping aside for six months in order to "focus on digital operations and strategy." (source:editorsweblog.com)

Also "a number of writers, from at least eight different departments varying from Culture to Business to Styles are being let go. They also wrote that at least two NY Times blogs, Economix and Green Inc. may be shutdown due lack of revenue."

There is a new paradigm for writers. Pay rates will change but they'll be focused on online pay rates and those differ from print. But print publications are in trouble. Newsweek, etc.

I wonder where those unemployed NY Times writers will land? AC has been picking up more and more writers with background at very reputable newspapers, etc. It isn't great out there in journalism land, not offline.; May 21, 2010 2:03 PM
Deborah Aldridge said...: I find all these AC cheerleaders annoying as hell, but then, I always did. Their blinders will be snatched off their eyes soon. They won't listen. They're all little sheep running around letting AC tell them what to swallow and where to bathe. Idiors, all of them. I agree with you completely, Carol, and have said as much on my own blog.; May 21, 2010 2:05 PM
Lindsay Woolman said...: In defense of Carol... Yes, I have written for ehow and demand studios and some similar sites, but honestly, it makes me feel cheated and used. I got paid $15 per article and I had choices such as "how to make jewelry out of dentures" (true story).

When I see that one big corporation is making millions of dollars off my talent for those kinds of articles, I am angry. When I see friends of mine who want to be writers thinking that DS is the only way, I am sad.

I have not written for AC. Maybe it's better. It sounds like some people love it. We all find what works for us.

What I don't like is seeing a low value on writing. It makes me think of cheap manufactured goods made in China. I think, and Carol teaches, that there ARE good paying jobs out there and that the more other writers embrace this belief, the more we ALL benefit.; May 21, 2010 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: If I were Associated Content, I wouldn't exactly be eager to have my work placed alongside reputable sources like the AP. There's no comparison when it comes to quality. If Yahoo won't hire professional editors and pay them and the writers a living wage, then the content will remain plagiarized, shallow and poorly researched. This kind of "content" is really just a way to manipulate search engine rankings.; May 23, 2010 6:15 PM
Kerrie McLoughlin said...: regarding the accuracy of eHow "articles" ... i didn't sign up to really write articles but instead little how-to blurbs. i mean, mine are all personal experience ehows ... i chose them and wasn't assigned them. i mean, making lasagna or getting a job working at a church as a babysitter are pretty easy little how-tos, you know. i'm probably getting paid what these tiny pieces are worth. if i want to make more money, i write much longer pieces that are researched and that i have to get quotes for (national or local) ... i write stuff that i can sell over and over again as reprints and earn a minimum of $250 ... then I rework them and send them out as queries to bigger parenting magazines. i don't feel slammed by what Carol said about the accuracy of ehow ... b/c what she says is partially true and there are many "articles" that are crap that the author clearly didn't even take the time to proofread!; May 26, 2010 2:32 PM
Carol Tice said...: Over on All Freelance Writing today there's an interesting dissection of Demand Studios, where Carson Brackney in the comments raises a very interesting question -- if major newspapers are going to pick up Demand content, and Yahoo is going to pick up AC content...are the writers going to be content with still getting just $15-$20 for their pay?

Let's hope not! These new alliances could be a game-changer not just in terms of enhancing the lucre for mill owners...could also be an opportunity to hold out for real-world writer fees.; May 26, 2010 6:29 PM
Robert said...: I'm a hobbyist writer, and new at it, for that matter, but having read this entire thread I would hope that the interested owning parties of both Yahoo! and AC read it, too. I understand what you are trying to convey, Carol, and really don't have a disagreement with it. However, I think Yahoo! would be well advised to take note of the loyalty many of the AC contributors have for that site, and how they might feel if Yahoo! substantially alters the arrangement.; May 30, 2010 11:12 AM
Amy Young said...: Wow lots of heated discussions here. I do and have written for AC. I hate it and love it. It's hard breaking into freelancing. It's also hard to honestly write well when I know that I will not be making any money. It does suck and I'm ashamed to admit it, but that's the honest truth. I just don't see the point in producing quality work for them when I know I won't be paid fairly. At the same time any money coming in when you have a new baby at home is good. They do need to change a lot there. If they want writers to produce better content they need to pay more. Maybe some people spend lots of time on their articles, but I just don't see the point. Most of my articles are in the $5 range. I'm not angry that they built an empire though and made a killing in the process. We don't have to write for them, but often we do because balancing finding freelance jobs and actually making some kind of money gets difficult. I currently am in a bad spot now though because I have been one of the people that created crappy articles, got paid little money, and now am kind of embarrassed of the work I have up. It's a huge catch 22 for a lot of writers.; June 4, 2010 11:08 AM
Carol Tice said...: Hi Amy --

The good news is you can start creating awesome content, either on your own site, for AC, or wherever, and eventually it will paper over the bad stuff in terms of search results on your byline. And your great clips can help you find great clients. More on that here.; June 4, 2010 4:30 PM