11 November 2013

"Should I Write for Content Mills?"

Content mills are a contentious topic in discussions amongst freelance writers, because of their reputation of being the sweatshop of the freelance market.

What is a Content Mill?


Essentially, content mills, or content farms, produce copy for clients at a low rate, by paying even lower rates to writers. They aren't clients that are cheap, they act as middlemen, or agencies, between clients and writers, paying pennies per word - and often only paying if work is used by the client. 

The problem with content mills is that the wage offered is impossible to make a living from, short of churning out articles all day every day. Yet their high visibility in search results means new writers find them, apply to them, then join them, and before they know it, they're trapped in the content mill wheel. They need to keep writing a lot of articles to earn money, which means they don't have the time or energy to find real clients elsewhere.

It's easy to see why they have so many writers on their lists, though - they require no marketing, no client communication, no effort to draft adverts or attend networking events, instead you simply login to the website and take on the offered articles.

Many writers join under the impression of getting experience, developing a portfolio, finding actual clients, or just earning a little money on the side of their day job. They're all understandable reasons, of course, unless we add a little context to it: would a trained chef join McDonald's to flip burgers to get experience in order to work for Gordon Ramsey? No. To produce gourmet food, you must get experience producing gourmet food. Similarly, if your writing portfolio consists of content mill articles, it's unlikely to impress the better paying clients.

How Cheap are Content Mills?

Very. While they pay pennies per word (if that), private clients valuing the work will pay anything up to £2 per word - so a 1,000 article will net £2,000, rather than a few pounds a mill would have paid. No matter how you look at it, even after taking into consideration the expense of advertising and sending query letters, a content mill writer has come out worse off than a writer producing content for private, well-paying clients.

And that's really the crux of it: value of the content. The adage 'you get what you pay for' applies to writers as much as it applies to anything else, so a company genuinely interested in having the best content won't expect to get it for £2, and will factor in a decent wage to their marketing budget. 

Cheap Content - Low Rankings

Arguably, content mills were somewhat worth it for certain projects in the past - if a company just wanted to get some keyword-rich content on multiple pages, going to a mill could have done the job. Things are different today, though, as Google has made various changes to its rankings algorithms. No longer do the robots search for the amount of times a keyword appears, but it checks how often it appears (too much will count as spam), where it appears, and, crucially, the overall quality of the writing. So, if a writer produced a crappy quality article that made no sense, but had a 3% keyword density of the client's specified keyword, it will no longer improve the Google rankings. In fact, it could significantly harm them. In a swift move, Google immediately put cheap writers out of work (or at least, once the companies using them realise the change and its impact, they're unlikely to keep using the writers of that caliber). 

Content mills may roll with the change and try to adapt accordingly, by trying to demand a certain level of quality in the writing, which may involve writers taking an initial test to join the company. On the other hand, few writers are likely to jump through hoops of a convoluted sign-up process to earn peanuts, and if the content isn't helpful to the clients, they won't be developing a portfolio.

Ultimately, then, now is a bad time for mills and a good time for writers who understand quality content and how to write it. Not only will writers with an understanding of SEO and an ability to write a focused article be a true asset to clients, they can charge accordingly.



Carol Tice's website

7 November 2013

"I, Lucifer"

It's been a long time since I discovered a writer as talented and engaging as Glen Duncan, not to mention criminally overlooked.

I won't give too much away, but if you've ever wondered what would happen should the devil get the chance to take on a human form and walk the streets of London, here's your chance. God gives Lucifer the opportunity to get back to heaven if he spends some time being good first.

A tremendous book that will frankly leave every writer lamenting their own skills in comparison to Duncan's. His religious knowledge (and unique insights) presents some intriguing and hilarious ideas to ponder, and between explaining that he invented rock n' roll and what a dullard Adam was, a sublime story is created - and in its wake leaves everyone else realising the total artistic freedom writing as the Tempter of Mankind affords the writer, and wishing they had done it first.

Get your copy here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0743220137/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1383867868&sr=8-1&pi=SL75

25 July 2013

Placing punctuation with speech marks and parentheses

The English language is notoriously tricky, mostly because of the numerous subtle nuances within - silent letters, placement of apostrophes, and variations between UK and US spelling. Of them all, apostrophes and working out where to place punctuation with parentheses (brackets) or quotation marks.

An example for punctuation around speech marks and brackets could be:

He said, "Paul told me to go to the market and fetch his soup".

or:

He said, "Paul told me to go to the market and fetch his soup."

With with brackets/parentheses:

 At the market (which was only down the road.)

or

At the market (which was only down the road).

While an example for the use of apostrophes could be:

"The Rolling Stones' first chart single"

or

"The Rolling Stones first chart single"

Because phonetically there is no difference, many writers assume no apostrophe is needed, yet that is a mistake just as it would be if it were missing from a name:

"Ross coat is upstairs" is wrong; rather, it should be: "Ross' coat is upstairs"

Although the rules themselves are actually simple, they can trip up even established writers because there is no way of knowing what to do based on how it sounds. So, to make it simple, apostrophes go after the existing 's' (Rolling Stones) if it's possessive. A good way to remember it is by imagining a name without an 's' at the end and determining if it would need one in this context. For example, "Coldplays new album" would obviously need to be "Coldplay's new album". Thus, if it's a noun with an 's' at the end, add an apostrophe afterwards - "The Rolling Stones' new album". Simple, right?

It's no more complicated with punctuation with quote marks. Simply put, if the quote actually included it, add it within the quote; if not, add it outside. For example, if you quote a person to the end of their sentence, the full stop goes inside:

"Turn left at the top of the stairs for the bathroom."

If, however, it's not the end of the sentence, place it outside:

They told me to "turn left at the top of the stairs".

With brackets/parentheses, it's incredibly easy: if they are used within an existing sentence then the punctuation mark goes at the end, outside the bracket, otherwise the whole sentence is left wide open:

It started to rain (and Angie liked that).

If, on the other hand, the sentence ends prior to the use of brackets, the parentheses become their own sentence and so the full stop is placed inside:

It started to rain. (Angie always enjoyed the rain.)

That's pretty much all there is to it. The only exception is if you're using US English, in which case a full stop goes inside a quote mark even if it's technically incorrect - for example, if you list a song in quote marks (as you should), it would be thus:

The single that really made them famous was "Fun Time."

Even though, of course, the song title doesn't have a full stop in it, and placing it within quote marks would infer that it does. It's a strange anomaly with American English that a quote will hoover up punctuation that should come after, but, right or wrong, when in Rome...