Erik Sherman's WriterBiz

Gresham's Law of the Web: Crap Content Quashes Quality

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:54:00 +0000

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

Be Wary of Intelius People Search

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:46:00 +0000

I've mentioned Intelius at times as one place to pay for more extensive information on people than you might get from free Internet-based services (though depending on what you need, spending any money at all is a waste). It's rarely needed, however there can be times in reporting when you could use more background. Only, it turns out that Intelius has a bad habit of deceptive marketing, as TechCrunch notes:

They are still selling people information that you can find on other sites like WhitePages.com for free. And during and immediately after the transaction, users are asked if they want $10 cash back. If they click yes, they are signed up for a $25/month credit card subscription.

Consumer complaints continue to flood the company. 1,159 consumer complaints have been filed with the Better Business Bureau in the last 36 months. There are another 214 complaints on RipoffReport. And they have had to deal with class action lawsuits in both Washington and California. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

So if you need information that isn't readily available, find another source. Who needs this type of deceptive headache, or the people who would use such tactics?

HP Competes with Google on Books - Only Smarter

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:47:00 +0000

Hewlett-Packard, which, aside from PCs, is a giant in imaging, is taking on Google on the book front and has thrown the gauntlet down via a partnership with the University of Michigan, one of Google's most important partners in its online book offering, because it has one of the great academic research libraries. First, check the story I wrote at BNET for the details. I really do think that HP has outsmarted Google on its own territory.

That's the view from the business and tech front, but let's consider what this means for writers. Remember that there's still wrangling over negotiations on the class action suit by writers and publishers. (I opted out, considering it a bad deal, so don't have a direct personal stake in it.) The HP announcement would seem likely to have a big impact on how the discussions are going:

Google is going to point to this as proof that there is competition and that it's not closing things off.

The writers and publishers should argue that the HP deal shows that there's no need to grab rights going forward.

The judge might well see the HP deal as proof that handing over rights to so-called orphaned works (still in copyright but the rights holder difficult to ascertain or find) is bad from a market view because it would provide a sanctioned advantage to one company over another.

My short take, for whatever it's worth, is that the HP entry is going to do more to kill the rights grab than almost anything else that could have happened. On the balance, the argument becomes that there's no need for a special deal and that Google or any other company can clearly go into business looking at public domain works and that they don't need to have an extraordinary access to the intellectual property rights of individuals or organizations.

Furthermore, this gives Google a competitive kick in the rear. Since HP is doing it, why not Xerox, which is also big in imaging? Why not Amazon? IBM? It's a case where more is merrier, at least for those of us who own book rights. In fact, I'm wondering why some of the organized writers groups don't do something equal to HP's tactics. Instead of protesting, often long after the horse is out of the barn, some activity, create something practical instead. How about partnering with an Amazon or Barnes & Noble or Xerox or someone who might have the wherewithal to create a competing service. Think of it as an iUniverse that is actually effective - able to store scanned or reproduced books, create paper copies on demand, take and fulfill orders, split revenues. Negotiate with a few and use that as leverage to get a better deal out of one, rather than getting tied into an Amazon "you can have 35 percent" deal. That would be real activism, because it could be effective and makes the market system work for writers, rather than the other way around.

Image courtesy of stock.xchng user designkryt.

Wired on Demand Media

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:14:00 +0000

I've covered some of the financial background of Demand Media and its writer mill, Demand Studios, but I'd strong suggest that people also read this article in Wired. It looks at the operational model of the company, which is essentially a virtual factory making money off piecework by writers, videographers, and, soon, photographers.

The process is automatic, random, and endless, a Stirling engine fueled by the world’s unceasing desire to know how to grow avocado trees from pits or how to throw an Atlanta Braves-themed birthday party. It is a database of human needs, and if you haven’t stumbled on a Demand video or article yet, you soon will. By next summer, according to founder and CEO Richard Rosenblatt, Demand will be publishing 1 million items a month, the equivalent of four English-language Wikipedias a year. Demand is already one of the largest suppliers of content to YouTube, where its 170,000 videos make up more than twice the content of CBS, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera English, Universal Music Group, CollegeHumor, and Soulja Boy combined. Demand also posts its material to its network of 45 B-list sites — ranging from eHow and Livestrong.com to the little-known doggy-photo site TheDailyPuppy.com — that manage to pull in more traffic than ESPN, NBC Universal, and Time Warner’s online properties (excluding AOL) put together. To appreciate the impact Demand is poised to have on the Web, imagine a classroom where one kid raises his hand after every question and screams out the answer. He may not be smart or even right, but he makes it difficult to hear anybody else.

The result is a factory stamping out moneymaking content. “I call them the Henry Ford of online video,” says Jordan Hoffner, director of content partnerships at YouTube. Media companies like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, AOL, and USA Today have either hired Demand or studied its innovations. This year, the privately held Demand is expected to bring in about $200 million in revenue; its most recent round of financing by blue-chip investors valued the company at $1 billion.

Using sophisticated automation, computers decide on the topics and issue story assignments based on what does well in web searches and advertising terms. Equally automated analysis predicts how much revenue in search advertising the piece can bring in. Those that offer enough revenue are given the nod.

It's essentially a service article machine, turning out what might as well be front-of-book pieces at a cheap rate. Will it compete with all writing markets? No, because they can't get the research and work that many who hire writers need. However, does it undercut certain types of content? Absolutely. If you're used to writing quick how-tos or other service-type material, then as things move to the web, you are basically out of business. And can it affect all markets? I suspect it could, as the greatly lowered prices begin to affect perception of value.

Questex Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:11:00 +0000

B-to-B publisher Questex filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. It handled publications in a number of industries, including "technology, telecommunications, beauty, spa, travel, hospitality, leisure, home entertainment, landscape design, building services and natural resources.":

In a statement this afternoon, Questex Media Holdings Group said it had reached an agreement with senior lenders to reduce the company debt and provide “significant financing” to continue operations. Questex says that day-to-day operations will not be affected by the filing or the restructuring, and no job losses or magazine closures were expected.

Its ad pages declined by about a third in the first half of 2009, compared to 2008.

The Deadline Theme Song

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:39:00 +0000

As I'm under the gun on a project, here's a video clip of Steely Dan performing "Don't Take Me Alive" for all my professional brethren under the gun with the deadline police outside, megaphones blaring, "Drop the pen and come out with the manuscript over your head."

Interesting Source for Multimedia Training: YouTube

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:49:00 +0000

Clearly a business like YouTube thrives on the freely uploaded entries of people (though there are some sorts of revenue sharing deals available, as I understand). But instead of seeing it as a video equivalent of a writer mill, I'd suggest checking this link. It's the YouTube Reporters' Center. There's material clearly intended for the novice "citizen journalist," but if you're a word person who isn't used to the concept of moving cross medium, it's worth a stop. For example, you can get tips from TIME.com managing editor Josh Tyrangiel giving examples of how they look at the different forms of media -- text, video, photos -- and when they choose one over the other. Or Tavis Smiley from PBS on using unscripted questions to get a conversation rather than an interview. Some of the snippets here (they seem to be in the 3 to 5 minute range) may be too elementary, but if you can pick up a tip or two on moving to new media for the cost of watching some clips, it's a great return on your investment.

Writer Mill AllVoices.com Answers

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:11:00 +0000

The following came in as a comment on my post about AllVoices.com being a writer mill -- that is, wanting writers to provide content for little to no money. But I wanted to address it more directly, as it seems to come from AllVoices.com CEO Amra Tareen:

Erik, you are absolutely right the writers, photographers and citizens that can have their own website, search engine optimize the content, reach a global audience and build a community should develop their own site. As you 80% of blogs out there have an audience of one.

Allvoices is about people reporting news and opinion and discussing it with allvoices diverse community. The site automatically create context around the user reports with images, newsstories links, blogs and videos in real time. plus allvoices has a community from over 167 countries that contributes and share news. We have a recommendation engine that connects people together from all over the world. The program is an incentive not a salary. Also not everyone needs to join the incentive they can write for views, audience and connections.

Let's address the misconceptions and mistakes in this answer. Do most blogs have a small to non-existent audience? Absolutely. Then again, most blog are not intended to be anything more than outlets of self-expression. And when marketing and exposure is the intent, clearly you need to do work to get more of an audience, particularly an audience that can respond in a way that turns into more work. Or you might be looking for an audience, in which case you want to focus on your connection to them as the primary thing, not the connection to some publication or site.

As to the assertion that AllVoices "is about people reporting news and opinion and discussing it with allvoices diverse community," I have two words: horse shit. This is a business being run by a woman who apparently has an MBA from Harvard and was a partner at an early-stage VC fund. She has held multiple positions in high tech management. There are multiple Ph.D.s on the management team.

This is not some altruistic venture, folks. It's a business. So when I heard, "The program is an incentive not a salary," I think, "Sure, you want to pay peanuts to get the content that might give you something to sell." Here's the headline from the page on which the company describes the incentive program: "Build Your Brand. Gain Influence. Make Money." Let's take this in three steps:

You don't build your brand. You build their brand. The more content they have, the more they drive appearances in search engines and, ultimately, the more money they make.

Gain influence? You have got to be kidding. If I write a piece for the New York Times Magazine I gain some influence -- for that moment. If I write something that hits the front of HuffPo, for heaven's sake, I might get momentary influence. If I write for AllVoice, I get, "Who?"

Make money? I thought this was about brand?

According to the site, you can make a whopping 25 cents to $2 per thousand page views, and you only get the upper end if you can achieve a minimum of 100,000 views. If you'll remember a point I've made before, run of site ads are likely paying in the $10 per thousand range. To put that into perspective, I blog on a fairly high profile site, and even after building what I'm doing for well over a year, that's several months of page views for me.

AllVoices had claimed on its site in February that it hit the one million monthly visitor mark. In responding to Angela Hoy, it claimed 2.7 million. Maybe. I checked Alexa.com, got the percentage of global page views and compared it to that of my own domain. Doing the math, it sounds as if the company is maybe 1.5 million page views a month. You always have to take these site estimates with a grain of salt, but it certainly sounds odd compared to the company's claims. It would also mean that they're bringing in maybe $15,000 a month, which is nothing for a company like this. In other words, the chance of making significant income from the venture might as well be zero.

So there's no money and no real branding advantage. To me, that translates into no reason at all to work for yet another writer mill.

Another Writer Mill: AllVoices.com

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:00:00 +0000

I'm mostly going to point to Angela Hoy's post about what appears to be yet another writer mill: AllVoices.com. An important point she makes is about minimum pay-out numbers. As most writers don't make diddly at these sites, a minimum aggregated sum for getting paid likely means that most of the earnings remain in the pocket of the publisher. Here's how the site responded to her email to it:

The new program is about building a personal brand, writer's portfolio and citizen journalism. We try very hard to help users make money by teaching them how to promote their material (and promoting it ourselves). Also, we're bringing in partners that will sponsor the top writers. Passionate and quality writers can build great momentum and earn money. We're driving 2.7 million visitors to our site each month. Even though we say "the money you make depends on how well you do", for a lot of writers it's not about the money. It's about writing and sharing their opinions.

Now, let's assume $10 cost per thousand for advertising. That's at least $27,000 a month in revenue, or $324,000 a year. That's actually not a huge amount for a business, but, still, it's a business, not a charity. But it is trying to position itself as a place that will "promote" what writers do. You might as well create your own site and work to develop an audience that's interested in you, rather than grabbing some tiny percentage of whatever the site's overall traffic is.

Analyze the Web Site Before Paying the Ad Money

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:31:00 +0000

PageOneLit.com will say that it's:

# 1 Literary Newsletters Website out of 1,770,000 (GOOGLE)

# 3 Newsletter Website search out of 90,200,000 (GOOGLE)

# 9 Author Interview Search out of 4,000,000 (GOOGLE)

Owner (I think) John Weaver will tell you that in a letter that his site was listed on the 2009 Writers Digest best 101 web sites (which it was, but more on that in a moment). At least that's a letter that he's been known to send to people who have forthcoming books. And then he notes that for a mere $250, he will offer:

A full personal interview page at Pageonelit.com PageoneLit.com and AuthorsPressReleases.com with your photo, bio, book summary, short book review, etc...This is a one time fee for long range promotional goals. Note: Your interview page will stay up forever. Note: Your interview page will stay up forever. This is your interview page to market your book as you like. Plus AuthorsPressReleases.com & Books-and-Authors.net

The claims seem to be accurate, and lord knows book authors want sales. But you're in business to get exposure and results, not to waste money, so let's get beyond the surface for a moment. Here's how Writers Digest described the site:

Page ONE is a one-stop shop for author interviews, contest news, inspirational quotes and writing resources.

That's significantly different from endorsing it as a way of getting people to buy your book.

Google rankings are fine, if the particular search term someone uses is what they might use to look for the book you are offering because, after all, search marketing is something that depends on specific intent of the audience, not a general nosing about. If your title would be of immediate interest to someone searching for a literary newsletter, then you're set. If not, then the search results aren't necessarily going to do you a spit of good.

And Google rankings aside, if you are appearing somewhere, then you want traffic flowing in, because only a small percentage of the people are going to be interested enough and motivated enough to buy the book. So what are the traffic rankings of PageOneLit? Not so hot. According to Compete.com, which samples large panels of Internet consumers for their surfing habits, since January 2009, the average monthly number of unique visitors has been around 1,000. That's a pretty damned small number. To put it into perspective, even my domain gets more traffic, and given that you either have to be looking for me or, more likely, something I wrote about freelance writing, that is a sad state of affairs.

Granted, the sample size for both is low, as noted by Compete.com, which measures U.S. traffic to web sites. But that, in its own way, is a clear statement as well. To triangulate, I also checked Alexa.com, whose "percentage of Internet users" going to a site depends on knowing how many users they think there are, but sill gives a potential comparison. That site suggests that my domain has been receiving almost three times as much traffic over the last three months, and, I cannot stress enough, that number is nothing to brag about, as Internet stats go.

To put it differently, PageOneLit.com gets hardly any traffic. If you've traditionally published and are making, say, $1 in royalties per copy, then you need to sell more than 250 companies in addition to what you would have sold to talk about the investment in "exposure" as offering a return on your investment. So the interview is up, maybe gets the majority of its notice in a month and then drops off radically in effectiveness, because that's how traffic works on the web. As in anything else, you get the biggest boost while you're top of mind. So let's be generous and say that the primary sales pull-through lasts for two months. That would mean you'd need to see 250 sales out of 2,000 visitors, meaning a conversion rate of 12.5 percent. In my experience in direct marketing, that is a total pipe dream.

Before you believe the come-ons of people preying on the desire of writers to be read, check the numbers. There are better ways to spend your time and money.

DOJ Shoots Holes Though Google Book Settlement

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:50:00 +0000

If any one business dealing represented the potential to reshape media, it’s the Google Books class action settlement. The agreement has received some heavy criticism, though, clearly, the publishers and the one professional writers’ group, the Authors Guild, involved in the negotiations seem to support it. (Usual caveat: I’m a book author who opted out of the settlement, which suggests that I see flaws, at least as to how it could affect me.) But now the Department of Justice filed a last minute memo in the case, and it gives a strong view of the problems the DOJ sees and the difficulty facing Google and its would-be publishing partners.

For the rest of the post (on BNET), click here.

Checking Language at the Door to a Story

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:12:00 +0000

A colleague of mine, Laura Laing, who writes at times for the blog of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), posted yesterday regarding coverage of South African middle distance runner Caster Semenya being intersex -- that is, possesses both male and female reproductive organs. Laing's point was that the much of the press used the term hermaphrodite, "an outdated medical term that is no longer considered appropriate by U.S. journalistic standards."

An interesting discussion, as Laura's posts generally are. I found it raised a troublesome more general question. When language becomes obsolete but you don't regularly report on the topic, how do you know it? I've never even heard the term intersex before. That is unsurprising because I run into the topic about as often as discussions of lacrosse. (I'm fairly certain that I've even thought of curling, as in the team sport played on ice, more often.)

Just a moment's thought shows that the linguistic considerations go far beyond gender issues. Any time a journalist is in unfamiliar water, potential mines lie about. What if the topic is business? Technology? Art? Music? Construction? Cooking?

Curling?

Other than the transitory verbal fad -- whether groovy or rad -- language develops slowly enough that the changes come like a meandering tide. You look down and suddenly realize that the dry beach sand is covered with a thin sheet of sea water. However, if you're off in the mountains, you don't notice.

So how do journalists know that language has changed when they haven't paid attention? There's no office memo, particularly if, as is true of many of us, you don't work out of a news room. I don't have an answer, but then until this morning I didn't even realize that I had the question. Perhaps all journalists need to add one more type of fact-checking, taking a moment when using terms that we rarely employ to see whether they are still in play in their respective fields.

Image courtesy of stock.xchng user dewlittle.

Writer Mills Making Money on Articles

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:43:00 +0000

I've gone on at length about the money that Demand Studios has made off paying writers a pittance. But payment gets far worse at some of the other mills. However, it doesn't mean that those companies aren't getting an astounding mark-up from their customers.

Let's start with Helium.com. As I've noted, if you crunch through the numbers they've made public, the average article makes 80 cents. (Ironically, while searching I found a piece I wrote about the company back in 2007 when it introduced its "Marketplace," with writers setting prices from $20 to $200 and Helium taking a 20 percent commission for the massive undertaking of listing the piece.)

But have you ever wondered how much Helium charges for what you write? I did a little snooping and got a price list directly from the company itself. It still has the Marketplace, only the customer sets the price and lets writers compete for the job. Great, eh? But the real eye-opener is for that stock content it offers. Purchase fewer than 25 articles and you're paying ... $30 each. Up the volume to between 25 and 49 and it's $25 each. That's every time the article sells. Quite the mark-up.

It's not the only case of a writer mill charging vastly more for content than it pays. Look at AssociatedContent.com. A typical online advertising CPM, or cost per thousand page views, is $10. If the ads delivered with an article get 5,000 views, that's $50 in revenue at a conservative estimate. How much does the writer get paid? Between $1.50 and $2.50 . For 50,000 page views, or $500 in revenue, the payment to the writer is between $75 and $100. Let me tell you from experience in blogging commercially: the chance of getting 50,000 hits on a collection of articles even over the period of a month is pretty flipping slim unless you have many up. (By the way, since 2006, AssociatedContent has racked up about $21.4 million in VC money. It claims such clients as Autobytel.com, IAC, Mojo, and GoDaddy.com. The CEO was formerly chief marketing officer at CBS Interactive and, before that, was at Google for four years.)

I don't have the numbers on the flat fees that AC may pay, but I do on Delegate2, otherwise known as PureContent.com, which is the firm that shows up when searching for the former name on Google. You may remember my reporting that the company offered $3 for a "simple" 250 word article. What do they get for the short simple articles from their clients? According to a price list from the company, that would be $16. And for a more complicated article that has writers spending "extra hours researching your subject"? Try $50 for the same 250 word article. So what are they paying the writer? $10? For hours of research?

These mark-ups of 500 percent are large and show how much the writer mills depend on authors opting for orts. There's a reason I refer to this as piecework or a company store. Let's use one more term: sucker bait. They're looking for people who don't realize how much more money work can provide.

Google Fast Flip as the New News Stand

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:14:00 +0000

Google has released into beta a new service called Fast Flip, which provides an intriguing approach to making news media work on the web. I'll point you to my post on BNET Technology, which also has links to the service itself.

Freelance Writing Versus a Freelance Business

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:24:00 +0000

I think part of the reason for the ongoing debate over working for what I've come to call writer mills is a gulf of understanding. However, I think the gulf is actually one-sided. The gap isn't between "experienced" writers versus "newcomers." It's not between "professional" and "amateur" or "talented" versus "pedestrian." The gap is between those who understand from experience the possibilities and requirements of freelancing as a business versus people who think of making some money off their writing. I see this as an underlying issue in the ongoing debate over Demand Studios and the other writer mills.

The writing and business camps, if I can put it that way at least for the moment, have different outlooks. The writing camp wants to make some money, maybe a significant sum, and wants to spend time only writing or editing instead of drumming up business, going through queries, and the like. And if someone understand the ramifications of that choice, and the potential upside of the other, it's fine. I'm convinced, however, that a good many don't.

To understand how experienced, monetarily-successful freelancers approach what they do, you have to understand that they are running businesses. It's not that money is the only measure of success, although it's an important one for practical reasons. You must make enough money to cover:

higher taxes of independent work
expenses that can run far more than you might think
sick time
vacation time
health insurance
life insurance
disability insurance
all personal expenses
retirement
profit for the business above your "salary"

In teaching writers business planning, and the course is generally for writers who are established to some degree, I more often than not come across shock when people sit down and do the calculations. They are high. Of course writers want to have the satisfaction of seeing their work published and knowing it's being read, but none of that can happen on any meaningful scale if the money isn't there to support the desire. Every writer is a media company in miniature. If the revenue isn't there, the writer can't get paid. Without sufficient income, you don't have the options to do the more rewarding work.

That realization begins to color how you look at writing. Sure, you can write something really interesting at a low rate (or for nothing, as I do in this blog and often, though not always, in writing plays). However, you need enough income to cover your expenses. The higher payment must subsidize the lower and the work you might do for the love of it.

As my colleague Michelle Rafter notes in her blog, it translates in part into freelancing being about selling. That's because sales is intrinsic parts of running any business, whether writing or masonry. There are other tasks as well, including marketing (a little different from selling), business development, financial analysis, planning ... also taking in new ideas, reading the work of others, contemplating, professional development, and, not to be ignored, constantly improving and honing your work. Also occasional rest, or else you burn out.

These are things that become impossible when you work in a low pay, high volume paradigm. (If the pay is low enough, you can call that a pair-of-dimes. Sorry, couldn't resist.) When I see people considering work with the writer mills calculating what they can do, they make assumptions of the volume of work they can both get and undertake. "Sure, I can knock off three pieces in an hour, so I should be able to do 21 in a day." But that includes two massive assumptions.

One is that the stream of work is available. A person who does work for Demand Media has told me that the work isn't unlimited and that there are times when the assignment stream temporarily dries up. If that happens and you've committed to depending on this source of work, you are screwed because you are unlikely to find other outlets quickly enough. It goes to Michelle's point about sales cycles. Writers who are well-established in their careers are constantly marketing because a) only some of those queries will turn into assignments, and b) you need a variety of sales cycles so the business doesn't become feast or famine. When you've gone down the path of waiting for someone to give you business, then you depend too heavily on one source. If it slows, even if you start marketing like crazy today, you may not have work for another few weeks. Planning on favorable circumstances is setting yourself up for an eventual crash.

The second assumption is that you can keep up the pace. "No problem," I'm sure some say. Well, let's put it this way. As someone who wrote me correctly calculated, it would take 7 pieces a day five days a week to gross $2100 a month -- an inadequate figure for almost anyone, I'd argue, if you sit down and calculate all the expenditures I mention above. Beyond that, that would be 2400 words a day at least. Over 52 weeks it becomes 624,000 words, or enough to fill six large novels. Now I can write large volumes of publishable material if I know the topic well, and I've been known to write in the 300K to 500K words range in a year. But 624K? I'd find it impossible to maintain that type of volume and my health and sanity at the same time. It's not just the writing, because wire and daily newspaper reporters are used to cranking it out, but finding the topics and doing the research. If you're covering hard news, there are always releases and events and incidents that offer fodder. But evergreen articles? Anything but easy.

Penny a word work was tough in the 1940s and 1950s when pulp fiction writers had to bang it out to make a living, and most quickly got tired and aged. But with today's cost of living, getting a few cents a word is a recipe for disaster. Even if it works today, it will soon blow up in your face. And the writers who have been freelancing for years and sustaining themselves and families know that because they've seen the bad times as well as the good.

Mediabistro and the Reputation Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:05:00 +0000

You’ve heard of the New Economy. You’re heard of the Old Economy. There’s the Freemium Economy and the Link Economy and, as everyone knows after the past year, the Crashing Economy. But now we have a new invention from WebMediaBrands in its guise as MediaBistro: the Reputation Economy:

BNET Media story

Blogger Claiming Newspaper Rip-Off Goes on Video Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:40:00 +0000

I came across this story on Bloggasm, a blog by Simon Owens focusing on new media and online journalism. A freelance writer and blogger, Tina Dupay, sent a column via email to the Tampa Tribune, which decided to run the article without notification or payment. So the blogger took the issue to YouTube after sending an invoice for $75:

She's received support online as well as an eventual offer by the paper to pay. Normally I'd advise registering copyright in a timely fashion and then sending a demand letter quoting how much statutory infringement can run. But this seems to have worked. Shows you what public pressure will do. Wonder if her name is pronounced Do Pay?

Writing for a New Media

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:25:00 +0000

I had a post today on BNET called How the Media Can Save Itself. And I'm convinced that the Internet doesn't mean the end of journalism or story telling or a place for those who can do them. And even with the plethora of outlets for people who want to approach the topics as amateurs, and I mean nothing derogatory in using the term, that's not going to replace professionals any more than the mass of people who have learned to play instruments and sing has ever replaced professional musicians. Even King Henry VIII was an amateur musician and composer, but that hardly meant that he banned those who made their living creating music.

But it does mean that there's going to be a premium on ability, quality, and learning to use and mix new combinations of media in ways that no one ever considered. Text will have to call out to video to integrate it into the point someone is making. Video will need links to background and amplification that can't happen in that medium. Audio can provide an intimate narration as something looks as images and graphical devices that neither video nor text can provide. All of them will be glued together in new ways. Look at the links I mention in the BNET piece, or listen to NPR's Planet Money experiments in presenting financial information or how OpenSecrets.org illuminates campaign finance information. Not all the tries will work, but some will. Those who want a spot in the future must become part of the attempts to forge a new approach to what they've done in the past. Those new to the endeavor have one big advantage of not having the same number of fixed associations. But those with experience, if they can break free of even some of the assumptions, can add immense depth.

Maybe your efforts will involve merging analysis, opinion, reporting, and commentary in what I'm finding to be an exciting and liberating format in blogs. Or you might find yourself reaching for a video camera, or dusting off pens and drawing paper. Don't assume what technology you need to use or what the results might be. We all have time to ourselves, so invest some of it to try something different. As my drawing improves, I'm hoping to start incorporating it in various ways in my work. If you're a musician, consider composing something that supports the emotional mood of a report and running it in the background. Or create a photo essay loaded with linking hotspots that offer context for the image that someone is seeing. Maybe the old media won't be willing to shake loose, but it's the glory of working for yourself. Try something different. Who knows? You might end up creating a new genre.

Writer Mills Making Big $: Demand Studios

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:25:00 +0000

Warning, there will be ranting, foul language, crankiness, and gloves-off head-slapping here. I'm angry, and by the time you finish reading this, you'll be angry as well, if you're a freelance writer. Either that, or you're either dead from the shock or enjoying the life of a masochist.

Anyone who follows this blog knows that I've been taking shots at what I've come to call writer mills: companies that grind writers bones to make their dough. But I realized that there's one aspect I haven't covered: what the companies themselves are making off the cheap content. Maybe it's my own twisted perception, but these sites seem to exude a sense of "we're all in this together" bonhomie. Better change the last word to baloney.

So here's the first of a series, because I find it to be the most egregious case of a company making literally hundreds of millions of dollars -- a year -- off writers who will spend more time researching a story than a company offering peanuts for time, the one irreplaceable resource.

I've written before about Demand Studios and had the company respond, and in various comments had many people agree that you'd have to be nuts to work for that kind of money as well as had one person claim in the comments to be making something like $3K a month.

So what does Demand Studios make? I did some pretty easy snooping around various sources of information independent of the company. First, stop thinking of it as Demand Studios and use the real name of the corporation: Demand Media. "Studios" gives it a homey feel, as though you're working with a small group of people also trying to make a living in a tough world. Think again.

First, the CEO of Demand Media is Richard Rosenblatt. In case the name doesn't sound familiar, this is the now 40-year-old who sold MySpace.com and its parent company to Rupert Murdoch for $600 million. Certainly he didn't get all of that; venture capital backers would have taken a huge slice. But this is far from someone who is living paycheck to paycheck.

Speaking of venture funding, Demand Media has received it to the tune of $355 million since its founding in 2006. No, I'm not misplacing a decimal point. The company has received huge amounts of capital from such investors as Oak Investment Partners, Spectrum Equity Investors, and Goldman Fucking Sachs and, as a result, has shown about a $1 billion market valuation. According to a BusinessWeek article in July 2009, Demand Media was pulling in more than $200 million a year. The company hasn't confirmed that, but Rosenblatt says that it is profitable.

Are you starting to get a clearer picture yet?

Let's dig in more and look at some of its business activities:

It owns eNum, which is one of the top sellers in the world of Internet domains.

It supplies content to, among others, Reuters and USA Today.

Via Pluck, a social network software developer it bought for a reputed $75 million in cash according to TechCrunch, it provides software to the likes of Gannett/USA TODAY, Guardian Unlimited, Hearst Corporation, Fox, The Washington Post, Scotts, Circuit City, and Kraft.

According to ReadWriteWeb, another reliable source of tech info, Demand Media has a network of sites that is the 24th most visited in the US, as reported by comScore. These are page views driven by massive amounts of content, most of which is generated by freelance writers. To put that into perspective, that's more popular than NBC Universal, ESPN, and Expedia, as BusinessWeek notes. And the traffic brings such advertisers as Ace Hardware and Target.

It's cut a deal with Sony to put self-help videos onto the former's Bravia television sets.

Demand Media claims to have delivered a huge number of video streams to consumers, whether directly from its own sites or through YouTube. In fact, it says the number is over a billion.

This isn't some cobbled together attempt by a small group of would-be entrepreneurs to make a little money, paying writers a pittance because there isn't cash to spare. This is a calculated, conniving, cynical corporate hyena that knows volume of content drives search results, and that shakes down the money tree. Only, that money gets vacuumed up as fast as it forms by the corporation, which manages to pay $15 for an article and $3.50 for editing. For the writers who claim to make $3K in a month, that's 200 articles, or roughly 7 articles a day, seven days a week.

Demand Media rakes in the dough, depending on the power of content, and is happy to have writers and editors slaving away at sub-burger-slinging wages. And there are thousands and thousands of writers who get taken in. Those who do aren't going to like what I'm about to say: You are all a bunch of sad dupes and Rosenburstwithbucks is undoubtedly laughing his ass off, or at least shaking his head in wonder, at the amount of time people will sell their souls and lives for less than what it would take to buy them and their significant others a cheap meal out just to get their heads patted and have the occasional compliment tossed their way. If you've been writing for Demand Studios, or any of these other writer mills, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and watch this clip of Harlan Ellison talking about getting paid as a writer.

They want everything for nothing. They wouldn't go for five seconds without being paid, and they'll bitch about how much they're paid and want more. I should do a freebie for Warner Brothers?

Or for Demand Media or any of the writer mills? This makes me so angry that I want to grab writers by the collar and slap them repeatedly until the dazed look leaves their eyes and they get mad. Get mad at me first if that helps, but then get mad at those big corporations that are conning you and get mad at yourselves for letting them. That's all this is, a giant con job from the companies that writers are actually doing something valuable. And they are -- something valuable to the companies and to the rich people that start them and invested in them.

For those who feel the need to write something, anything, start a blog. Create a newsletter. Put together a fanzine. Just do something that belongs to you, so that should something come of it, you're the one benefiting. Let the big time investors do their own work for a change.

Writers Mill: Delegate2

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:26:00 +0000

A colleague gave me the head's up for another listing on JournalismJobs.com.

Company

Delegate2 Group

Location

What They Want

People who can write on a variety of subjects with a good grasp of grammar and strong writing skills to join a claimed roster of 500 writers and 100 editors. At least, that's what they claim at the site where the writers are directed. On the site where they try selling the content, they claim 1250 writers and 200 editors.

What They Offer

At the low end, a "simple" 250 word article for $3. But wait, they make up for it in simplicity, as "most experienced writers being able to complete four in an hour." Oh, yeah, that's about in the upper end of burger-flipping money. They pay in one month arrears, which means that they don't pay until the one time the next month that they do pay. Depending on timing, that could technically be longer than 30 days.

What That Means

That's 1.2 cents a word. They say that they pride themselves on establishing long-term relationships with writers, though they've only been in business for two years. I'm surprised that "experienced" writers would last two hours.

A Writer's Online Game

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:00:00 +0000

I tend toward serious topics here, but I had to share this. I've become a fan of a site called Pastel Games. These flash games are produced by some of the most creative graphic designing talent I've seen, with evocative and stylish use of drawing, cartooning, photography, and design. They just came out with a game that I think is a must if you need a time waster. It's called Calligraphic and uses typography creatively to create a Hero and more than one Enemy, all formed by stacking the letters. There are Platforms and Bombs and Springs, with the aim to add to your score by navigating the Hero through numbers that represent points and eventually getting to the Exit from that level to the next. Here's a screen shot of a level:

What you don't see is that you must find ways through Switches to remove Obstacles and set Moving Platforms free, which are necessary to get you to where you ultimately need to go. This is a great example of what can be done when creatives focus on a new way of looking at an old topic. Plus, it's fun, albeit frustrating.

A Disastrous Marketing Success

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:10:00 +0000

Today I was planning to attend a teleseminar given by two experts in negotiation, one being Jim Camp, author of the book No, which I've mentioned on this bog and recommended to people, and a former FBI special agent who was a main kidnapping negotiator for the agency. In fact, I was supposed to listen to it at the very time I'm writing this.

So why am I not learning something useful instead of writing? Because the teleseminar was a complete and total technical mess. At first all you could hear was a moderator, incessant beeping as people came onto the line, and, eventually, Jim Camp who had to dial in through some separate means and tell the moderator that neither of the guests had been able to be heard, as everyone who dialed the published number was automatically put on mute.

Oops.

They discussed it back and for a minute or two, constantly being interrupted by all the beeps, an experience that you've probably seen only as a small annoyance if you've ever been party to a conference call. Camp suggested that perhaps everyone could drop off the call, give the guests five minutes, and then call back. This was at around quarter after the hour.

I tried hanging up and giving it a few minutes. The beeping was even worse than before, and one lone, thin voice kept saying, "Hello ... hello ... hello ..." The very popularity of the event and its resulting size was causing all the problems that drove me and, probably, thousands more away from the call and onto something productive. That became a complete waste of everyone's time and left Camp's organization appearing unable to handle operational planning. Not good if you're in the negotiation business.

Double oops.

If you're going to be successful as a freelancer, or even help a client work on a marketing campaign, then you need to be cognizant of the problems brought about by success. I'm sure you've heard people, who were surprised by and unprepared for a strong positive response to marketing, say, "It's a good problem to have." The only difficulty with this phrase is that it's completely wrong. It's not a good problem to have. It's never a good problem to have.

There's nothing good about being unprepared for success. In fact, to call it a good problem is like a backward expression of sour grapes. Instead of writing off failure as something you wouldn't want, you're writing off not being ready for having succeeded. This is only an excuse for a lack of planning and anticipation that are part of smart business.

When you are planning any event or activity -- marketing campaign, customer relations outreach, technical conference, or what have you -- these issues need to be brought up at the onset. As part of the creative team, you should at least ask some of the questions:

Is there an upper limit on the number of people who should be invited? (Should there be a response mechanism that can restrict the eventual number?)

Are there any technical restrictions that might require particular directions? (Should we tell people to press the number 6 immediately after getting on to mute themselves?)

Has anyone tested the venue? (Is it possible to can the beeps?)

Is there a better mechanism to deliver the content? (Did anyone consider an interview format podcast for release on the web, possibly only to people who would fill out a form and qualify themselves?)

What are alternative plans if something doesn't work as required? (Is there a separate number for those who need to talk?)

If everything blows up, are there at least tentative emergency response plans that might help repair some of the damage and transform the experience into something useful? (Will someone tape a podcast, make it available, and provide an additional white paper or some other inexpensive-to-produce and yet valuable-to-receive apology?)

Too many freelancers see themselves as just writers, which means they're wasting their talents and experiences as well as not communicating the value they can bring to a business relationship. That translates into not being taken seriously and not being paid what they are worth.

Don't fall into this trap of poor self definition. Go off and consider what skills and abilities you actually bring to an engagement, whether corporate writing or editorial, and how you make a client more successful and keep the company or person from wasting money, time, and energy. Look at the hats you actually wear during the process, and in a relaxed way make sure people realize this. Why be a "freelancer" when you could realize that you are a communications consultant and be paid accordingly better?

Doubledown Writers Face Bad News

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Anyone who was writing for Doubledown Media knows that the company has been in bankruptcy. Now, the bankruptcy process can be a beautiful thing, even when you're talking about liquidation. A court supervises the sale of assets and distributes the money among those who are owed. You don't get the full value by any means -- maybe only pennies on the dollar. But it's something. A client of mine went bankrupt a couple of years ago and I've realized at least 40 percent of what I was owed. That's much better than a goose egg.

However, this process depends on the courts being able to sell assets. And that's the bad news for Doubledown creditors, including writers. According to Folio, at an auction last week, there were no "acceptable" bids for any assets, even including the customer lists:

According to the auction notice, the minimum bid for Doubledown’s Dealmaker was $100,000. For Corporate Leader and Trader magazines the lowest acceptable bid was $50,000. The minimum bid for Cigar Report was $25,000.

Corporate Air, meanwhile, carried a minimum bid of $55,000. Doubledown previously received an offer from a company called Private Air Media—which is headed by the magazine’s founder Dee Dee Morrison—and Knight Images Inc., for $50,000.

These are pretty low numbers as it is, so I suspect the chance of writers recouping any significant amount are next to nothing. My sympathies to those who were screwed.

Lessons from Suing an Ex-Client

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:35:00 +0000

For 15 years that I have been working for myself, I've never had to sue a client to get paid ... until recently. It was for a large amount of money that was beyond the scope of small claims and I had tried for months to get the company to even address the overdue invoices but to no avail. So I took them to court and won. Here are some lessons I learned that might help you if you find yourself in a similar situation:

Document everything -- You want complete, overwhelming, and even crushing proof that you are owed money. That involves a) showing that there was an agreement for you to provide services to the ex for a given amount, b) showing that you delivered as you were supposed to, and c) that you had duly invoiced them and given them a chance to square things. This is easier than you might think. A signed contract is preferred. But in any case, you want all emails sent back and forth, as well as notes you may have taken at discussions. The emails are something you can export from your email reader. It helped that I always store every email from a client in either a client folder or project-related folders, as makes the most sense. Digging up the emails that I had sent required a bit of hunting in the Sent folder. I sorted them by recipient and then looked up the various people to whom I had sent emails. I checked for every name that had sent me an email, as well. Total time to ready things for my lawyer: about 30 minutes.

Demand letter -- You want to have given a reasonable amount of time trying to get paid. That might be a few months. At the end of this period, you send a demand letter via certified mail, return receipt requested, so you have proof of delivery. (Actually, I sent mine via UPS ground and had the delivery receipt.) IN the letter, you lay out the entire chronology of what happened, including all efforts you made to try and resolve the issue and get paid, as well as every promise to pay that they made. What you ideally want is proof that they had accepted your work and had not disputed that you had done your part. If there has been any dispute, you should try to resolve it so you leave them no leg to stand on.

Get a litigator -- Not all lawyers are litigators. You want one that is, because he or she will know all kinds of tricks to move things along. In my case, we filed suit, they tried playing innocent, but never answered the suit by filing a response. That put them into a corner. Then they asked for a settlement agreement. After back and forth via email (because you have written proof then), we agreed to terms, and then they didn't sign the agreement and didn't pay when they said they would. My lawyer was able to go to the courthouse and, after a mandatory three week wait, get the clerk to enter the settlement agreement. They were now stuck. We could have gone for a default, but that would have taken longer. It helps when your lawyer knows exactly what the options are.

Be realistic but stick to your guns -- The ex wanted to settle for the original amount owed without interest. They kept pushing, but I refused. I was willing to go to court because I was so angry, so they backed down. One place where they didn't back down was that they wanted a non-disparagement agreement, my word that I wouldn't say bad things about them. My lawyer said that it should be mutual. I wasn't crazy about the idea, but eventually gave in for two reasons. I wanted to get paid, and I knew that given the court filings, it was going to end up on their corporate credit report and that any company doing any kind of due diligence would come across it. So I didn't have to say a single word; they had screwed themselves.

Look for the pressure points -- Even after we had entered the settlement agreement (which threw their lawyer, who wasn't a litigator, for a loop), they wouldn't pay. My lawyer pointed out that he could order their bank to freeze their account, if I could get the name of the bank. Luckily, I had been paid some by them, though at the time wasn't recording bank info for client payments. But I called my bank and learned that not only does your bank keep copies of your checks as they are paid on file, but they keep copies of all checks that you deposit, as well. A $5 fee got me the front and back of one of the checks, so I was able to pass over the bank name and account. It's amazing how quickly a company can decide to cooperate when they can't get any of their money out of their accounts.

Be persistent -- Even after all this, when their lawyer promised to wire money to my lawyer, it didn't come. So we prepared for stage two: issuing subpoenas to employees as well as large clients. Yes, we were going to drag in people who regularly paid them money and, likely, freeze any funds they would send. My lawyer let them know about this plan, and suddenly the money was there that day. Heh.

If you push, you can get paid, assuming that they have money. And when they keep paying themselves and landlords and utility companies, they have money. At that point, be indifferent to how much pain you are about to cause them. If they wanted to work something out, they could have, saving everyone grief. Hiring a lawyer isn't cheap. Mine worked on contingency, which could have mean as much as a third of the total. But I had come to the point that it was clear nothing would otherwise show up.

Writers Mill: Digital Media Buzz

noreply@blogger.com (Erik Sherman) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:54:00 +0000

A friend and colleague emailed a link to this JournalismJobs.com listing for writers from Digital Media Buzz. And I'm using this to test a new format in reporting these professional aberrations.

What They Want

In-depth news analysis of the digital media technology industry, including business practices, online ad/revenue technology, software development, SEO, e-commerce, and mobile technology.

What They Expect

People with journalism experience, whether in paid positions or as interns.

What They Offer

$30 per 500 to 1000 word story. As the ad read: "Yes, it's not exactly $1/word, but we need a ton of content written and promise a steady stream of income to anyone looking to make a name for himself or herself."

What That Means

You get paid between 3 and 6 cents a word as often as you'd care to and probably have to write the analytic pieces with precious little time to read or think before grinding it out. Sausage never had it so good.