This is a bit late, as I meant to blog about it last week, when I first heard about it: Google has changed their algorithm in order to try to get content farms — websites that churn out massive amounts of poorly written content — off the first couple of pages of search engine results. A high ranking in search results is generally considered to be the jackpot, since most people looking for something online don't search past the first page or two, but content mills often dominate the first page or two. (I assume it's not this way anymore, but as an example, it used to be that almost no matter what you were searching for, Associated Content had an article on the first or second page of results.)
Google, however, has apparently found a way to try to clear spammy content from the top results to make room for the good sites. Here are a couple of articles:
Google declares war on lousy websites
Google's working on saving 'good' websites
I wonder a couple of things, though. First of all, how do they decide what is a "good" content site or a "bad" content site? For example, let's take Yahoo. Yahoo has news articles, community pages, email, etc. — seems like a good content site and online community, right? But not long ago they bought Associated Content, which I would describe as a content farm. So how does Google decide whether or not Yahoo deserves a high ranking?
What are your thoughts? Is this going to be harder to implement than Google thinks, and is it going to have any impact on content farms? Since content farms are a contentious issue for writers, I'm interested in what the rest of you think will happen as a result of Google's new algorithm.
Showing posts with label bottom feeders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bottom feeders. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Good idea, bad writing
One of my favorite horse blogs, Fugly Horse of the Day, featured an Examiner.com article today. The premise was great — she applied to several horse rescues with made-up financial information, pictures of a property that's not hers, and even a picture of a starving horse she doesn't own. It was a great idea for investigative journalism: One rescue actually approved her, while one only denied her when they saw the picture of the horse. As she pointed out, she could have taken pictures of a beautiful property and a gorgeous horse, and they would have welcomed her with open arms, without ever checking that the property and the horse actually belonged to her.
(I'm linking to Fugly's post, by the way, NOT to the Examiner.com article. You can get there from the blog post if you want to read it, but I don't want to contribute inbound links to that site. Not that it'll make a difference, but still.)
Like I said in the title, great idea... Bad writing. The article was littered with grammatical errors, and lots of bad decisions about when to capitalize. (Seriously! Why do some people capitalize everything that seems remotely important to them?!) The writing also lacked some pizazz — the story was told pretty straightforwardly, but wasn't very compelling unless you really really care about horses. It was a great example of how poor writing can ruin a perfectly good idea.
Furthermore, I'd venture to say it was the wrong forum for investigative journalism. As much as Examiner.com likes to characterize themselves as made up of citizen journalists, I suspect they probably don't allow their "writers" to post anything negative about businesses. They are not a newspaper, so there would be too much pressure on them to take it down.
My irritation with the article made me realize that to me, poor writing trumps what site you write for. Really, if you want to write for peanuts, that's okay. Whatever. Just don't write like you are writing for peanuts!
(I'm linking to Fugly's post, by the way, NOT to the Examiner.com article. You can get there from the blog post if you want to read it, but I don't want to contribute inbound links to that site. Not that it'll make a difference, but still.)
Like I said in the title, great idea... Bad writing. The article was littered with grammatical errors, and lots of bad decisions about when to capitalize. (Seriously! Why do some people capitalize everything that seems remotely important to them?!) The writing also lacked some pizazz — the story was told pretty straightforwardly, but wasn't very compelling unless you really really care about horses. It was a great example of how poor writing can ruin a perfectly good idea.
Furthermore, I'd venture to say it was the wrong forum for investigative journalism. As much as Examiner.com likes to characterize themselves as made up of citizen journalists, I suspect they probably don't allow their "writers" to post anything negative about businesses. They are not a newspaper, so there would be too much pressure on them to take it down.
My irritation with the article made me realize that to me, poor writing trumps what site you write for. Really, if you want to write for peanuts, that's okay. Whatever. Just don't write like you are writing for peanuts!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Associated Content: SOLD!
I've been meaning to update my blog, really I have, but at the moment I have my hands full keeping up with my client work. Thank you to everyone who voiced encouragement on my last post, and know that neglecting my blog right now just means that I'm trying to focus on my other responsibilities.
Anyway, I'm blogging tonight to report a headline, hot off the press (so to speak), that I thought would interest many of my freelancers:
Denver-based web-content firm sold
Yahoo is buying Associated Content for $100 million. (Funny, AC may not believe in paying their writers much, but they sure want top dollar for their business.) Since Associated Content was Denver-based, it's big news here. I wonder if there are any local employees who will be losing their jobs over this — I know AC hires local people for their editing positions, as I interviewed for a position when the company was fairly new, and a freelance friend of mine worked there as an editor for a short time. Plus, an old high school friend of mine knows programmers who work for Associated Content in their Denver office. (They at least are well-paid, although that doesn't say much for the company, in my opinion, as it indicates how poorly they think of writers as compared to code monkeys.)
The Denver Post article includes a blogger's quote that questions Yahoo's decision, pointing out that they are polluting their content with some pretty low-quality stuff. But I can't help but wonder if AC's new owners will be able to raise the standards — and the pay — enough to salvage their reputation.
What are your thoughts? Most of us agree that low-paying freelance work has at least a minor impact on the industry as a whole — and some would argue the impact is pretty major. And Associated Content is a pretty major force in the industry, as it is the longest-surviving content site that I know of. With that in mind, do you think Yahoo's acquisition of the company will be a good thing or a bad thing for the industry in general?
Anyway, I'm blogging tonight to report a headline, hot off the press (so to speak), that I thought would interest many of my freelancers:
Denver-based web-content firm sold
Yahoo is buying Associated Content for $100 million. (Funny, AC may not believe in paying their writers much, but they sure want top dollar for their business.) Since Associated Content was Denver-based, it's big news here. I wonder if there are any local employees who will be losing their jobs over this — I know AC hires local people for their editing positions, as I interviewed for a position when the company was fairly new, and a freelance friend of mine worked there as an editor for a short time. Plus, an old high school friend of mine knows programmers who work for Associated Content in their Denver office. (They at least are well-paid, although that doesn't say much for the company, in my opinion, as it indicates how poorly they think of writers as compared to code monkeys.)
The Denver Post article includes a blogger's quote that questions Yahoo's decision, pointing out that they are polluting their content with some pretty low-quality stuff. But I can't help but wonder if AC's new owners will be able to raise the standards — and the pay — enough to salvage their reputation.
What are your thoughts? Most of us agree that low-paying freelance work has at least a minor impact on the industry as a whole — and some would argue the impact is pretty major. And Associated Content is a pretty major force in the industry, as it is the longest-surviving content site that I know of. With that in mind, do you think Yahoo's acquisition of the company will be a good thing or a bad thing for the industry in general?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Associated Content and my performance bonus -- I give up!
My regular readers are no doubt well aware of my beef with Associated Content. At first I couldn't get them to pay me my performance bonus, and then when they did it was short, and I had to fight with them to get the balance. The last time I posted, they had suddenly gone against everything they had told me so far, and claimed that they would only make payments once a month, even when they had skipped over someone's payment.
Seriously, how do you think your credit card company would like it if you said, "Oh, I only pay bills once a month. I guess I missed yours this time, so you'll have to wait until next month." That's pretty much what Associated Content told me. After they had already promised numerous times to fix the problem ASAP.
Now it's time to put an ending on this little story -- and it's anything but satisfying. On Monday, I received the following email from Mike Street at Associated Content (emphasis added):
Thank you for contacting us about your missing Performance Bonus payment. We will be sending it on Wednesday. We’d like to fully explain why the payment was not originally sent.
In order to remain eligible for the Performance Bonus program, you have to log in to your account once every 90 days. When you logged in on 6/5/07, it was the first time you had logged in since 2/27/06. You were actually not eligible to receive the February, March, April or May payments. We excluded you from the May payment, but you were accidentally paid for February, March and April. In light of this, we have decided to honor the May payment, too.
We appreciate your assistance in helping us identify this problem.
Just to reinforce my statement that Associated Content is ridiculously disorganized, I received yet another email from them 15 minutes later (emphasis is theirs):
Katharine:
Thank you for contacting us about your missing Performance Bonus payment. We will be sending it on Wednesday. We’d like to fully explain why the payment was not originally sent.
In order to remain eligible for the Performance Bonus program, you have to log in to your account once every 90 days. When you logged in on 6/5/07, it was the first time you had logged in since. The date is 4/27/2006, not feb 27. You were actually not eligible to receive the February, March, April or May payments. We excluded you from the May payment, but you were accidentally paid for February, March and April. In light of this, we have decided to honor the May payment, too.
We appreciate your assistance in helping us identify this problem. We are paying all the CP’s that might have been affected by this on the Sept. 12th payment date.
Interesting that this is the first time I have heard this in three months of dealing with this problem.
Actually, I did see in the performance bonus terms that you have to log in once every 90 days in order to remain eligible. However, I don't count how much time passes between logins! I assumed that since the amount was showing up on my account page, that meant I had logged in recently enough to be eligible for it.
Moreover, I was completely honest with them about not having logged in recently. The following is quoted from my initial to them regarding my performance bonus payment:
I logged onto my account today for the first time in a long time, and noticed that I have a little more than $15 in bonuses. I see from the contract that payments are made monthly, but I have no idea when that is! Also, are newly submitted articles only paid for once a month now, too?
Thanks for your time!
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
Nothing was said to me about my comment about logging in "for the first time in a long time." In fact, here is the email I received in response:
Hello Katharine,
Thanks for contacting us, and welcome back!
Payments for the performance bonus are made once a month, on the second Wednesday of every month. So, you should be receiving payment tomorrow.
We still pay initial payments every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
As you can see, they did not say anything to indicate that I was not eligible to receive my performance bonus. In fact, they said I would be paid the very next day. (Obviously, though, I wasn't, or this whole ordeal never would have happened.)
Fast forward to today. Amazingly, I did get paid when Mike Street said I would. Amusingly, though, it was wrong. If you'll remember from the email exchange I had with Mike Street weeks ago, I was missing a $4.16 payment that they're records said they had made. Today, I received two payments: one of $3.79, and one of $4.67. Since the latter payment is for last month, I can only assume that they once again shorted my payment, this time by 37 cents ($4.16 minus $3.79).
But you know what? I give up. If Associated Content can't get it right after three months of emails, they never will. My advice to Associated Content writers is to keep tabs on your payments -- how much they are supposed to be, and how much you actually get -- and call them on any discrepancies. Even if you don't get anywhere with them, hopefully the barrage of emails from disgruntled writers will encourage them to do a better job of organizing and processing payments.
Seriously, how do you think your credit card company would like it if you said, "Oh, I only pay bills once a month. I guess I missed yours this time, so you'll have to wait until next month." That's pretty much what Associated Content told me. After they had already promised numerous times to fix the problem ASAP.
Now it's time to put an ending on this little story -- and it's anything but satisfying. On Monday, I received the following email from Mike Street at Associated Content (emphasis added):
Thank you for contacting us about your missing Performance Bonus payment. We will be sending it on Wednesday. We’d like to fully explain why the payment was not originally sent.
In order to remain eligible for the Performance Bonus program, you have to log in to your account once every 90 days. When you logged in on 6/5/07, it was the first time you had logged in since 2/27/06. You were actually not eligible to receive the February, March, April or May payments. We excluded you from the May payment, but you were accidentally paid for February, March and April. In light of this, we have decided to honor the May payment, too.
We appreciate your assistance in helping us identify this problem.
Just to reinforce my statement that Associated Content is ridiculously disorganized, I received yet another email from them 15 minutes later (emphasis is theirs):
Katharine:
Thank you for contacting us about your missing Performance Bonus payment. We will be sending it on Wednesday. We’d like to fully explain why the payment was not originally sent.
In order to remain eligible for the Performance Bonus program, you have to log in to your account once every 90 days. When you logged in on 6/5/07, it was the first time you had logged in since. The date is 4/27/2006, not feb 27. You were actually not eligible to receive the February, March, April or May payments. We excluded you from the May payment, but you were accidentally paid for February, March and April. In light of this, we have decided to honor the May payment, too.
We appreciate your assistance in helping us identify this problem. We are paying all the CP’s that might have been affected by this on the Sept. 12th payment date.
Interesting that this is the first time I have heard this in three months of dealing with this problem.
Actually, I did see in the performance bonus terms that you have to log in once every 90 days in order to remain eligible. However, I don't count how much time passes between logins! I assumed that since the amount was showing up on my account page, that meant I had logged in recently enough to be eligible for it.
Moreover, I was completely honest with them about not having logged in recently. The following is quoted from my initial to them regarding my performance bonus payment:
I logged onto my account today for the first time in a long time, and noticed that I have a little more than $15 in bonuses. I see from the contract that payments are made monthly, but I have no idea when that is! Also, are newly submitted articles only paid for once a month now, too?
Thanks for your time!
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
Nothing was said to me about my comment about logging in "for the first time in a long time." In fact, here is the email I received in response:
Hello Katharine,
Thanks for contacting us, and welcome back!
Payments for the performance bonus are made once a month, on the second Wednesday of every month. So, you should be receiving payment tomorrow.
We still pay initial payments every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
As you can see, they did not say anything to indicate that I was not eligible to receive my performance bonus. In fact, they said I would be paid the very next day. (Obviously, though, I wasn't, or this whole ordeal never would have happened.)
Fast forward to today. Amazingly, I did get paid when Mike Street said I would. Amusingly, though, it was wrong. If you'll remember from the email exchange I had with Mike Street weeks ago, I was missing a $4.16 payment that they're records said they had made. Today, I received two payments: one of $3.79, and one of $4.67. Since the latter payment is for last month, I can only assume that they once again shorted my payment, this time by 37 cents ($4.16 minus $3.79).
But you know what? I give up. If Associated Content can't get it right after three months of emails, they never will. My advice to Associated Content writers is to keep tabs on your payments -- how much they are supposed to be, and how much you actually get -- and call them on any discrepancies. Even if you don't get anywhere with them, hopefully the barrage of emails from disgruntled writers will encourage them to do a better job of organizing and processing payments.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Associated Content doesn't keep their promises!
As my regular readers will already know, I have had an ongoing problem with Associated Content regarding my performance bonus. For a couple of months I didn't get paid for it at all (even though I was supposed to be paid), and then when they did pay me they messed up the amount! You can read about the non-payment problems here and here.
Another post provides an update: Two weeks ago yesterday, Mike Street told me that they had verified that they did, in fact, owe me money (duh), and that they would fix it soon. Two weeks later, I have still received no payment, and I am still getting the runaround.
Below is our entire email correspondence over the last two weeks. I have bolded the parts that reflect Associated Content's failure to follow through.
From: Mike Street
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:32 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Just wanted to update you and let you know that we have pin pointed the error in the system and are working to fully correct it. Thank you for alert us of this and will hope to have this problem resolved asap and any additional funds will be sent to you via paypal once the errors are corrected.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:36 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate the update!
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:20 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
I have not heard anything more since your email a week ago, nor have I received payment. Can you give me an update or let me know when I should expect to receive payment?
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Last I heard they are still working on it but it should be taken care of this week.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:29 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Terrific. Thanks for the quick response!
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:00 PM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
It's been another week and I still haven't heard anything. Can you please let me know where we stand on this payment? I would like this to be resolved before bonuses are paid out in a week, to avoid any additional confusion regarding my account.
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:35 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
OK so they will send your owed payment on the 12 when we send out the next round of performance bonus payments.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:45 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Is there a way to get the payment made before that pay date?
I am concerned that if the payment is made on the same day as the regular payments, the person making the payment may deduct it from my unpaid performance bonus balance (the amount shown on my CP account page), which it should not be. (i.e. It was already deducted last month, it just wasn't actually paid.)
Please let me know.
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:47 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
No, we can not pay you that amount before hand. But the payment person is well aware of the situation and will make sure you receive the correct amount.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:52 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Why can't you pay me beforehand? This has been an ongoing problem for quite some time now. Two weeks ago you said I'd be paid soon, and last week you said it would be by the end of the week. Why could you have paid me beforehand last week, but not this week? Or have you just been putting me off?
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:53 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Payments related to performance bonus are only paid out on the second Wednesday of each month.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:00 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Even if you make a mistake?
It is not my fault that on the Wednesday of LAST month, your staff made a mistake and did not pay me the full amount. Furthermore, you have been telling me for two weeks that I would receive the missed payment soon.
I will be posting our emails in full on my blog. The online writing community has a right to know that AC does not follow through with what they say they will do.
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
I have not received any response to my last email.
As you can see, Mike Street has been telling me for two weeks that Associated Content would make my missed performance bonus payment soon: In the first email, it was "asap" [sic], and in the second email it was "this week." Today, though -- with the scheduled performance bonus payments due to be paid next Wednesday -- he suddenly changed his tune. Suddenly, they "can not [sic] pay that amount before hand," and performance bonus payments "are only paid out on the second Wednesday of each month."
It seems to me that all of the emails claiming they would get to it "asap" or "this week" were merely to put me off until the scheduled pay date. Why they think that they should only have to correct their mistakes on payday, too, is beyond me. That would be like your full-time employer saying, "Well, we screwed up your check, but payday is only once a month, so you'll have to wait for the next one." That would never fly at a full-time job, so why should it be an acceptable way to treat contractors?
Besides that, I still have some doubts as to whether I'll actually get paid on payday (which is next Wednesday). After all, I had to harass them for two months before I even got a partial payment! We'll see if I actually get paid on the 12th, but I won't be surprised if I don't.
In my opinion, Associated Content is showing quite clearly that they don't keep their promises. This is the same runaround that I was getting during the two months when they weren't paying me my performance bonus at all. Ulimately, by the end of this -- assuming I get paid next week, that is -- I will have had to harass them for more than three months... Just to get a measely twenty bucks!
Associated Content's low pay is insulting enough to professional writers. Just the thought of someone thinking $3 and $4 is appropriate pay for a 500-word article makes me mad. But to add insult to injury, then they don't even make payments on time -- and when they finally do, they're wrong? I can't help but wonder -- what would have happened had I not called them on their non-payment? Would they have just never paid me? And think of all the money they would save (aside from the fact that they are already paying sweatshop rates) if they simply didn't pay every writer who failed to demand it!
Another post provides an update: Two weeks ago yesterday, Mike Street told me that they had verified that they did, in fact, owe me money (duh), and that they would fix it soon. Two weeks later, I have still received no payment, and I am still getting the runaround.
Below is our entire email correspondence over the last two weeks. I have bolded the parts that reflect Associated Content's failure to follow through.
From: Mike Street
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:32 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Just wanted to update you and let you know that we have pin pointed the error in the system and are working to fully correct it. Thank you for alert us of this and will hope to have this problem resolved asap and any additional funds will be sent to you via paypal once the errors are corrected.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:36 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate the update!
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:20 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
I have not heard anything more since your email a week ago, nor have I received payment. Can you give me an update or let me know when I should expect to receive payment?
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Last I heard they are still working on it but it should be taken care of this week.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:29 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Terrific. Thanks for the quick response!
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:00 PM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
It's been another week and I still haven't heard anything. Can you please let me know where we stand on this payment? I would like this to be resolved before bonuses are paid out in a week, to avoid any additional confusion regarding my account.
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:35 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
OK so they will send your owed payment on the 12 when we send out the next round of performance bonus payments.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:45 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Is there a way to get the payment made before that pay date?
I am concerned that if the payment is made on the same day as the regular payments, the person making the payment may deduct it from my unpaid performance bonus balance (the amount shown on my CP account page), which it should not be. (i.e. It was already deducted last month, it just wasn't actually paid.)
Please let me know.
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:47 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
No, we can not pay you that amount before hand. But the payment person is well aware of the situation and will make sure you receive the correct amount.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:52 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Why can't you pay me beforehand? This has been an ongoing problem for quite some time now. Two weeks ago you said I'd be paid soon, and last week you said it would be by the end of the week. Why could you have paid me beforehand last week, but not this week? Or have you just been putting me off?
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
From: Mike Street
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:53 AM
To: Katharine Swan Leppert
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Payments related to performance bonus are only paid out on the second Wednesday of each month.
From: Katharine Swan Leppert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:00 AM
To: Mike Street
Subject: RE: Your Performance Bonus
Even if you make a mistake?
It is not my fault that on the Wednesday of LAST month, your staff made a mistake and did not pay me the full amount. Furthermore, you have been telling me for two weeks that I would receive the missed payment soon.
I will be posting our emails in full on my blog. The online writing community has a right to know that AC does not follow through with what they say they will do.
Sincerely,
Katharine S. Leppert
www.katharineswan.com
I have not received any response to my last email.
As you can see, Mike Street has been telling me for two weeks that Associated Content would make my missed performance bonus payment soon: In the first email, it was "asap" [sic], and in the second email it was "this week." Today, though -- with the scheduled performance bonus payments due to be paid next Wednesday -- he suddenly changed his tune. Suddenly, they "can not [sic] pay that amount before hand," and performance bonus payments "are only paid out on the second Wednesday of each month."
It seems to me that all of the emails claiming they would get to it "asap" or "this week" were merely to put me off until the scheduled pay date. Why they think that they should only have to correct their mistakes on payday, too, is beyond me. That would be like your full-time employer saying, "Well, we screwed up your check, but payday is only once a month, so you'll have to wait for the next one." That would never fly at a full-time job, so why should it be an acceptable way to treat contractors?
Besides that, I still have some doubts as to whether I'll actually get paid on payday (which is next Wednesday). After all, I had to harass them for two months before I even got a partial payment! We'll see if I actually get paid on the 12th, but I won't be surprised if I don't.
In my opinion, Associated Content is showing quite clearly that they don't keep their promises. This is the same runaround that I was getting during the two months when they weren't paying me my performance bonus at all. Ulimately, by the end of this -- assuming I get paid next week, that is -- I will have had to harass them for more than three months... Just to get a measely twenty bucks!
Associated Content's low pay is insulting enough to professional writers. Just the thought of someone thinking $3 and $4 is appropriate pay for a 500-word article makes me mad. But to add insult to injury, then they don't even make payments on time -- and when they finally do, they're wrong? I can't help but wonder -- what would have happened had I not called them on their non-payment? Would they have just never paid me? And think of all the money they would save (aside from the fact that they are already paying sweatshop rates) if they simply didn't pay every writer who failed to demand it!
Friday, August 24, 2007
Associated Content -- another update
Just the other day, I posted that I had heard from Mike Street regarding my Associated Content performance bonus. Basically, between his email and my records I figured out that the error was I was due two payments of $4.16, but they had only paid me one. He said he was going to check into it, and let me know "if" I was correct.
On Tuesday I received another email from Mike Street, saying Associated Content had "pinpointed the error" in their performance bonus payment system, and they were "working to fully correct it." I am supposed to received my missing $4.16 once they have fixed the error.
Nothing as of yet, though.
Click here for an update on my Associated Content performance bonus.
On Tuesday I received another email from Mike Street, saying Associated Content had "pinpointed the error" in their performance bonus payment system, and they were "working to fully correct it." I am supposed to received my missing $4.16 once they have fixed the error.
Nothing as of yet, though.
Click here for an update on my Associated Content performance bonus.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Associated Content performance bonus UPDATE
The other day I wrote a post about my recent experiences trying to get Associated Content to pay me my performance bonus. I have an interesting update I thought I should share with everyone.
As you can see from the comments on the first post regarding AC, at 8:25 I received a comment from "Anonymous," suggesting that I read the Associated Content performance bonus policies in order to clear up my "confusion." As I responded, I have read the policies, and I can point to exactly where the payment schedule and minimum payment is explained.
Perhaps, though, the "anonymous" commenter wanted me to reread the part under the "Beta Phase" heading:
The data presented in the Performance Bonus Beta may not be 100% accurate, and you should not rely on those numbers, as they may change during the beta phase. While AC will use its best efforts to report and pay the bonus payment accurately, and in a timely fashion, because we are in a beta environment there may be some errors and delays.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like putting that into the policy simply sets up an excuse to use when payments are late or wrong (as with mine). However, I find that rather ridiculous, because the program seems to have been in place since February (since that's when my earliest bonus is from). Isn't six months enough time to figure out how to keep good records and make accurate, timely payments? And furthermore, isn't it their responsibility to do so, regardless of what their policy says?
There's more, though. Only about half an hour later, I received an email from Michael Street himself. (Remember, this is the person several forum members recommended I contact regarding my payment issues. This is also the person that failed to respond to both of the emails I sent him regarding the problem.)
In the email, Mr. Street claims that I am paid up on my performance bonus. He then lists six individual payment amounts totalling $22.75. Unfortunately, as you'll remember from my last post on the subject, I only received five payments totalling $18.59.
Mr. Street then goes on to echo "Anonymous's" comment, and advises that I read the Associated Content performance bonus policies. He also specifically reminds me that the program is in beta.
Of course, I emailed him back immediately, explaining that I received five payments, not six. Just a few minutes ago, I received a response from him, saying that they are checking into it, and "if that $4.16 payment is missing we will send it right out to you."
If?
Well, all I can say is that they had better find it missing, because I sure don't have it! Regardless, though, I will update my blog when I hear from them again.
Click here for the update on my Associated Content performance bonus.
As you can see from the comments on the first post regarding AC, at 8:25 I received a comment from "Anonymous," suggesting that I read the Associated Content performance bonus policies in order to clear up my "confusion." As I responded, I have read the policies, and I can point to exactly where the payment schedule and minimum payment is explained.
Perhaps, though, the "anonymous" commenter wanted me to reread the part under the "Beta Phase" heading:
The data presented in the Performance Bonus Beta may not be 100% accurate, and you should not rely on those numbers, as they may change during the beta phase. While AC will use its best efforts to report and pay the bonus payment accurately, and in a timely fashion, because we are in a beta environment there may be some errors and delays.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like putting that into the policy simply sets up an excuse to use when payments are late or wrong (as with mine). However, I find that rather ridiculous, because the program seems to have been in place since February (since that's when my earliest bonus is from). Isn't six months enough time to figure out how to keep good records and make accurate, timely payments? And furthermore, isn't it their responsibility to do so, regardless of what their policy says?
There's more, though. Only about half an hour later, I received an email from Michael Street himself. (Remember, this is the person several forum members recommended I contact regarding my payment issues. This is also the person that failed to respond to both of the emails I sent him regarding the problem.)
In the email, Mr. Street claims that I am paid up on my performance bonus. He then lists six individual payment amounts totalling $22.75. Unfortunately, as you'll remember from my last post on the subject, I only received five payments totalling $18.59.
Mr. Street then goes on to echo "Anonymous's" comment, and advises that I read the Associated Content performance bonus policies. He also specifically reminds me that the program is in beta.
Of course, I emailed him back immediately, explaining that I received five payments, not six. Just a few minutes ago, I received a response from him, saying that they are checking into it, and "if that $4.16 payment is missing we will send it right out to you."
If?
Well, all I can say is that they had better find it missing, because I sure don't have it! Regardless, though, I will update my blog when I hear from them again.
Click here for the update on my Associated Content performance bonus.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Is Associated Content ripping off their writers?
A while back I posted a poll asking if any of my readers had had problems getting their performance bonuses from Associated Content. (Besides the poll, you can also see a few comments about the situation on this post.)
Today I am finally ready to pose the question: Is the Associated Content performance bonus a scam?
Before you read about my AC payment difficulties, though, you might want to read about my personal history with Associated Content. To sum up right here, though, basically I have had two very different encounters with AC: I once interviewed with them for a part-time editing position, and I wrote for them briefly before realizing that $10 for an article was a high payment.
The story of this post, however, begins on June 5th. You may know of Associated Content's performance bonus system. Basically, they pay you a flat fee (i.e. a few dollars) for an article, and then you make a performance bonus according to how many thousands of page views your article gets. I have some things to say about the performance bonus program, too, but that will come in a later post -- this one is dedicated to Associated Content payment problems.
On June 5th, I logged in to my Associated Content account for the first time in a while. Although I had not written for Associated Content in a long while, and only checked my account occasionally, I had decided that I wanted to publish a few of my marketing articles on AC for additional exposure (and a few extra bucks).
When I logged in, I discovered that I had accrued $15.58 in bonuses. Since I had not been very active in Associated Content, I hadn't even realized I was accruing bonuses, let alone what the policies were. Through a combination of reading contracts and policies and emailing admin, I discovered that anything over $15 was paid on the second Wednesday of every month.
The feeling was pretty much like finding $15 in your couch when you're vacuuming it out. You didn't plan on it, didn't need it, but it still is pretty cool to find.
Imagine, however, that as you're thinking of how you'll spend that $15, you suddenly find out you don't get it after all. Maybe a family member claims it, or maybe someone steals it from you while you're sleeping. You get the point.
The second Wednesday of the month came and went, and I didn't get paid. When I emailed Associated Content, I was told that maybe what had happened was that my bonus wasn't over the $15 minimum by the cutoff date (the 1st of the month, apparently). I emailed them back, asking if there was a way they could track bonuses and determine when I topped $15, but I never heard back.
As it turned out, never receiving a response from Associated Content was a frequent problem through this entire ordeal. I would say that at best, I got a response 50% of the time. But anyway, back to my story.
I decided to let it go; after all, by that point it was only a few more weeks until the next payday. But just to be sure, I planned to screen print my account page on the cutoff date, since that was the only way I could think of to prove what my performance bonus was at.
By July 1st, my account had accrued $16.70. In an email exchange with AC admin, though, I was told I might be getting even more than that, as they had not updated the amount for several weeks. Sure enough, before the second Wednesday of July my account was updated, showing that I had accrued $18.98.
Unfortunately, I didn't receive payment this time, either. When I emailed Associated Content, I made sure to explain the entire situation, so that they would know this was the second month something like this had happened. The first email I sent received no response at all, so I tried again. When they finally responded, they had apparently not read my email very closely, because they fired back the same basic response as last time:
It is likely that you hadn’t reached $15 minimum before the cut off date, which is why you weren’t paid for this month’s bonus. Since you are clearly over the mark now, you will certainly be paid next month.
"It is likely..." Ha. Don't you intend to verify that?
Of course, I emailed back to explain that couldn't be the case, and why. I requested that they confirm when they received the email -- because about half of my emails were going unanswered -- and confirm that they were going to do something about it. All I received in response was this rather abrupt response:
We have received your email and are looking into the situation.
Of course, that was the last I heard from them for a while. I emailed several days later to find out where they were on the situation, and got the typical lack of response. After a week, I tried again, complaining this time about the lack of communication as well. Their response was:
We are working on it, but we cannot simply flip a switch and make it happen.
Maybe it's just me, but these responses sound rather rude. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect updates and responses to my emails. Plus, what does "we are working on it" mean? I wrote back asking for more details about how they were handling the situation, and whether others were having the same problems, and again received no response to my email.
The final email I sent to admin was on July 23rd. Then a fellow writer suggested that I try visiting the Associated Content forums. I did, but I found precious little regarding to my problem. I posted in several threads that seemed pertinent.
After some initial flak I encountered from one of the forum members (which I suppose I'll need to explain later, but not here), I discovered that I was actually not the only one having this problem. In addition to the helpful readers who responded to my poll and commented on my posts, I talked to a handful or so of writers in the Associated Content forums who had also not received their performance bonuses, some of the for several months running.
Amid discussions and griping, someone suggested that I contact Michael Street, as he had resolved a payment issue for the CP once. I messaged him, but got no response; several days later, I tried messaging his other account -- still no response.
By that point, it was nearing payment time, anyway. On the second Wednesday of August, two things happened: our accounts were updated for the first time in nearly a month to reflect our total performance bonuses, and payments were made.
I am happy to note that as of August 9th, Associated Content finally paid me for my performance bonus. However, I noticed right off the bat that the amount was wrong. This is from the August 1st screen print (the cutoff date):
And this is from a screen print of my PayPal account page:
As you can see, the math doesn't add up: The payments made total $18.59, not $18.98. Perhaps it seems silly to complain about 39 cents, but think about how much money Associated Content can save if they short every writer a few cents! It is the principle of the matter that irritates me -- after all, I waited this long for my bonus, and then they couldn't even get it right?
As it turned out, though, the problem was bigger than 39 cents. This was what my account said my bonus was out when it was updated shortly before I was paid:
(Ignore the "Last Payment" line. The bonus said the same amount before the "Last Payment" line appeared.)
It took them several weeks to update the account pages after making payments, but they finally have. And this is what my bonus is supposedly at now:
Do you see the problem? $23.24 minus $18.59 equals $4.65, not $2.10. So now they are shorting me $2.55.
I can't help but wonder if this is all deliberate. Skip payments and make writers grateful for getting paid at all. Divide payment up into a handful of small amounts so that writers get confused about the actual amount. Delay updating the account pages so that writers forget to check the math. There are other potential problems, too, which I will discuss in a future post.
Either Associated Content is deliberately ripping off writers, or this is the absolute worse case of disorganization I have ever seen in a business.
It's not about 39 cents, or even $2.55. It's not about $15.58, or $16.70, $18.98, or $23.24. It's not about whether I write for Associated Content regularly (which I don't) or whether I intend to in the future (which I also don't). It's about clients keeping their word and paying writers when and how much they say they're going to. For if we let Associated Content get away with shortchanging writers now, how much further will they take it?
Click here for an update on my Associated Content performance bonus.
Today I am finally ready to pose the question: Is the Associated Content performance bonus a scam?
Before you read about my AC payment difficulties, though, you might want to read about my personal history with Associated Content. To sum up right here, though, basically I have had two very different encounters with AC: I once interviewed with them for a part-time editing position, and I wrote for them briefly before realizing that $10 for an article was a high payment.
The story of this post, however, begins on June 5th. You may know of Associated Content's performance bonus system. Basically, they pay you a flat fee (i.e. a few dollars) for an article, and then you make a performance bonus according to how many thousands of page views your article gets. I have some things to say about the performance bonus program, too, but that will come in a later post -- this one is dedicated to Associated Content payment problems.
On June 5th, I logged in to my Associated Content account for the first time in a while. Although I had not written for Associated Content in a long while, and only checked my account occasionally, I had decided that I wanted to publish a few of my marketing articles on AC for additional exposure (and a few extra bucks).
When I logged in, I discovered that I had accrued $15.58 in bonuses. Since I had not been very active in Associated Content, I hadn't even realized I was accruing bonuses, let alone what the policies were. Through a combination of reading contracts and policies and emailing admin, I discovered that anything over $15 was paid on the second Wednesday of every month.
The feeling was pretty much like finding $15 in your couch when you're vacuuming it out. You didn't plan on it, didn't need it, but it still is pretty cool to find.
Imagine, however, that as you're thinking of how you'll spend that $15, you suddenly find out you don't get it after all. Maybe a family member claims it, or maybe someone steals it from you while you're sleeping. You get the point.
The second Wednesday of the month came and went, and I didn't get paid. When I emailed Associated Content, I was told that maybe what had happened was that my bonus wasn't over the $15 minimum by the cutoff date (the 1st of the month, apparently). I emailed them back, asking if there was a way they could track bonuses and determine when I topped $15, but I never heard back.
As it turned out, never receiving a response from Associated Content was a frequent problem through this entire ordeal. I would say that at best, I got a response 50% of the time. But anyway, back to my story.
I decided to let it go; after all, by that point it was only a few more weeks until the next payday. But just to be sure, I planned to screen print my account page on the cutoff date, since that was the only way I could think of to prove what my performance bonus was at.
By July 1st, my account had accrued $16.70. In an email exchange with AC admin, though, I was told I might be getting even more than that, as they had not updated the amount for several weeks. Sure enough, before the second Wednesday of July my account was updated, showing that I had accrued $18.98.
Unfortunately, I didn't receive payment this time, either. When I emailed Associated Content, I made sure to explain the entire situation, so that they would know this was the second month something like this had happened. The first email I sent received no response at all, so I tried again. When they finally responded, they had apparently not read my email very closely, because they fired back the same basic response as last time:
It is likely that you hadn’t reached $15 minimum before the cut off date, which is why you weren’t paid for this month’s bonus. Since you are clearly over the mark now, you will certainly be paid next month.
"It is likely..." Ha. Don't you intend to verify that?
Of course, I emailed back to explain that couldn't be the case, and why. I requested that they confirm when they received the email -- because about half of my emails were going unanswered -- and confirm that they were going to do something about it. All I received in response was this rather abrupt response:
We have received your email and are looking into the situation.
Of course, that was the last I heard from them for a while. I emailed several days later to find out where they were on the situation, and got the typical lack of response. After a week, I tried again, complaining this time about the lack of communication as well. Their response was:
We are working on it, but we cannot simply flip a switch and make it happen.
Maybe it's just me, but these responses sound rather rude. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect updates and responses to my emails. Plus, what does "we are working on it" mean? I wrote back asking for more details about how they were handling the situation, and whether others were having the same problems, and again received no response to my email.
The final email I sent to admin was on July 23rd. Then a fellow writer suggested that I try visiting the Associated Content forums. I did, but I found precious little regarding to my problem. I posted in several threads that seemed pertinent.
After some initial flak I encountered from one of the forum members (which I suppose I'll need to explain later, but not here), I discovered that I was actually not the only one having this problem. In addition to the helpful readers who responded to my poll and commented on my posts, I talked to a handful or so of writers in the Associated Content forums who had also not received their performance bonuses, some of the for several months running.
Amid discussions and griping, someone suggested that I contact Michael Street, as he had resolved a payment issue for the CP once. I messaged him, but got no response; several days later, I tried messaging his other account -- still no response.
By that point, it was nearing payment time, anyway. On the second Wednesday of August, two things happened: our accounts were updated for the first time in nearly a month to reflect our total performance bonuses, and payments were made.
I am happy to note that as of August 9th, Associated Content finally paid me for my performance bonus. However, I noticed right off the bat that the amount was wrong. This is from the August 1st screen print (the cutoff date):
And this is from a screen print of my PayPal account page:
As you can see, the math doesn't add up: The payments made total $18.59, not $18.98. Perhaps it seems silly to complain about 39 cents, but think about how much money Associated Content can save if they short every writer a few cents! It is the principle of the matter that irritates me -- after all, I waited this long for my bonus, and then they couldn't even get it right?
As it turned out, though, the problem was bigger than 39 cents. This was what my account said my bonus was out when it was updated shortly before I was paid:
(Ignore the "Last Payment" line. The bonus said the same amount before the "Last Payment" line appeared.)
It took them several weeks to update the account pages after making payments, but they finally have. And this is what my bonus is supposedly at now:
Do you see the problem? $23.24 minus $18.59 equals $4.65, not $2.10. So now they are shorting me $2.55.
I can't help but wonder if this is all deliberate. Skip payments and make writers grateful for getting paid at all. Divide payment up into a handful of small amounts so that writers get confused about the actual amount. Delay updating the account pages so that writers forget to check the math. There are other potential problems, too, which I will discuss in a future post.
Either Associated Content is deliberately ripping off writers, or this is the absolute worse case of disorganization I have ever seen in a business.
It's not about 39 cents, or even $2.55. It's not about $15.58, or $16.70, $18.98, or $23.24. It's not about whether I write for Associated Content regularly (which I don't) or whether I intend to in the future (which I also don't). It's about clients keeping their word and paying writers when and how much they say they're going to. For if we let Associated Content get away with shortchanging writers now, how much further will they take it?
Click here for an update on my Associated Content performance bonus.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Please answer my Associated Content poll!
The other day, I posted a poll asking whether people have received their Associated Content performance bonuses. Unfortunately, I haven't received very many responses.
Please, please, please answer my poll! I am still having problems getting Associated Content to pay me my performance bonus, and I am trying to confirm (or disprove) a sneaking suspicion that the performance bonus may be a hoax!
Please, please, please answer my poll! I am still having problems getting Associated Content to pay me my performance bonus, and I am trying to confirm (or disprove) a sneaking suspicion that the performance bonus may be a hoax!
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Have you received your Associated Content performance bonus?
I have a question for any of you who are Associated Content writers: Have you received your performance bonus recently? I haven't, and I'd like to find out if anyone else is having the same problem.
Basically, although I don't write regularly for Associated Content, my articles have accrued a bonus slightly more than the $15 minimum. For the last two months, my bonus payments have been overlooked, and answers from the AC staff have not been forthcoming. Before I go on a rampage, I want to determine if this problem is widespread, or if it affecting only me.
To help me find out more about the Associated Content performance bonus situation, I hope other AC writers will vote in the following poll. Alternatively, you can comment to this post or contact me directly.
Basically, although I don't write regularly for Associated Content, my articles have accrued a bonus slightly more than the $15 minimum. For the last two months, my bonus payments have been overlooked, and answers from the AC staff have not been forthcoming. Before I go on a rampage, I want to determine if this problem is widespread, or if it affecting only me.
To help me find out more about the Associated Content performance bonus situation, I hope other AC writers will vote in the following poll. Alternatively, you can comment to this post or contact me directly.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
My beef with Associated Content
I've discussed Associated Content before, so you may know that I have very mixed feelings about this content mill. One of the biggest negatives I see is the way the payment system is set up: You get paid peanuts until you 1) write for peanuts for a while and prove that you are willing to do anything -- even starve -- for your writing, and 2) get lots of people to rate, comment, and pay homage to your content.
The unfortunate thing about this system -- and here I get to today's point -- is that it turns would-be writers into a new breed, a unique blend of used car salesman and spammer, forever trying to get more people to read their crappy content.
This morning I found in my inbox an email from an Associated Content writer. It reads:
Appreciated your entry, How Society Supports Low-Paying Writing Jobs By Katharine Swan.
Just getting into writing in earnest, after Hurricane Katrina. I don't know thought I'd leave a link.
Have a nice evening.
At the bottom of the email was a link to his content producer page.
I can't help but wonder, does he think he's being clever by putting it that way: "I don't know thought I'd leave a link"? (And does he realize that sentence makes him seem not just an amateur, but a pretty poor one at that?)
It annoys me that Associated Content would set up a system encouraging their writers to harass other people for hits. It annoys me even more that since most people probably don't feel comfortable emailing complete strangers and inviting them to rank their articles, this system is probably nothing more than Associated Content's way to justify paying their "less ambitious" writers peanuts.
The unfortunate thing about this system -- and here I get to today's point -- is that it turns would-be writers into a new breed, a unique blend of used car salesman and spammer, forever trying to get more people to read their crappy content.
This morning I found in my inbox an email from an Associated Content writer. It reads:
Appreciated your entry, How Society Supports Low-Paying Writing Jobs By Katharine Swan.
Just getting into writing in earnest, after Hurricane Katrina. I don't know thought I'd leave a link.
Have a nice evening.
At the bottom of the email was a link to his content producer page.
I can't help but wonder, does he think he's being clever by putting it that way: "I don't know thought I'd leave a link"? (And does he realize that sentence makes him seem not just an amateur, but a pretty poor one at that?)
It annoys me that Associated Content would set up a system encouraging their writers to harass other people for hits. It annoys me even more that since most people probably don't feel comfortable emailing complete strangers and inviting them to rank their articles, this system is probably nothing more than Associated Content's way to justify paying their "less ambitious" writers peanuts.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The debate over Associated Content
On Wednesday Deborah Ng triggered a discussion about Associated Content, which quickly turned into the blog version of a bar fight. It still amazes me how hateful some of the responses were... And Deb said quite clearly that she was not intending to cut Associated Content down! Still, it seems that many of AC's writers can't seem to defend the site without their fists getting in the way.
In any case, I thought I'd share my own experience with Associated Content. It's not necessarily negative, but it's interesting.
I live in the Denver area, and as some of you may know, that's where Associated Content is. A little less than two years ago, I was looking for a new job in order to get away from the maniacal little man I worked for. Finding a full time writing job in Denver isn't easy, I'm afraid, and I ended up responding to an ad for a part time editing position.
This "editing" position turned out to be for Associated Content, so my first experience with the company was in an interview. I had already written for a couple of content websites at this point, and the two AC editors who interviewed me seemed pleased about this.
After complimenting my work a bit, they explained the job. Most of it was to be done from home, with a weekly staff meeting every Friday morning that I would have to attend. They said very clearly that they didn't turn anything down - anything that was submitted would be accepted. They also explained how article prices would depend on the demand for related advertising. Interestingly, they made a big deal about how they'd recently paid one guy something like $50 or $70. I was amazed - I'd been making $15-$25 per article for the sites I was writing for - but if I'd had more experience in the business I would have known that 1) that wasn't that great for a well-researched article, and 2) if it were common they wouldn't have made such a big deal about it.
I'm sure you have wondered at least once by now why I didn't get the job and become one of those rabid defenders of Associated Content. I'll be honest: I screwed my own chances, although I can't say I'm sorry now, having seen where the site has gone since then. (I'm sorry, but their pay sucks...which I'll get to in a moment. Also, no company who spams job boards as frequently as AC does will ever have my respect - and I'm not alone in this opinion, I dare say.)
As I already explained, I was looking for a full time job to get out from under my control freak boss's thumb. A part time job was not going to cut it; and I couldn't do the job on the side until a full time opportunity came up, because there was no way my boss would give me every Friday morning off.
My mistake was asking them at the end of the interview about the possibility of full time. (As I got further along in my job search and went through more interviews, I learned that this is a very bad idea. You're not supposed to ask about hours, money, or benefits in the first interview - which is silly, because while you're pretending not to be interested in these things, everyone knows they are basic survival needs.)
As a matter of fact, I remember the exact wording I used - and I still cringe thinking about it. I guess I knew I was on thin ice, because I got nervous and said, "How do you think the part time thing is going to work?" Looking back, I think it probably sounded a little too much like I was questioning their decisions, even though I only wanted information on when the job could become full time.
I knew instantly that I'd said the wrong thing. Their eyes cut toward each other and then away again, as if making a decision on the spot. I don't remember what their response was, but it was something lame. I wasn't entirely surprised when it took them two weeks to let me know that someone else had been selected for the position.
Sometime after that interview, I decided to try submitting to Associated Content. I signed up and submitted a content article that had been turned down by one of the other websites I wrote for (too many other articles on the topic). Associated Content tossed seven bucks my way - and I was soon to find out that was high.
I'm not sure exactly how many articles I've submitted to Associated Content to date. I didn't submit anything in 2006. In 2005 I submitted maybe a handful of articles; some got $8 or $10 because they were part of a promotion, and a couple didn't earn me anything at all. One of those had been turned down for a paper and would be dated very quickly, so I figured it was better off published than sitting on my hard drive doing nothing. The other they published without contacting me or making an offer whatsoever; to this day I am not sure if I hit the wrong button during the submission process, or if they stiffed me.
Also, for a while they were running a special - a guaranteed $4 each for academic papers - so I submitted a whole bunch of my old school papers and got some extra dough that way. I have since developed moral concerns regarding academic paper mills; my only consolation about my early folly is that the papers are all in the public domain, and therefore students who cheat risk getting caught.
The point I'm getting to is that after a dozen or so submissions, I was averaging $4 an article. Not really worth it in my opinion, and I don't care if it's on the side or if you already have the bills paid or what - if a retail manager offered you $2.50 an hour because "it's only a second job for you," or "you don't really need the money," you'd be really offended. I still don't know what is so different about writing that people think those kind of wages are okay.
I've heard some writers talk about the $3 articles they took on when they were first starting out, and how that's just the way the game is played. I beg to differ. I started out writing content, too, and the very first two sites I worked for paid me $15-$25 per article. Moreover, after nearly two years of freelancing (15 months of which have been full time) Associated Content is the only gig I have ever had that paid me less than $10 an article. Part of that is because after writing for AC I learned to avoid such low-paying jobs, but the point is that it can be done.
Having said all of this, I do agree with Carson of Content Done Better when he says that Associated Content does have its uses. To paraphrase Carson's post, he says that AC is good for:
1) Getting a few extra bucks for an article that's already written and is just taking up space on your hard drive.
2) Submitting marketing articles.
I've already used the first method myself, and unless I get really desperate I probably won't do it again. As for the second method - well, I've been thinking about trying out article marketing next time I have a slow period, and I just might use Associated Content for that.
Therefore, I'm seconding Carson's take on Associated Content. If you can make the system work for you, by all means do it. However, I sincerely feel that for someone whose goals are to sell their work and earn recognition as a freelancer, writing for AC is selling themselves short. You don't have to look very hard at all in order to find gigs that pay more than AC. If you think you are only worth $4, that's your problem - but if you don't like that concept of yourself, decide what you are worth, and stick with it!
In any case, I thought I'd share my own experience with Associated Content. It's not necessarily negative, but it's interesting.
I live in the Denver area, and as some of you may know, that's where Associated Content is. A little less than two years ago, I was looking for a new job in order to get away from the maniacal little man I worked for. Finding a full time writing job in Denver isn't easy, I'm afraid, and I ended up responding to an ad for a part time editing position.
This "editing" position turned out to be for Associated Content, so my first experience with the company was in an interview. I had already written for a couple of content websites at this point, and the two AC editors who interviewed me seemed pleased about this.
After complimenting my work a bit, they explained the job. Most of it was to be done from home, with a weekly staff meeting every Friday morning that I would have to attend. They said very clearly that they didn't turn anything down - anything that was submitted would be accepted. They also explained how article prices would depend on the demand for related advertising. Interestingly, they made a big deal about how they'd recently paid one guy something like $50 or $70. I was amazed - I'd been making $15-$25 per article for the sites I was writing for - but if I'd had more experience in the business I would have known that 1) that wasn't that great for a well-researched article, and 2) if it were common they wouldn't have made such a big deal about it.
I'm sure you have wondered at least once by now why I didn't get the job and become one of those rabid defenders of Associated Content. I'll be honest: I screwed my own chances, although I can't say I'm sorry now, having seen where the site has gone since then. (I'm sorry, but their pay sucks...which I'll get to in a moment. Also, no company who spams job boards as frequently as AC does will ever have my respect - and I'm not alone in this opinion, I dare say.)
As I already explained, I was looking for a full time job to get out from under my control freak boss's thumb. A part time job was not going to cut it; and I couldn't do the job on the side until a full time opportunity came up, because there was no way my boss would give me every Friday morning off.
My mistake was asking them at the end of the interview about the possibility of full time. (As I got further along in my job search and went through more interviews, I learned that this is a very bad idea. You're not supposed to ask about hours, money, or benefits in the first interview - which is silly, because while you're pretending not to be interested in these things, everyone knows they are basic survival needs.)
As a matter of fact, I remember the exact wording I used - and I still cringe thinking about it. I guess I knew I was on thin ice, because I got nervous and said, "How do you think the part time thing is going to work?" Looking back, I think it probably sounded a little too much like I was questioning their decisions, even though I only wanted information on when the job could become full time.
I knew instantly that I'd said the wrong thing. Their eyes cut toward each other and then away again, as if making a decision on the spot. I don't remember what their response was, but it was something lame. I wasn't entirely surprised when it took them two weeks to let me know that someone else had been selected for the position.
Sometime after that interview, I decided to try submitting to Associated Content. I signed up and submitted a content article that had been turned down by one of the other websites I wrote for (too many other articles on the topic). Associated Content tossed seven bucks my way - and I was soon to find out that was high.
I'm not sure exactly how many articles I've submitted to Associated Content to date. I didn't submit anything in 2006. In 2005 I submitted maybe a handful of articles; some got $8 or $10 because they were part of a promotion, and a couple didn't earn me anything at all. One of those had been turned down for a paper and would be dated very quickly, so I figured it was better off published than sitting on my hard drive doing nothing. The other they published without contacting me or making an offer whatsoever; to this day I am not sure if I hit the wrong button during the submission process, or if they stiffed me.
Also, for a while they were running a special - a guaranteed $4 each for academic papers - so I submitted a whole bunch of my old school papers and got some extra dough that way. I have since developed moral concerns regarding academic paper mills; my only consolation about my early folly is that the papers are all in the public domain, and therefore students who cheat risk getting caught.
The point I'm getting to is that after a dozen or so submissions, I was averaging $4 an article. Not really worth it in my opinion, and I don't care if it's on the side or if you already have the bills paid or what - if a retail manager offered you $2.50 an hour because "it's only a second job for you," or "you don't really need the money," you'd be really offended. I still don't know what is so different about writing that people think those kind of wages are okay.
I've heard some writers talk about the $3 articles they took on when they were first starting out, and how that's just the way the game is played. I beg to differ. I started out writing content, too, and the very first two sites I worked for paid me $15-$25 per article. Moreover, after nearly two years of freelancing (15 months of which have been full time) Associated Content is the only gig I have ever had that paid me less than $10 an article. Part of that is because after writing for AC I learned to avoid such low-paying jobs, but the point is that it can be done.
Having said all of this, I do agree with Carson of Content Done Better when he says that Associated Content does have its uses. To paraphrase Carson's post, he says that AC is good for:
1) Getting a few extra bucks for an article that's already written and is just taking up space on your hard drive.
2) Submitting marketing articles.
I've already used the first method myself, and unless I get really desperate I probably won't do it again. As for the second method - well, I've been thinking about trying out article marketing next time I have a slow period, and I just might use Associated Content for that.
Therefore, I'm seconding Carson's take on Associated Content. If you can make the system work for you, by all means do it. However, I sincerely feel that for someone whose goals are to sell their work and earn recognition as a freelancer, writing for AC is selling themselves short. You don't have to look very hard at all in order to find gigs that pay more than AC. If you think you are only worth $4, that's your problem - but if you don't like that concept of yourself, decide what you are worth, and stick with it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)